Clicking here will go back to index

Kim Palmer Eastbourne Kim Palmer Eastbourne Kim Palmer Eastbourne Kim Palmer Kim Palmer Eastbourne Kim Palmer Eastbourne Kim Palmer Eastbourne Kim Palmer Eastbourne Kim Palmer Eastbourne


Narrow Page version for smaller devices! Hope it works!

 The Hoofbag would like to stress, the contents of this web page about High Beech Chalet Park is based upon opinion only and doesn’t necessarily reflect the view of any other resident living at High Beech Chalet Park.


As clearly stated above, The Hoofbag would like to stress, the contents of this web page about High Beech Chalet Park is based upon opinion only and doesn’t necessarily reflect the view of any other resident living at High Beech Chalet Park. There also relates to the meeting on 15/04/18 regarding management issues in the park. The Hoofbag trusts that the current committee have matters in hand and are the best group available to address the management issues and problems.

Some people at High Beech might be getting upset about the way the lawn has been neglected, not having been mowed since mid 2017 or then abouts. If we can’t have a lawn, then let’s have a meadow. An issue here is the lawn belongs to Mr. Kim Palmer, a local swindler who treats High Beech people with utter contempt. Any formally organised arrangement to mow his lawn could result in retaliatory actions, which we need to avoid. The conkers that fell last autumn have sprouted little roots and they’ve started to grow into little saplings. It would be quite a shame to kill a lovely baby tree in its early stage of growth. Ahh, sweet! (o:




During the 60s there were rooms in houses offered to rent and there was sometimes a sign stating “no blacks, no Irish, no dogs”. It’s astonishing how they got away with it but this was long before the days of political correctness. Something like that existed in High Beech. Originally, to be allowed to buy a holiday chalet here, the applicant had to join the High Beech Country Club. They didn’t have to give reasons for refusal. In '94 when my now deceased partner John bought his chalet the buyers were carefully vetted to avoid certain groups of people moving here. The Hoofbag and John were fully welcome, as John was an electronics engineer and between us, we looked presentable and ran a business servicing electronic equipment. One High Beech exclusion group would have been members originating from the ‘traveller community'. Brian, Lesley and Colin Haines would have prevented ‘ex-travellers’ from buying a chalet at High Beech. In fact, we had to have an interview with Colin Hains. We met him at High Beech where he was repairing a stairway. We mentioned the interview, to which Colin said, "oh, that's alright, we just want to know that you're the sort of people we want living here, that's all." I asked if I could put my initial in the wet cement he was working on. He said it was alright, but my reply was to the effect that it would be a childish action. He acknowledged it with kindness. Sadly, Colin died a few years later through complications to do with meningitis. When Mr Palmer took over the park running, he allowed anyone in as long as they could pay. Unfortunately, this has resulted in unsuitable people moving in here; the type that goes around slashing peoples' tyres.


Remembering my friend Rose Bromley. (Rosemary Lavender Bromley) was the archetypal community leader, one of those people who you wonder where they get the energy from. She was active in many areas including the local Girl Scouts Movement, running a regular boot sale stall to raise money for the blind and challenging the oppressive billing dispensed by Kim Palmer, a local swindler who owns some land in the High Beech area. It was said that Palmer would walk out of a meeting if Rose was present. Rose was a ‘battleaxe’ but a battleaxe on our side, just what we needed! Rose had custody of her great granddaughter. Young at the time, M enjoyed her girly fairy garden that she could look out at in the dark evenings before bedtime. Her bedroom was on the South East corner of Rose’s Chalet. Rose would prioritise and always put M first. Rose did a superb job of bringing up M: One rather touching anecdote was M having raised money at a boot sale selling toys. Rose congratulated M for having earned so much and asked what she was planning to do with the money. M said she wanted to donate it all to the blind because, as she put it, it must be horrible being blind. What a lovely girl! Self sacrificing Rose swapped rooms with M, as she realised the importance of a child’s sleep and how not enough of it can cause a health detriment. This was owing to an inconsiderate and mindless noisy neighbour who shouted at dogs late at night. The elderly Rose became

