Lakelandlodges BLOG

In response to:L&G Sells Southlakeland Parks

Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:50:13 +0100

South Lakeland Parks new web sites -

www.slparks.co.uk

www.slholidays.co.uk

In response to:Lodges for Sale - Carnforth Site

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:35:34 +0100

Maureen

You might want to look at

http://southlakelandowners.freeforums.org/index.php

as well.

In response to:Lodges for Sale - Carnforth Site

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:59:02 +0100

Maureen, do not despair you are experiences are not unique. Please send me an email colin.grace@praktis.com or call me on 07810 883897 and I will give you a view on how other owners on parks are taking issues foward in what does appear to an unregulated market

In response to:Lodges for Sale - Carnforth Site

Thu, 31 Jan 2008 22:31:11 +0100

I have read your comments with interest as we own a lodge at the carnforth site at least we now know that John Morphat treats all his lodge owners with contempt no matter what site What an exclusive club we bought in to with blinkers on.

In response to:Kirkstone - 9 sold ?

Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:59:37 +0100

"What are the prices? did they get the asking prices over £160k?"

No idea Colin, but we've all seen the special offers and reductions, so I guess that not all (if any)new owners will have paid those very high headline prices, and the top, most expensive lodges, are still unsold.

I would guess though that the prices paid would still represent a fair premium over the equivalent prices on Fellside last year where ISTR a new double 2 bed lodge went for about £120k not long ago.

In response to:Kirkstone - 9 sold ?

Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:47:32 +0100

What are the prices? did they get the asking prices over £160k?

I guess we all have a different view of 'good value'

- 6% rental returns on an investment ( £100k) ?

We can't estimate a market price as SLP decide based upon their monopoly position

I think the rental returns are good if you are sensible about your price band. After three years of renting you need to plough back some of the profits as fixtures and fittings need replacing. I think the current level of rents is low but owners are only looking to recover 'cost' ie. pay for some or all of the annual site fees

I think lodge prices on Limefitt should be 30% higher than the purchase price if the market was competitive and SLP relaxed the ownership restrictions

In response to:Kirkstone - 9 sold ?

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:04:23 +0200

According to Mark Thomas there have, in fact, been 9 sales. 7 lodges sited and 2 bought off-plan still to be sited.

Not bad given the prices! Makes my lodge on Fellside look VERY good value!

In response to:Kirkstone - 9 sold ?

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:48:44 +0200

Well if it's on their web site then it must be true and acurate then Colin.

Once they've all moved in we ought to have a get together- we could invite local and SLP management as well to chat about one or two things ;-)

(actually that's a serious suggestion Colin)

In response to:Lodges for Sale - Carnforth Site

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:44:19 +0200

oops - 7.5k commission should read 7.5% of course - an important distiction if you are about to part with quarter of a million quid on a Kirkstone Lodge :-)

In response to:Lodges for Sale - Carnforth Site

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:41:11 +0200

The problem lies, I suspect, in the rather vague wording about entring into "a private sale agreement".

No information about what this constitutes has ever been provided, although I was told recently by someone who has sold a lodge recently, that it does, allegedly, include an exclusivity clause.

If this is the case then they really do need to do a lot more to sell second hand lodges, or potential new buyers are going to get put off by reading stuff like this.

Whilst I can see a sort of short sighted logic in the proposition "We make more out of a new lodge sale so let's make sure we sell those first", it doesn't take much business acumen to work out that by broadening their offer (second hand and new, 85k to 249k) they can increase their target market, sell more AND keep their owners a lot happier. Trevor did seem to understand this, or at least he expresssed this view to me (maybe that's why he got banished!).

The root of the problem is that I think most of us would like to work with SLP in partnership but that most owners feel that such relationship as does exist is ridiculously one-sided.

7.5k commission on sales, no effort made to sell 2nd hand lodges, private rentals not allowed WXB, "interesting" logic used in the calculation of rates, no meaningful dialogue between owners and management - the list goes on.

I am sure that most of us don't object to SLP making a profit -they are a business after all - but we do need to feel that they are looking after us in exchange for the large sums of money we pay for leases and then in ongoing annual site fees. Instead I have the impression that many of us feel that they are ignoring our needs in the quest for a few extra quid.

The question is how can we show them that their attitude is counter productive for THEM.

