Clicking here will go back to index

Simon North High Beech Chalet Park Simon North High Beech Chalet ParkSimon North High Beech Chalet ParkSimon North High Beech Chalet ParkSimon North High Beech Chalet ParkSimon North High Beech

It’s unknown if hornets have individual loyalties like their human equivalent but about five hornets who occupy chalets at High Beech Chalet Park have a determined agenda to get rid of us two individuals who live and own number 50. Human hornets are sex obsessed, probably resulting from a tendency to eat too much meat, and find it difficult to comprehend that two people of the same gender can live together, although abstain from erotic activity. One of the clique, occupying 51, Noda, fabricates untrue anecdotes about noise disturbance occurring 24/7 and reports to Gowlet of 96. The occupant of numbers 46 and 78a are also members of the clique. Its very sad that these people have no imagination or hobby but as a substitute for one, involve themselves in gossip and condemnation. One attempt to force us to sell was to complain to Hastings Planning about a few out buildings within the boundaries of 50. This is rather s short sighted plan, as 51 has at least one shed that was erected before the four year deadline when planning permission is granted by default. In response to this conspiracy, I agreed that we would sell up and move on for a sum of no less than a quarter of a million pounds. This might seem to be a high amount as the chalets sell for about one fifty but we would also have the stress of relocation, conveyance fees and similar. I put this offer to the current manager but it was refused.     

This text upload would be of interest to anyone who lives at High Beech Chalet Park who may have had a legacy Hastings Council planning issue in recent years. The date of this upload is 03/02/24. New owners took possession of the High Beech Chalet Park common areas and access roads from an owner’s agent: Carlton Property Management in about 2018. There was a communal post hut in High Beech from at least 1994 until about 2018 or 19 and dated back to a distant age when people were trustworthy, remember them? A site office was built in its place by Peter. In the 1960s when our chalet park began, it made perfect sense to have a communal post facility as, we are all too aware, that locating a chalet here is difficult, especially for delivery personnel and postal workers owing to our chalets not being sequentially numbered. A friend living at No: 100 and I repaired the post shed door on at least two occasions and it was often forced open where the Yale lock had been jemmied. We did a good repair but this wasn’t going to stop a determined thief. We at No: 50 were subscribers to Love Film, a movie distribution company where we’d send back a DVD after viewing, before UK’s broadband network was as fast as it is these days. We found the door smashed and our DVDs taken, so we terminated the contract with Love Film, much to their disappointment, although we did give detailed reasons for our decision. Thieves were not necessarily going to stop there. Our post hut served as a volunteer library or book repository. People would leave books there that they’d read and left them for whoever wanted to take one and replace another. This kind of activity makes us proud to be a Brit, such a lovely considerate exchange system!

By pure coincidence, the thefts and shed damage started at about the same time that the Sussex Edwardian Hotel, formerly High Beech Hotel, started operating as a halfway house and homelessness facility. Hotel manager Dave assured us that the break-ins were not a consequence of the hotel change of use. Here’s a quandary: would a thief have any regard for a letter from Hastings Planning Department? Of course not so this leads onto my next point. Hastings planning has been called frequently in the past about High Beech unpermitted out building and alteration, according to Abbie, planning enforcement officer. Naturally, there’s no guarantee that any correspondence will reach the intended recipient if the destination, post hut, is unsecure and security breached. If Hastings Planning Department has refused a planning project of yours or even complain that you’ve not received important documentation, you have a case of compensation against Hastings Planning. This Government department is duty bound to make sure any correspondence occurring between you, as chalet owner and Planning, and needs to be put right.          

