Since
2008 the HRGR Association have been vocal in raising our views with
great success to date however there are key fundamental issues that
require readdressing:
1. Why did the Phase Presidents in Feb 2013 approve the reappointment of Resortalia and the approval the next year's financials and last years accounts 2 months before the Sub Community AGMs took place? Shouldn't there have been a majority of the sub communities approval beforehand? Was this legal? Do we have to hold the 2013 AGMs again? If it was, why for 2014 is it being changed to afterwards? If this advice is based on legal representation them are the people giving this really aware of what is required?
2. When the Community has one debtor's policy then why has the committee decided that the policy does not apply to our biggest debtor? Can they make that decision or should there have been an EGM to decide this resort wide significantly important matter? Now that the debtor has not paid despite the extra time allowed, then will the Committee follow the defined established debtor policy?
3. Why was the resort Health and Safety Policy changed in May 2013 that has been in existence since 2008? Is there still a risk register? It appears that the following policy statements no longer apply:
- "The presidents will take all reasonable steps to implement and maintain good standards of health, safety and environmental management on our resort."
- "The HRGR owners committee will do everything within their power to ensure that suitable and sufficient risk control measures are put in place and maintained to eliminate or reduce the risks identified on the HRGR risk register."
In terms of "sensible to do a check to see if there were any other high risk issues that we did not know about. As a result of these inherited problems a full audit was done". So going forward are we saying that it is no longer sensible to perform further checks or that previous problems or new associated problems will no longer arise in the future?
What has happened in order for the current committee to decide to change the H&S policy that has been in place since 2008? This is especially important since back in 2008 when the resort was being created, very little was actually owned by the Community of Owners hence its influence would of been very small indeed. Furthermore as the 2009 policy clearly stated "Where the risks identified are not in the HRGR community controlled areas but could affect people on HRGR, we will record these risks and bring them to attention of the appropriate company. At present, this will primarily be Polaris World as they have responsibility for areas such as the proposed town centre and the golf course etc."
So the current May 2013 committee statement is included in the current policy. The only difference we can see is the requirement for an independent H&S advisor which would cost the community money to perform the exercise. Surely we can still afford this?
4. The forum rules allows for free speech and the ability to raise any issues from owners. It has now been decided by the Committee that NO QUESTION can be raised to the committee, about the Committee or the running of the resort on the forum. Is the Committee allowed to do this? As this is a significant medium of communications should there not be an EGM to approve this proposed change? Under what rights is this allowed as it is not under the Spanish Constitution! Furthermore, we understand that an elected President has now been banned from this forum! On whose authority was this decision made to prevent an elected president be able to communicate the issues raised to them for resolution?
1. Why did the Phase Presidents in Feb 2013 approve the reappointment of Resortalia and the approval the next year's financials and last years accounts 2 months before the Sub Community AGMs took place? Shouldn't there have been a majority of the sub communities approval beforehand? Was this legal? Do we have to hold the 2013 AGMs again? If it was, why for 2014 is it being changed to afterwards? If this advice is based on legal representation them are the people giving this really aware of what is required?
2. When the Community has one debtor's policy then why has the committee decided that the policy does not apply to our biggest debtor? Can they make that decision or should there have been an EGM to decide this resort wide significantly important matter? Now that the debtor has not paid despite the extra time allowed, then will the Committee follow the defined established debtor policy?
3. Why was the resort Health and Safety Policy changed in May 2013 that has been in existence since 2008? Is there still a risk register? It appears that the following policy statements no longer apply:
- "The presidents will take all reasonable steps to implement and maintain good standards of health, safety and environmental management on our resort."
- "The HRGR owners committee will do everything within their power to ensure that suitable and sufficient risk control measures are put in place and maintained to eliminate or reduce the risks identified on the HRGR risk register."
In terms of "sensible to do a check to see if there were any other high risk issues that we did not know about. As a result of these inherited problems a full audit was done". So going forward are we saying that it is no longer sensible to perform further checks or that previous problems or new associated problems will no longer arise in the future?
What has happened in order for the current committee to decide to change the H&S policy that has been in place since 2008? This is especially important since back in 2008 when the resort was being created, very little was actually owned by the Community of Owners hence its influence would of been very small indeed. Furthermore as the 2009 policy clearly stated "Where the risks identified are not in the HRGR community controlled areas but could affect people on HRGR, we will record these risks and bring them to attention of the appropriate company. At present, this will primarily be Polaris World as they have responsibility for areas such as the proposed town centre and the golf course etc."
So the current May 2013 committee statement is included in the current policy. The only difference we can see is the requirement for an independent H&S advisor which would cost the community money to perform the exercise. Surely we can still afford this?
4. The forum rules allows for free speech and the ability to raise any issues from owners. It has now been decided by the Committee that NO QUESTION can be raised to the committee, about the Committee or the running of the resort on the forum. Is the Committee allowed to do this? As this is a significant medium of communications should there not be an EGM to approve this proposed change? Under what rights is this allowed as it is not under the Spanish Constitution! Furthermore, we understand that an elected President has now been banned from this forum! On whose authority was this decision made to prevent an elected president be able to communicate the issues raised to them for resolution?
No comments:
Post a Comment