In response to:Lodges for Sale - Carnforth Site

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:07:56 +0200

Agree we need to apply pressure on SLP. Are there any legal requirements under the 'Home Owners' Act etc to compel them to sell second lodges on the open market

John Morphet is June 2006 in discussion with Lodgers Forum acknowledged the issue and talked about an estate agent package being made available to owners

We need some ideas from the Owner community??

Referring to John's point has anybody recommended a friend and taken up the £2k referral fee

In response to:Lodges for Sale - Carnforth Site

Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:16:13 +0200

Well anyone wanting a no cost sale advert on www.limefitt.com only has to ask me ;-)

It's totally free and no obligation of any sort - all I would ask is that your description is accurate!

SLP may not be keen on me doing ths but until they change their own site to include second hand lodges on the "For Sale" lists I can't see how they can really object!

If I were thinking of buying a lodge and saw threads like this I'd steer well clear, so if they don't change their stance they are going to find it harder and harder to off-load those pricey new lodges on Kirkstone.

Out of interest would anyone here refer a friend? (even with the prospect of a £2,000 reward)

In response to:Lodges for Sale - Carnforth Site

Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:11:02 +0200

SLP strategy is to create a closed market. They don't actively promote let alone sell second hand lodges. They are intent on buying up second hand lodges to recover the 7.5 % commission and site a new lodge ( this has happen around the Beck and Loop areas of the park).

As we know this strategy is counter productive. Why?

- SLP strategy have alienated their owner community
- Owners cannot realise any 'capital growth'
- Limefitt development has been constrained - SLP own goal

Local estate agents are very wary of Limefitt Park and comitting any marketing expense when taking on lodge sales. I undertsand some owners have strong opinions in the area and we may have grounds for a legal challenge

In response to:Lodges for Sale - Carnforth Site

Sat, 13 Oct 2007 09:19:42 +0200

Yes - as do The Warren down at Abersoch and sevarl other sites.

The fact that the SLP website states baldly that ther are no second hand lodges for sale at Limefitt when you query it is bordering on ... well how would you describe it? I can think of a couple of rather uncomplimentary adjectives ;-)

In response to:Gas Bottle Switch Over Values

Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:08:20 +0200

I had some interesting if at times confusing discussions with Limefitt about gas bottles.

The policy now is that all lodges not on mains gas should have two gas bottles. When I queried if my regulator would switch automatically when one bottle was empty I was told it would not.
However Trevor Morely (may his name forever be revered now that he has been banished to Fallbarrow) found out for me today that in fact it will.

Here's how it works:

There is a manual switch on the top of the bottles which points to
one or the other bottle.

Bottle # 1 is used until it is about 25% full at which point the
regulator starts to draw off bottle # 2 as well.

When bottle # 1 is empty an indicator on the bottle (or regulator I'm
not quite sure which yet) goes red. This tells you that bottle # 1
needs to be changed. Theoretically bottle #2 is now about 75% full,

When Bottle #1 is replaced you point the switch at bottle # 2 and the process begins again.

In response to:2008 Site Fees Increase is 4.4.%

Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:38:17 +0200

I think that there are two distinct schools of thought here.

One is that the site fees are a legitimate profit stream for SLP and that they are within their rights to increase this by the rate of inflation and increase the overall take as the number of lodges increases.

The other – to which I subscribe, and which I have explained on the “other forum” - is that the site fees are in fact a pot from which a set of defined costs has to be paid.

Why do I think this? Well when we bought our first lodge we were emailed a draft contract (nothing like the one they gave us to sign in the end by the way, which was 2 pages not the 4 pages of this one, nor the 15 pages of the one we had to sign for our second lodge), but I have this one on my computer where I am now, and this what it says:

c. The Pitch Fee will be reviewed having regard to the following criteria:

We are entitled to pass on to you as appropriate any charges which are not within our control such as rates, water charges and other charges paid to third parties (so how come we have to pay these in addition I ask?)

Any changes in the cost of living as shown by the General Index of Retail Prices or another index having a similar purpose (what ANY old index?)

Sums spent by us on the Park and/or its Facilities

Changes on the cost of salaries and wages, which we have to pay our staff

Changes in the length of season

Any other relevant factor

It is clear from this that site fees are intended to cover costs and not merely as an income stream for SLP.

From this perspective, in the context of Limefitt Park, the rate of inflation this year is really not the most important factor.