High Beech has a restrictive covenant, so confusion arises with permissions/alteration. 51’s previous owner did an extension adding living space. She asked Mr Palmer for permission, at £200. Mr Palmer granted it and shortly thereafter work commenced. 52's owner had a holiday home next to 51 and upon a subsequent visit, objected to the extension, as it reduced garden overspill area. 52s owner started a planning dispute but his planning letter was illegally intercepted via the communal post shed. Believing he had no recourse, owner sold his chalet. As 51's owner had sought permission, work costing an eye watering £30,000, she felt completely assured. This scenario demonstrates that some might assume planning is granted when actually not, especially as this is a private estate. Owners need to pay twice; it seems, once to the freeholder and again to Hastings Planning. I’m told planning was eventually granted for the extension to 51, but legislation can be misconstrued; the covenant causing confusion when we might assume freeholder permission supersedes council planning: an easy mistake. The issue was further complicated during common areas ownership transfer. Brian Haines and Robert Lindsay Kirkland owned and managed High Beech and were rather strict concerning out building installation. They both retired in the mid 90s and the business sold to Mr Kim Palmer who upset residents here by incremental increased billing. Residents’ association chairman renewed the Palmer contract and the agreed conditions were a revised billing strategy and the disregarding of out building, which included decking installation, all by informal contract. 52’s owner intercepted planning letter is a matter deserving of further investigation, as he deserves due compensation, especially since his decision to sell may have been influenced by 51's owner controversial extension and apparent lack of planning department intervention. The post hut was removed and an office built in its place in about 2019, a decision made resulting from frequent theft and mail interference. Mail collected from the post hut was passed onto disabled and infirm: a gesture of kindness. Hastings Planning had a responsibility to ensure communication is safely received by the recipient, including all legacy cases, from a date before post hut removal. Safety of important planning letters should have been secured at least via recorded delivery, especially when costs of £30,000 are involved.

 

High Beech has a restrictive covenant, so confusion arises with permissions/alteration.  51’s previous owner did an extension adding living space. She asked Mr Palmer for permission, at £200. Mr Palmer granted it and shortly thereafter work commenced. 52's owner had a holiday home next to 51 and upon a subsequent visit, he objected to the extension, as it reduced garden overspill area. 52s owner started a planning dispute but his planning letter was illegally intercepted via the communal post shed. Believing he had no recourse, owner sold his chalet. As 51's owner had sought permission, work costing an eye watering £30,000, she felt completely assured. This scenario demonstrates that some might assume planning is granted when it actually isn’t, especially as this is a private estate. Owners need to pay twice; it seems, once to the freeholder and again to Hastings Planning. I’m told planning was eventually granted for the extension to 51, but legislation can be misconstrued; the covenant causing confusion when we might assume freeholder permission supersedes council planning: an easy mistake. The issue was further complicated during common areas ownership transfer. Brian Haines and Robert Lindsay Kirkland owned and managed High Beech and were rather strict concerning out building installation. They both retired in the mid 90s and the business sold to Mr Kim Palmer who upset residents here by incremental increased billing. Residents’ association chairman renewed the Palmer contract and the agreed conditions were a revised billing strategy and the disregarding of out building, which included decking installation, all by informal contract. 52’s owner intercepted planning letter is a matter deserving of further investigation, as he deserves due compensation, especially since his decision to sell may have been influenced by 51's owner controversial extension and apparent lack of planning department intervention. The post hut was removed and an office built in its place in about 2019, a decision made resulting from frequent theft and mail interference. Mail collected from the post hut was passed onto disabled and infirm: a gesture of kindness. Hastings Planning had a responsibility to ensure communication is safely received by the recipient, including all legacy cases, from a date before post hut removal. Safety of important planning letters should have been secured at least via recorded delivery, especially when costs of £30,000 are involved.

Narrow Page version for smaller devices! Hope it works!

History of High Beech. High Beech Chalet Park is located in Hollington and is named after Beech Farm and High Beech House. The farm formed part of the estate settled on the marriage of Charles Eversfield of Denne in Horsham esq with Mary Duncombe of Guilford. Sadly, the Chalet Park at High Beech can be described as a hornets’ nest. There are harsh divisions and loyalties and for me, as an individual, I can never anticipate from one week to the next who my enemies are, consequent of fabricated anecdotes from people who have nothing to occupy themselves with.  Number 51 was sold at a fraction of its true value, owing to an urgency to sell by the previous owner/occupier. "C" was subject to financial demands through a conspiracy by Carlton Property Management and Kim Palmer, both of whom have featured in this Hoofbags Web. Many of us who live at High Beech were convinced that the service charges from the above

conspirators weren’t backed up by any legitimate legal process and since these are freehold chalets surrounded by access roads and paths owned by another individual, we all felt confident that the unreasonable service charges were not really enforceable. How wrong could one be, since the group of people campaigning eventually lost their case in the courts. The homeowner needed to sell her chalet to settle the Palmer/Carlton debt, court costs and had to buy a cheaper property elsewhere. We all transmit non verbal communication and the previous occupant gave unconscious signals of her needing to sell urgently, as the Carlton/Palmer conspirators deliberately borrowed the money from a high interest account, from what I gather, and the interest charges were mounting up. It seemed Mr Kim Palmer was intent on punishing “C” for initiating the payment boycott, in spite, to the point of utter destitution.The present occupier of   