ill sometimes and might have been around longer if it wasn’t for a continuous disturbance, waking her at various occasions during a  night's sleep: people need their rest in order to keep well. Yes, Morphina, we mean you! The tranquillity of M’s fairy garden, equipped with colourful twinkling LEDs, was spoiled by an offensive odour where next door’s neglected dog shit built up over time, along with a plethora of flies associated with mounds of festering dog shit. Hence, Rose was concerned about the degradation of status and falling standards in the class of people forced upon High Beech community. Rose was victim of a prime example of an inconsiderate neighbour. In fact, Rose appealed to the previous owner of the chalet next to hers to not sell to who eventually did move in. Unfortunately this undesirable individual came to live at High Beech, much to the dismay of other High Beech people. I tried to make excuses for the new, unwanted neighbour stating that to behave in the way they did was probably a result of them having learning difficulties. Rose's retort was "well, he/she is definitely not the full ticket!" Having low intellect and complete absence of empathy would be a clue to learning difficulties but unforgivable was the colossal arrogance demonstrated about the poor education level and blaming everybody else for being stupid if a non-understood concept was presented. How would you identify one of these people? Well, here are some clues quoted from this person:

1/. Not knowing who the Prime Minister is. 2/. “I know more about dogs than any vet!” 3/. "My mum wasn’t an Indian, she just spent a long time in India and looked like one because she got a tan." 4/. "The River Nile isn’t in Africa, it’s in Egypt!” 5/. “If you won the lottery, you wouldn’t know what to do with it!” 6/. Pointing at planet Venus, when asked, "what is that?" reply: "that's the norf star!" 7/. "Do you think that Donald Trump is a misogynist?" not knowing what a misogynist is "someone who has a low opinion of women." "That's stupid, he's married!" Morphina is an example of the most ignorant and stupid of human beings, more aptly, borderline human.

Update for May '18: As Morphina is incapable of independent living and should be admitted to a nursing home, it asks some local chavs, Julie and Nathan, to clear dog shit up for it, amongst other things. Wanting to cause the Hoofbag distress, out of fabricated anecdotes and lies through reasons unknown, they think the vehicles that are now parked in the space owned by the Hoofbag, belong to the Hoofbag. They're not! Under this impression, they’ve inflected damage to them out of pure spite. In fact, the vehicles, a car and a bike, are owned by another resident, altogether. See images below. The bikes are "Ben's Taxi" A little doggie rides in the topbox.


High Beech chalet owners' alert: There have been tyre slashing occurrences in our vicinity!


We have suspicions about who it probably is who kicked the door in. There’s a woman who has learning difficulties living at our chalet park who also habitually throws the 'paedophile' accusation around and invites people with a criminal inclination, giving them money for drugs, such as cannabis and heroine. They commit other crimes apart from kicking in the door of our post shed, and seeking anything via which they can raise drug money. The post-shed has been there since the 1960s, not interfered with. Go there and see for yourself! Since people of questionable motives have been invited to live here, the entire chalet park is falling to bits. Between them, the criminals fabricate outlandish anecdotes, and target a completely innocent individual as a scapegoat. A recent sabotage of tyres involved hammering screws into the tyres of one car owner. As the screws were on both near-side wheels, the garage stated it was unlikely that the screws found their way into the tyres by pure chance. Also, Mr Kim Palmer, a local landowner and bully of elderly people, may be hiring thugs to visit High Beech, since Carlton Property Management refused to provide ‘services’ (extract money) on his behalf. He has already taken a person living at our chalet park to court for non-payment, and expected them to travel to Scotland for the court hearing. This is done deliberately to make it as difficult as possible for his disabled victim to attend. Our chalet park has degraded into a social housing type of condition where disgruntled tenants treat their homes like a land fill site. Some people living here still use the post hut as opposed to having mail delivered to their door. Postal operatives prefer to make their deliveries via this means. This is so very sad.