Far more interesting is the fact that the costs in 2005 when we first bought at Limefitt Park have probably hardly increased at all – there certainly haven’t been any vast sums spent on general facilities apart from the conversion of the owners’ bar (but let’s allow them a generous 10%) whilst the number of lodges contributing towards these costs has increased by over 20 % (guessing that over 15 of the 77 lodges you allude to are new since we bought) and we have already had one “inflationary” increase since then, so they are probably bringing in about 25% more in fees than they were in 2005.

On that basis shouldn’t they be REDUCING the site fees paid by each lodge?

But then didn't I notice in the latest "Owners' Choice" magazine that they are extending the season at another park without increasing the site fees accordingly?. Perhaps they expect us to subsidise the other parks?

Any thoughts?

J

In response to:Why are the Kirkstone Lodges not selling?

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:54:21 +0200

"I assume the sports field is not being developed for lodges!"

I was told by someone (it might have been Trevor, I can't remember) that they are not allowed to develop beyond the tree line at the eastern side of the sports field. Let's hope not eh!

In response to:Opening Up the Market for Lodge Sales

Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:38:48 +0200

Sales Notice - is that the one page (two sided document)? I have one those on my first lodge and on my other lodge a 15 page (or so) lease.

Re - WxB & Ts & Cs

It seems nobody can tell you about any new Ts & Cs simply because it seems there aren't any! I was told by Head Office that the Ts & Cs referred to on the application are just the Park Rules (so why didn't they refer to the Park Rules then ???)

General rates - I will look forward to seeing that document.

Commission - if it isn't referred to in an owner's contract (and it semms to be in some but not others), or if you just don't have a contract, I suspect it will be interesting when someone challenges it.

I think we would all love to see that tested!

7.5% for what they currently do is very questionable if you compare it to the 1-2% charged by most estate agents isn't it! I would love to hear their justification for it - especially with the current asking prices. Would anyone really think it good value to pay SLP nearly 20K to sell their 250K Kirkstone Lodge in a couple of years time, when a local estate agent and solicitor might jointly be asking 2K - 3k for the same work. I don't THINK so! Yet SLP don't seem to realise that it must have a negative effect on sales.

As you correctly say, a robust, simple and open second hand market would ultimately be to their advantage as they try to flog off the 30 or so remaining lodges on the Kirkstone development.

In response to:Opening Up the Market for Lodge Sales

Sun, 24 Jun 2007 13:38:35 +0200

John

The first group of Applethwaite Owners in 2004 only signed a sales notice...an invoice . We were promised contracts which still have NOT been provided despite many requests via the Lodgers Forum. Hence the recent surprises

1. WxB passes now being restricted to owners not paying guests

2. General rates bills - didn't receive one in 2004!

3. Sell on commision rate

Despite many letters and calls to the SLP management we still don't have any answers

1. WxB - have you received the T%C's dcouemnt to support the application. When we approached Limefitt reception they didn't have the document and told us to contact Head office!

2. General Rates - I will send you the latest report which highlights some interesting calculations and allocation of cost methods

3. Commission is now down to 7.5% which will be tested one day in Court unless SLP listen to some of our recent blog entries

In response to:Opening Up the Market for Lodge Sales

Sun, 24 Jun 2007 12:30:09 +0200

"most of the lodgers don't have a contract as we all bought from John Morphet "

Been thinking about this - you must have signed a lease of some sort surely? Maybe not the same as they use now. I have got two totally different leases on each of my lodges.

In response to:Is a Modern Lodge a Good Investment?

Sun, 24 Jun 2007 09:49:32 +0200

At the moment the mortgage interest thing appears to be just something floated by from The Chartered Institute of Housing (who are they?)rather than being any sort of gvernment policy. Touch wood.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/moneybox/6233266.stm

In response to:Opening Up the Market for Lodge Sales

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:43:50 +0200

Well Colin - as you say these issues affect us all. They are also perhaps issues that are best discussed in a more private arena, and I agree about the collective influence. We really need to have a chat dont we ;-)

In response to:Is a Modern Lodge a Good Investment?

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:39:36 +0200

"If the government changes the law ( some press coverage on BBC News today ) to reduce owners ability to use mortgage interest as a cost on a buy to let then we will all be re-calculating our positions "

Yup - that would change things.

And with the Popular Liberation Army of Westmorland on the move as well ... ;-)

Intersting point there perhaps about the fact that Limefitt Lodges are a relatively responsible method of owning a holiday home?