Number 51 is the kind of person who needs a pet Nemesis; bringing excitement into her life as a substitute for what most other people of a similar intellectual capacity do: watching soap operas. These wretches absolutely love to gossip and berate people of a higher intellect, manifesting in music production and other hobbies. There’s a response of hair trigger sensitivity to any noise whatsoever, listening intently, obsessively for any sound that is heard and can be complained about. I suppose I could feel proud about providing a topic of daily discussion but the thing in its entirety is very sad and profoundly negative. Pam likes to think of herself as an artist but, one characteristic I’ve noted is that these “reverting to latent talent old lady artists” can only produce artwork to a standard that would shame a ten year old. I fully understand that some of these wretches demonstrate envy about my ability to try my hand at so many

things that I attempt: I have no formal building skills but my approach is pretty much, have a go, it cannot be that hard. I’ve taken a similar approach to a plethora of other crafts, music making included, that some people appear to like, hence Hoofbags Web, but as long as there are no obvious dangers involved, such as unqualified DIY gas installations and the like, making attempts of the former nature, we can be rather surprised at our own finished outcomes. One way of addressing a defence to sad people of this sort is to make something with a positive outcome from negative occurrences. A new song of mine, entitled Pamaliar by Betty Betamax is precisely that: a stream of negative events and fabricated anecdotes manifested as something positive and entertaining.

Pamaliar - Betty Betamax     

 

 Update: 26/11/18

Mr Kim Palmer gone from High Beech!

We're pleased to announce that Mr Kim Palmer, Mersell Management and Carlton Property Management are no longer in the position to exploit High Beech Chalet Park residents.

As parting advice from this Hoofbags Web resorce to Palmer and his co-conspirators: don't view future clients and customers as idiots by demanding money with menaces. Learn from this experience and

warn any future potential exploiters that the High Beech community will fight against any attempts at extortion. Anyone trying to do this is going to fail! High Beech 1 - Palmer 0

My late prtner John Rawden bought his chalet in 1994, although I was also resident in Council accommodation at the time. There's a lot of information here and it's worth learning about, if you happen to live at High Beech. I try to keep the info relevant and accurate and in some cases I speculate using my limited experience and logic. It's desirable to stimulate discussion and throw interesting topics into the mix. As a means to make this easy to assimilate, I've changed background/text colour in the tables.

Speculation: When High Beech was planned/built, about 1961 the intention was to provide holiday accommodation, like Butlin’s. The site included the High Beech Hotel, now renamed The Sussex and Edwardian and it was jointly owned, I think, by the Haines family: (father) Lesley, Colin and Brian. There was also another owner: Bob Lindsay-Kirkland. All are unfortunately deceased, more shockingly, Brian who died in early 2018. I remember in the 1960s Freddy Laker arrived on the scene, making available previously unaffordable flights to exotic destinations to the less well off. At that time, there were frequent media reports of holiday resorts suffering financially, some closing down. It is conceivable that one casualty of the Laker travel revolution was High Beech. Initially, the chalets were sold off with a leasehold agreement. At some point later, freehold chalet ownership was available, maybe to avail more capital, further cutting losses. Naturally, the opportunity was gladly grasped by leaseholders.

