Clicking here will go back to index

This is the narrow device version of the High Beech Vs. palmer page.

People at High Beech are pleased to announce that Carlton Property Management has dissolved the contract on behalf of Kim Palmer. This information was varified following a phone call to Carlton PM on Friday, 23/02/18, 11:30. Sadly, the battle isn't over so this page and another one, see lion picture below, will focus on the real culprit, Mr. Kim Palmer. We don't know of any future plans Mr Palmer might have, but he's unlikely to relent so the battle goes on. Some historic reference to Carlton PM are still presented on this page.


Join us by not paying Palmer's rip off charges. Our numbers are growing!

The contents of this site is based upon opinion. Deciding not to pay a third party companie's rip off charges has to be a personal choice. Theoretically Mr Palmer could apply to a small claims court to force us to pay but as we are freehold owners rather than leasehold, the rules are different. If a small claims court action goes ahead, the magistrate will order that the outstanding money be paid. If no payment is made, they can then instruct bailiffs to enter your home and take anything of value to cover the costs, to which the bailiffs will add their own expenses. If you’ve a nice car then they might take it. If you’re like us, when we drove around in an old rusty van before we lost itor get one on a nice car on a Motorbility scheme then they will go away empty handed. Remember, another £400 + bill is on its way to you and will be at your chalet in April '18.

Meeting with Mark Barretto sometime during late 2016: We need to keep account of past events.

On Friday 27/01/'17 Carlton Property Management held an open day where they invited residents at High Beech to inspect the accounts. The Hoofbag, with no accounting skills, Mark Barretto, and a third person who is unable to walk or stand, took up the invite. Carlton’s base of operation is on a second and third floor office in Eastbourne. Bringing a mobility scooter bound lady with learning difficulties was a challenge to a seemingly non-existent policy of equal opportunities, but Mark sought an alternative venue: a coffee shop near Carlton’s office. There were no bitter exchanges between any of us; in fact we even offered to buy Mark a coffee. Many basic phones these days have a voice recording facility so the Hoofbag surreptitiously set aphone onto ‘record’ mode. Coffee shops aren’t quiet places during the best of times. However, in between the clatter, some replies to Marks questions may be deciphered. The Hoofbag also mentioned the Palmer forged covenant issue to Mark, where his response was “take it legal”. Also an issue of great concern to many people who live at High Beech is if it’s possible to lose our chalet as a result of Palmer’s service charge non-payment. In response to this question, Mark stated that it is possible for us to lose our homes through non payment. Let’ think about this for a moment: there are people with severe disabilities who live at the park. One has to envisage an extreme scenario where non payment has culminated in recovery of costs through the action of seizing our chalet.
This would entail a forced ejection of the person who lives in there, assuming that they ignore any order to leave. Could we really imagine, in the final scenario, where police are sent into a disabled person’s home and physically lift them out of their house? A woman living here who has learning difficulties, weighs about 30 stone, has legs wrapped in bandages has spondulosis and arthritis. The police, who are in fact the only legal authority who may physically handle an obstinate person, would have to grab hold of her arms and legs. They would have to be handcuffed and possibly a strap around the her legs would be employed to prevent kicking. The police, in as high as eight in number, would need to lift her up and out of the door. She would then have to be driven to a police station and put into a police cell. Another extreme scenario is where the police would have to lift her up and out of her sister's chalet, dump her on the road, changing the door locks on her chalet to prevent return. Mark, in all his assumed wisdom, seems to believe there is a court in the land who would condone this appalling action. There are a plethora of disabilities within the High Beech population: Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Fatigue, Dementia and general unavoidable old age. Take the trouble to listen. It isn't easy to decipher some of what's been said, owing to background noise. It may be of interest.

 Audio recording of the meeting between Mark, Hoofbag and Lynnette.

There’s a 10 second silence at the start of the MP3 file, please be patient. Mark B didn’t know we were recording him, so this might be seen as unfair to include it here. Also unfair is extortionate charges, and the £50 plus £10 admin charge (2017) that none of us here at High Beech agreed to.

This is a really great site, clearly stating the issues and very much to the point. Thanks Tony! (o:

All communities have gossip merchants and it could be argued that Hoofbags contributes to this unintentionally via this Web. There’s some fake news that is acceptable and some that isn’t. Sadly, people who are loyal to Mr Palmer relay threatening anecdotes about High Beech chalet ownership being downgraded to leasehold. Older people become terrified about these things and pay up out of fear. An unacceptable notion that has recently emerged is that Kim Palmer is part of an East Sussex paedophile ring. This was initiated by a woman with learning difficulties who habitually makes accusations of pedophillia and it must urgently be pointed out that this vile accusation is not validated by Hoofbags. The Hoofbag is absolutely no fan of Kim Palmer, believing him to be a swindler who uses  creative accounting to rip off pensioners, trying to convince freeholders that they've been downgraded to