In response to:Opening Up the Market for Lodge Sales

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 22:00:21 +0200

John now we really debating the key issues were we collectively can make a big impact

In response to your comments

- most of the lodgers don't have a contract as we all bought from John Morphet

- Morphet in June 2006 met with the Lodgers Forum and claimed he was about to address the re-sale issue. He was looking at an option to create a seperate estate agent business to look after second hand lodge sales. He was looking to charge a commission which covered the marketing and sale of private owner sales and the transfer of ownership - this sound similar to your idea which makes perfect sense

- I have discussed this issue with SLP and todate nothing has happened. I agree with your observation about owners placing 'for sale' signs in their lodge windows!

- I note that Jim ( the ex shop manager ) has a lodge for sale at £107k. I assume he is looking for £100k and has to pay SLP £7k commission. Is this a private sale or being managed via SLP ?

- I assume SLP are more interested in new lodge sales and this issue ( of major concern for existing owners ) is not on the SLP radar .

- You can sell your lodge privately as one of our Lodgers has been trying to do for over a year but I believe is facing problems with respect to local estate agents willingness to market lodges given the 'contractual issues' and some other issues which I will investigate before making comments on this BLOG

In response to:Is a Modern Lodge a Good Investment?

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 21:46:08 +0200

John , I think we agree that this whole area is breaking new ground and the accountants would need to look at situation were a lodge has been sold which previously recovered tax through the depreciation method subject to capital allowances. I suspect we are both in a similar situation by which we off set a loss on one business against the profits of another.

I understand you can only record losses for six consecutive years.

If the government changes the law ( some press coverage on BBC News today ) to reduce owners ability to use mortgage interest as a cost on a buy to let then we will all be re-calculating our positions

In response to:Opening Up the Market for Lodge Sales

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:51:01 +0200

And it should be pointed out perhaps that there are no private sales because the purchase contract states that all sales must be made via SLP - so a private sale would be a legal impossibility as things stand.

In response to:Opening Up the Market for Lodge Sales

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:48:56 +0200

"The lodgers are unaware of any private sales. "

Depends whay you mean by a private sales I suppose. We bought our first lodge direct "from the owners", but SLP became involved in the negotiations as we wanted a longer lease than just what remained. They ended up in the middle and our contract was with them, but until we got to the end stages of buying it was just us and Ian and Jane involved.

I think their commission on sale would be more acceptable if it were at a realistic level (like waht an estate agent would charge) and if they did simple and obvious things that estate agents do like advertising lodges for sale on their web site.

If you search for Used lodges for sale at Limefitt on the SLP site you will read that:

"Sorry, there are no sales matching your requirements at this time. Please try again soon."

If I were selling a lodge and being told that they wanted 7.5% of the sales price I'd be more than a bit unhapy about that !!

At least they have started letting owners put up "for sale" signs now, although maybe it would be better all rund to advertise them properly and remove the signs which dont improve the site.

In response to:Is a Modern Lodge a Good Investment?

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 17:39:21 +0200

"YOU WILL BE LIABLE FOR CGT.."

Holiday homes attract special treatment for CGT which is one thing that makes buy to let more attractive

According to Grant Thornton tax advisers, following two years of ownership, the effective rate of CGT may be as low as 10% on a disposal. By contrast, non-business assets have to be held for 10 years or more in order to obtain the maximum rate of non-business asset taper relief, which is currently 60%.

In response to:Is a Modern Lodge a Good Investment?

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 14:45:19 +0200

SLP DON’T ADVERTISE LODGES AS BUY TO LET OPPORTUNTIES . IN MY EXPERIENCE PEOPLE BUY TO LET TO REALISE CAPITAL GROWTH ...WITH THE RENT COVERING THE COSTS. LODGES WILL REDUCE IN VALUE OVER THE TERM OF THE LEASE AND IF THEY APPRECIATE SHORT TERM AND YOU SELL YOU WILL BE LIABLE FOR CGT. MY ACCOUNTANT WAS NOT COMFORTABLE WRITING DOWN THE VALUE OF PROPERTY UNTIL HE UNDERSTOOD HOW THE LODGES ARE TRADED IN A CLOSED MARKET

In response to:Is a Modern Lodge a Good Investment?

Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:01:10 +0200

Colin

Thankyou for adding that observation. I am glad that we seem to have been able to clarify the point about "buy to let" investments, and am interested to hear that you oviously got similar comments to mine from other sources as you mention "a few owners".

My only "hidden agenda" (clarifying that buy to let can actually be a good investment)has now been met. It would apppear that I have now succeeded in making (as opposed to scoring) my point.

Thank you

Best wishes

John