 

In December ’18 the chalet park residents received news that Mary Styles had purchased the site and management responsibility from Kim Palmer. One advantage of Mary living at the park would be her direct affect of any degradation of park condition. Conversely, having a resident at the park who is also park manager has an advantage that our chalet park will be in pristine condition from the point of view of paths, lawns and general maintenance being kept at optimum. There are a small number of occupants of High Beech who’re unhappy with the recently established arrangements. Let’s consider that irrespective of a person’s ability or willingness to pay a service charge, a bill was going to be anticipated from ownership status onwards. We all knew and expected this, as   

condition of gaining ownership. An estate agent handling the property transfer would have enlightened accordingly. It is generally considered that under Mr Palmer’s unfair miss management, he was charging letter writing costs of £60 that would have been added to the bill total, in the event of late payment. Our current management team wouldn’t behave in this manner: they fully accept that some people have financial difficulties. The only thing the current management request is that we pay a reasonable amount according to our ability. Most of all, some cooperation is requested. In the case of our own chalet, No: 50, I’ve set up a standing order of a few pounds per week. If I get a windfall, a portion of it will be used towards

settlement of the debt. The dire alternative of a complete boycott of payment could lead to the management being handed over to another management company who may treat us as badly as Palmer did. Already improvements are happening and our park is benefitting from the new management. They reasonably ask that the owner set up some kind of intention to pay via a plan set up via a bank account. Anyone at High Beech can afford something, if they thought about what they could give up paying for. One example of an arrangement I’ve devised is, instead of flushing the toilet with fresh tap water, in our household we use washing up water instead. Our water bill has reduced so it enables a redirection of

available funds. Any money we put towards the development of our potentially lovely chalet park would benefit all of us and we could think of this place as us having made a contribution if we just stick together. Are you a smoker, for example? Why not think about giving up this nasty habit? Your health will improve, as well as your financial state. If a HBCP resident took the trouble to think about how they spend their money, some of it wasted on unnecessary crap, these funds could be used to help the current management not only improve the park, but make this place a second heaven. Sky’s the limit!

 

     

High Beech has become residential, through a change of use from a holiday park. In the 1960s fewer people had cars and an increasing number compounds safety concerns. One major risk within High Beech Chalet Park is fire. A few chalets are constructed from brick and metal and located in the middle of the South lawn. The majority of other chalets are constructed from timber. The access roads are narrow and a fire truck would have difficulty negotiating them.

Some of the chalets are arranged in such a closely packed manner that an emergency vehicle would have to park some distance away and the fire hoses fed from a reel for maybe up to fifty metres or more. I presume the fire service is aware of the difficulties and use equipment to negate this problem. As one would expect, most residents would be reluctant to leave their homes in the event of a planned compulsory purchase to affect improved emergency access. There isn’t really any solution to this thorny issue.

A lot of the news that gets propagated within the High Beech community is hearsay and cannot be depended on for complete authenticity. What I publish here is verified as truth, to a maximum extent possible. What is quite accurately assumed legitimate however is the chalet owners can be thought of in dividing the group into approximately three. There’s a Palmer loyal third who pay Mr Palmer’s service charge on time without complaint. This group also speaks negatively about the remaining two thirds,with accusations of causing unnecessary trouble and similar abusive terms, especially as Mr Palmer feels it appropriate to make those who do pay, compensate him through an additional charge,  

making up the shortfall. The remaining two thirds have a mixed view of Mr Palmer’s actions. Some are not paying out of principle and others simply cannot afford the charge, like me. Additionally there is the group who live in dire poverty making sure the extortionate charge is paid in fear that the Palmer/Carlton alliance will make a £50.00 fee per reminder letter with a further £10.00 administration cost. The Palmer loyal group also deny Palmer’s modus operandi, stating that the reports about his behaviour are fabricated by those who dislike his methods. There was an active local individual who upset Mr Palmer so much by opposing his behaviour that he imposed a trespass order on the resident.

As unbelievable and despicable an action it was, this did happen, as I received the letter confirming it, which also listed the chalet addresses of all the occupants who owed service charge money. There’s also the freehold versus leasehold question. All the chalets at High Beech are freehold, although they were originally leasehold, as explained above. Mr Palmer is insistent that all the High Beech Chalets are leasehold and references are made to this notion in all correspondence from KDL solicitors. I’ve read a KDL letter and in there are references about the leaseholder losing their home if the service charge isn’t   

settled. Some time ago a very worried owner conversed with me stating that as far as he’s aware, all of our properties have been downgraded to leasehold from freehold. Whether a property has one or the other status would be down to the UK land registry and not the decision of Mr Palmer or any solicitor. It isn’t known whether Mr Palmer is lying to KDL about the property status or if they’re complicit in the action. One would imagine that any lawyer is cautious about spreading lies like this so it’s likely that the myth is of Palmer origin. The letters also make reference to Mr Palmer being “the freeholder”.