Kim Palmer Eastbourne Kim Palmer Eastbourne Kim Palmer Eastbourne Kim Palmer Kim Palmer Eastbourne Kim Palmer Eastbourne Kim Palmer Eastbourne Kim Palmer Eastbourne Kim Palmer Eastbourne


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. Palmer appears to be tackling the unpaid 'service charge', more accurately 'funds extraction' by employing KDL solicitors of Heathfield.


On 16/03/18 15:15 approximately, the Hoofbag went to the KDL solicitors office, Therfield Road, Heathfield. This was an attempt to gain any information on our opposition such as pictures of the office, presented here. The Hoofbag took the liberty to knock on the door. It was answered by a tall gentleman and I spoke about some of the issues of taking elderly disabled pensioners to court with the aim of getting our money. The gentleman invited me in. There was also a lady working at a desk on a terminal/PC. I admit, the unnamed man seemed polite and somewhat taken aback by the information I gave him and expressed concern. The company seems to specialise in getting unpaid rent: a reasonable task considering that some tenants cheat on their landlords/landladies renting properties but tenant not paying. Careful examination of the front window KDL logo would indicate that the company specialises in leasehold issues. It is just conceivable that Mr Palmer has presented the issues of High Beech service charge non payment by lying about High Beech Chalets being freehold. This is duplicitous, but what else would we expect from Mr Kim Palmer? The KDL logo includes the information, "specialists in residential leashold enforcement". 

Urgent disclaimer: Hoofbags isn't propagating the slur that Mr Palmer is a child abuser!!!

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 it or 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 a phone 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

We would like to point out the web site Committee, is not associated with the Committee that organised the meeting on Sunday 15th April 2018.


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, weighs 25 stone and bandaged legs 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.

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.

 This Website is a working progress and is subject to new information updates.

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.


         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 >>>>>

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

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.

An example of Mr Kim Palmer’s deliberate action to ignore a residents’ association at a chalet park, namely High Beech Chalet Park, is: none of the owners of the chalets here want night time illumination. Street lighting is desirable in busy cities and large towns but the people living at High Beech Chalet Park have stated that they really don’t want night time illumination. When it is late at night, it is, as one would expect: dark. Some people like it that way. The Webmaster for this site, for example, gets a much better night’s sleep in the dark, without the bother of a street lamp shining light through gaps in curtains.



It's also great to view the stars and constellations. Kim Palmer has an intention to force street lighting where we live, simply because it is another item that he can make a charge for.


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.



A selection of emails sent to the hoofbag from Carlton Property Management.

Some emails that were a reply from the Hoofbag, 1.

Some emails that were a reply from the Hoofbag, 2

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your email. I cannot see that you have provided evidence of Carlton Property Management breaching Data Protection.

I can only presume from your comments this is 'Hoofbag' and you have actually either misunderstood what I have said entirely it would seem. I never suggested you should get a loan to pay the Service Charge, you suggested this and I commented that you would still have to find the payments for this. I note your comments in respect of the legal action being taken by another Chalet owner and we cannot comment on the outcome until this has been arrived. I will however advise that Service Charges remain outstanding and open to legal action.

Your comments will be passed to Mr Palmer as they seem to relate more to Mr Palmer than Carlton.

 Kind regards.

This comment: "I never suggested you should get a loan to pay the Service Charge, you suggested this and I commented that you would still have to find the payments for this." is completely negated by the phone conversation, audiable below.


1/. I presume that any phone calls are recorded at your office end and, indeed, we record calls by default: in fact, I sometimes forget that it is happening. I'm a retired comms engineer. I'm very grateful of your phone call to me on a date early April. Naturally, it would be audacious to share the private call to anyone, apart from the legal standpoint. I've encoded our conversation from the tape to an mp3 codec: legally, this may not be share by either of us. I can send you this audio file by email, if you like. However, in the call, you were the first to mention the method of raising capital by using the equity on my home: clearly audible in the call.