leasehold status. This threat is to make them part with money they needn't and a variety of similar disgusting actions. Even these despicable behaviours fade into obscurity when compared to the activity of child abuse. However, The Hoofbag will not stoop to the level of an accusation of this kind. Exploiting children for sexual gratification is not only highly illegal but from any right thinking person's perspective, is morally depraved.The Hoofbag is also aware that spreading lies about people as in this web-page would be an indirect exploitation of child abuse. However, this is one malign that must be stated, has no origin from the Hoofbags Web. As there are no black or Asian people living at High Beech, an accusation levelled at Kim Palmer is a white supremacist, is viable. The Hoofbag is aware that there has been interest in High Beech from people of colour, although none have ever lived here. Mr Palmer can veto a property sale and doesn't have to give reasons. Even being a white supremacist isn’t on the same scale as child sexual abuse, even as despicable a concept as this is.

The Kim Palmer menace: what we know so far. There’s a legal process going on, so we at Hoofbags must be cautious. If a matter is progressing through courts, details can't be discussed in connection with it. Hoofbags knows nothing in relation to any current ongoing legal process, short of knowing that there is one. Information here is what we've gleaned from Internet and examination of our own predicament. Palmer is enforcing an unreasonable, extortionate cyclic service charge by negative exploitation of a restrictive covenant, enforced when individual High Beech Chalets were first sold. High Beech was originally a holiday resort. The ‘bungalows’ were intended for well off people who desired a second home away from the one they lived in full time. There’s also a hotel, which has been subject to change of use, since the surrounding area has been re-purposed from leisure pursuits in nearby woodland, to housing. There’s a UK housing shortage, population has outstipped housing stock so people live full-time at the park. In order to diffuse the Palmer menace, the restrictive covenant must be dissolved. If this happens, High Beech residents will have equal status to any other house, used for people to live in, a right taken for granted by a majority of home owners. The law of restrictive covenants is a complex area and a mystery to many landowners, some of whom believe that restrictive covenants cannot be challenged, however, this is not the case. Restrictive covenants affecting land arise out of an agreement that one party will restrict the use of its land in some way for the benefit of another’s land. The restrictive covenant is capable of being enforceable by one party’s successors in title against the other’s successors in title, as well as between the original contracting parties. Therefore, if your property is subject to a restrictive covenant and you wish to modify or develop it, you may discover that you are prevented from doing so if the covenant remains on the title. Checking the title deeds to your property will quickly reveal whether there is a valid restrictive covenant which affects the land. If you find that your property is affected by a restrictive covenant, you should firstly consider whether indemnity insurance is available in order to provide you with protection in the event that someone with the benefit of the covenant takes legal action against you for breaching the covenant. If insurance is not available then you should try and identify the owners of the land which benefits from the covenant and try to reach a compromise with them which will usually involve the payment of money for the release of the covenant.  If neither of the above are possible, then an application can be made to the Lands Tribunal seeking an order, which wholly or partially discharges or modifies the restriction. Source: Harrison Drury Solicitors. There are however, some important differences. High Beech Chalet Park consists of individual freehold land plots with a freehold timber structure built thereon. The Palmer menace owns some of the surrounding land in the area, as a freeholder. Additionally, each chalet (bungalow) owner has a 100th share of the main access road to our park, and is why we must pay liability insurance on it. Accordingly, any attempt at a trespass order could be reciprocated. In an attempt to extort money from chalet owners at High Beech, the Palmer conspiracy is trying to convince some of the more elderly, or academically challenged through illness, residents that their property has been downgraded from freehold to a leasehold status. Letters sent from a company called KDL solicitors contain threats to your “leasehold property”. Via this method, Palmer keeps the people who live here in fear of having their homes taken away from them. The service charge for March ’17 – October ’17 was over £400.00, where an agreed sum was £154.60 for the same period previously. It may occur to you, dear reader, that there’s no realistic limit to what Mr Palmer could charge in future. How about £2000 or £4000? Could any of us realistically afford this? Consequently, about 30% of High Beech residents have either refused to pay the charge or are unable to. If you, dear reader, are tempted to join us, it should be stated that none of us can tell what will happen. Eventually, the amount that ‘Webmaster’ owes, taking into account that the charge seems to double on each 6 month billing cycle, will exceed the value of our property: a chilling thought! The information in the red table above was taken from HERE.  Please don't forget your browser's back button.

The first things to say about Mr Kim Palmer is that he's greedy, selfish and a bully.

From the way he treats us, one might assume he's a corporate psychopath. This is the kind of psychopath who's focused on success, becoming richer via any means, irrespective of ruthless actions causing distress and anxiety to other people's security and peace of mind. He doesn't care if he drives people to suicide through worry and depressive illness. The only thing that matters to him is money, success and as much as he can get. No doubt, there exists within his limited consciousness somewhere, an element of empathy. This virtue will be exclusively reserved for family, and friends if indeed he has any. Oh, and a little for his co-conspirators. Palmer is not to be underestimated as an adversary. This monster has a degree: his full title is Kim Palmer B.Sc. (Hons). The webmaster recalls that his area of training is in law. Accordingly, he improvises much of his narrative and only just skims above the boundary of legality, guided by approximation. He's killed the 'golden goose'. If he'd kept the service charge to a reasonable amount, people would still be paying it.