Upon attendance of the meeting 15/04/18 some friends and I were kindly driven to the meeting’s venue by a couple who live at our chalet park. The husband gave an account that he and his wife weren’t required to sign the covenant and further explained that he went directly to the land registry upon gaining ownership of their chalet.There was not the necessity for him to sign any agreement. At the meeting, the man reiterated his non-signing. Obviously, the man has some knowledge about property law that not many people have. When I inherited our chalet, I had to go through a property conveyance solicitor, at the time Meneer Shuttleworth. This company was amalgamated with Herringtons a few years later. The family/conveyance solicitor made no mention of  by-passing the covenant and approach the UK Land Registry directly. If any of the folks reading this information know about anyone intending to purchase property at High Beech then it will be helpful to make them aware of this.

What added insult to injury was that Mr Palmer demanded a credit status. The assumption is that Mr Palmer would have vetoed the property transfer if my credit was reported unfavourably. Although I was the executrix and beneficiary of

my late partner’s will, the implication is thatMr Palmer could have prevented my becoming the owner of my chalet. This is far too much power for the insignificant piece of effluent that Mr Palmer is. This menace will probably tell you that he

 has the power to take your chalet away from you. If everyone at High Beech stopped paying their service charge the local Council would have to house over 100 people all at once.

The most Mr Palmer can do is take any amount owed from a property transfer in the event of a transfer of ownership. This is all a result of a signature that you had to sign in order to live in your chalet.

Relevant anecdote: In the past John wanted a shed, which involved a skirmish with Palmer. We purchased one from Do It All and shortly, the shed parts arrived and we assembled it. Some idiot told Palmer, who subsequently sent John a rude letter, dated the same month but the previous year by mistake, demanding that the shed be removed. Accordingly, we dismantled the shed and stored the panels. John consulted a property conveyer at Meneer Shuttleworth. They wrote a letter and charged John about £50 for it. The property conveyer enlightened that the covenant was poorly worded, as if it had been formulated on cardboard taken from a cigarette packet while in a pub. There were ambiguities in the original

covenant so a diligent application of semantics revealed loopholes. It transpires that an out building cannot be constructed, without permission, if it is placed as an extension to the main bungalow. However, this wouldn’t seem to prohibit any structure if there’s a space between it and the main one. No minimum distance is specified, so out buildings aren’t prohibited even if it is less than 12cm distance.  This effectively makes what is written in the covenant, at least regarding sheds, all but completely null and void. A copy of the letter was sent to Mr Palmer and, getting no reply, we re-erected our shed. During the property transfer I was approached by my bank who offered to perform the conveyance instead of solicitors, at a fraction of solicitors’ rate.Consequent the

afforementioned shed scenario, I chose solicitors out of loyalty. As all who live at High Beech are aware, and as stated in no uncertain terms above, our properties are freehold so Palmer’s removal demand should have been completely ignored. It’s just conceivable that had I’d instructed Barclay’s Bank to execute the deed of transfer instead of solicitors, they might have informed me that, as John bequeathed his chalet to me, taking into account the freehold status, not only would signing the covenant have been unnecessary, but also Palmer’s demand of a credit check before gaining ownership could have been superfluous. What’s also mysterious is that Palmer has a BSc, Hons. I think I remember hearing that his degree is in law. Rulesprohibit lawyers from doing their own soliciting,

as in High Beech, so he employs KDL to do it on his behalf. Through what might manifest as pure co-incidence, it looks as if lawyers certainly look after their own by ensuring that they have cases to work on long into the future. Let’s also consider the man at the meeting who said he went directly to the land registry himself, circumvented any solicitor action, covenant signing, and saving him and his wife huge unnecessary expense. In addition to all the bullying, Palmer forces huge financial demands for what actually amounts to nothing at all. We pay about £1000.00 just for Palmer and his co-conspirators to place a record into a filing cabinet some information about which chalet belongs to who, following a property transfer. 

 

I'm 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 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.

KDL SOLICITORS

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!!!

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.          

 

 

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.

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." 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.

 

 

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.

Regards

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