Mr Palmer is ignoring the 1985 Housing Act where he's required to listen to the residents' association input into the running of our estate. I'd presume that Carlton has the same attitude in this regard, irrespective of Carlton's ostensibly 'openness' on your management decisions, as lauded on your Web. I'd be happy to email details about the 1985 act along with Mr Palmer's response to it, if this needs any verification. Regards: Liz. (o:

Hello Mark. I'm glad things are heating up: I love a challenge. It would help my depressed neighbour if Carlton/Palmer could implement a more merciful stance on the disproportionate charge. I’ve a couple of friends: psychiatric nurses, they endorse my concern about neighbour. I’m not permitted to name, however; I note your empathy. We must get rid of Palmer and Carlton: we at High Beech could do a better job of managing our Chalet Park, at a fraction of the cost. My friend and I, for example, sometimes dig out a drainage ditch that runs parallel with an access road and carried out similar maintenance. We pay insurance on an access from the entrance to the first chalet: a road that we own. I expect to be one of those who, according to Mr Palmer, will be committing trespass if I cross his land. It’s already happened to a resident and partner. I’m surprised that you didn’t make more of an issue of the recorded phone conversation. People, wrongly, tell me that this is illegal. It isn’t as long as I don’t share it with anyone else. Would you like an mp3 of the conversation for your reference? I could email it to you. Carlton needs to install a phone recording system, if none already exists...

2/. I can also, if you like, send scanned-in past correspondences regarding High Beech Chalet Park Residents’ Association, and Mr Palmer’s retort to the 1985 housing act. In accordance to the democratic process, AGM’s were held along with performance based elections. At the time I was on the committee, XXXX was the Chairperson. Sadly, the HBCPRA was dissolved for some unknown reason.


Good afternoon Hoofbag.

I am extremely concerned with the advice you have given regarding your neighbour and would strongly suggest you urge them to get some professional help. You have not advised who this is and therefore I can only urge you to help this individual by suggesting psychiatric help.

I note your opinion of Kim Palmer and would advise that this could be deemed as slanderous.

In respect of our conversation if I recall correctly you had asked me how to deal with your financial situation. I am not placed to do so but, if you cannot pay the charges due on your property you would have to sell the property (this would have been my first advice) but failing this your only option if you cannot raise the funds by other means would be by way of a loan. This of course is your prerogative.

We are not aware of a formally recognized Residents Association and therefore we have not acted anyway other than Managing Agents on behalf of the Freeholder.


3/. As for the slander accusation: please do initiate action on this, I’m looking forward to it. My opinions are based on observation, opinion and truth. Believe me; in the same way that Carlton PM keeps repeating the threat of taking non-payers like me to court, nothing ever happens. Ask your colleagues to ‘put their money where their mouth is’. Mr Palmer made repeated threats shortly after people stopped paying the charge, before Carlton became involved. All we get is threats, never any action. The reason is probably, the unconventional circumstance of our chalets being free hold as opposed to leasehold. I signed one of Mr Palmer’s forged versions of the covenant. In these circumstances, we were bullied into signing simply so we could get somewhere to live. Any court in the land would understand these issues and a signature on a piece of paper, without even a witnessing of legal authority, really doesn’t carry as much weight as reflected in your narrative...

4/. This whole business isn’t going to culminate amiably. You seem to be a nice guy, Mark, and it’s unfortunate that you’re embroiled in this unpleasant affair: effectively a buffer between Palmer and us at the Park. You need to be aware, may I kindly reiterate, Mr Palmer and Carlton have no issue with making all of us at High Beech befall destitution. This is not an inconsequential call, especially considering that there are infirm and elderly here. If I were in your shoes, I’d try to find an alternative post elsewhere: you’re good for it. Additionally, Carlton needs to cease interaction with Mr Palmer. Someone in this vicinity is building a Web page about the cruel treatment we tolerate from the Carlton/Palmer conspiracy. I’ll enlighten when it’s up and running. When a professional company is functioning in this deplorable fashion, unsurprisingly there are going to be consequences. Please don’t hesitate to email me any comments that you may have in connection with the material presented here.





free counter
Dell Dimension Coupon