From elewhere on the Internet.....Don't forget your browsers BACK button! >>>

Workplace psychopaths maintain multiple personas throughout the office, presenting each colleague with a different version of themselves. Hare considers newspaper tycoon Robet Maxwell to have been a strong candidate as a corporate psychopath. The organizational psychopath craves a god-like feeling of power and control over other people. They prefer to work at the very highest levels of their organizations, allowing them to control the greatest number of people. Psychopaths who are political leaders, managers, and CEOs fall into this category. Source: Click here (good old Wikipedia!)

What our Website aims to do is to explore what we realistically can and can’t do about the Palmer problem.

Mr Kim Palmer took over the running of High Beech Chalet Park following an advice letter to High Beech residents, dated 4th October 2002. Mersell Property Management took over the park running after Brian Haines and Bob Lindsay Kirkland retired.

One way out of this appalling predicament is for us at High Beech to pay these swindlers £100 every 6 months just to keep them out of the way. We could then carry out our own maintenance, as we pretty much do, presently. Like criminals of old times, they could refer to it as protection money!

Mr Kim Palmer of Eastbourne is constantly searching for new excuses to increase the service charge. It is suspected that Mr Kim Palmer is one of the directors of Carlton Property Management and he contracted this company as an excuse for increasing the already extortionate maintenance charge. In fact, Carlton had no autonomy with regards to High Beech management decisions and Carlton employee Mark Barretto simply executed Palmer’s autocratic instructions.

Phone call, in which Mark B tells the Hoofbag to get into debt.

That was the start of big trouble. We’re informed that on some occasion before their retirement; it was somewhat difficult to find a managing agent who'd replace Brian and Bob in carrying out the High Beech Chalet Park maintenance. There were very few companies interested. This may have been because of the unique position that our chalet park is in, where each chalet owner holds a freehold on both the chalet and the land it's on. Mr Kim Palmer holds some freehold land near to the chalets, and the access road, also. Additionally, he obtained license to manage our chalet park, via a Hastings UK Council directive. This is done ineffectively and expensively. Residents at High Beech could do a much better job of managing our chalet park. The current Palmer/Carlton management employ a concept known as creative accounting; this is the exploitation of loopholes in financial regulation in order to gain advantage or present figures in a misleadingly favourable light.

Mr Palmer appears to have a total disregard for the data protection act. He's propagated via circulars, details about how much money a person owes for his so called ‘estate management services’, something that one would imagine is a private matter between him and the other party. It is an unfortunate fact that he can do this, and it’s legal, just about, as explained in the table here >>>>>

Can landlords put up a list of tenants who are in arrears?

No. Information about an individual’s debts should only be given out in limited circumstances. It is only justifiable to tell tenants if someone has not paid their rent if this has a direct effect on them, for example, if they become legally responsible to help meet any shortfall in shared maintenance charges. Source: Click here.  Please use you BACK button in your browser to return here.

Using your equity is the quickest way you will lose your home. Palmer tells us that he can take our homes from us if we don’t pay his extortionate charges. Either way, according to him, we lose our homes. It’s a tossup between the two. It may take longer for him steal our home through impossible charges than it would if we use our equity: naturally, the former has a time advantage so is the preferred scenario.

There exists something called the 1985 housing act, section 20. This is where those providing estate management services are instructed to consult any democratically elected resident associations that may be formed. Mr Kim Palmer ignores the act, and states that no legitimate residents' association has ever existed. Please click on hyperlink on right pane below this text, but don't forget the BACK arrow in your browser.

From elewhere on the Internet.....Don't forget your browser's BACK button!

1985 Housing Act: section 20. Purpose of this booklet. This booklet explains the procedures for landlords, resident management companies and their managing agents in the private sector in England and Wales to consult their lessees and tenants before entering into certain kinds of expenditure paid for from service charges. In this booklet we use the term ‘leaseholder’ to refer to both leaseholders and tenants.         Qualifying works.

These are ‘works on a building or any other premises’ – that is, works of repair, maintenance or improvement. The inclusion of improvement in the definition of qualifying works does NOT allow a landlord to recover costs for improvements unless a liability for costs of improvements is included in the lease. When calculating the estimated cost, VAT on works must be included. Landlords must consult if these works will cost over £250 for any one contributing leaseholder. Thus, in a property with unequal service charge contributions, the landlord must consult all leaseholders if any one of them would have to pay more than £250. If consultation is not undertaken, the landlord may not be able to recover costs over £250 per leaseholder.

Below is a hyperlink > >

Be sure to click on 'back arrow' in top  left of your browser to return here!

Below left: Freebird -  wot took the fotars



free counter
Dell Dimension Coupon