I can't find your answers.......

The £20,000 is to cover the council's predicted ongoing maintenance costs
for an unspecified period (our council rates are supposed to finance their
work......), and in most people's opinion should have been taken before the
developer sold the business (Ashwood Homes). He continued in business under
a series of different names, but now he has now restarted trading under
the same name as the company who bought the original business has gone out of
business, and sufficient time has elapsed to allow this , but throughout
the time, and currently, the original owner (developer) still owns the
ground (the rest of the development has been adopted). The area meets the
council's standards (mainly due to our efforts to keep it tidy) It is the
council's policy to demand payment to cover future costs before adopting.

It is true to say that he undertook to continue to maintain the area, but
his contractor has had health problems, and so he has not kept up
maintenance (he cut the grass once this year).

The 'contractor' used by the builder is a one man private individual (cash in hand????), who is currently in hospital (or just out of hospital) having had new knee joints, and therefore cannot carry out the work. When he had a heart operation last year, no cutting took place for several months - all the cutting was done by us with domestic mowers (which were damaged in the process). Based on this, it is unlikely thet he will do any more work this year - hence the builder suggesting that we do the work ourselve - we have asked him to contribute to the cost of our contractor, but he has ignored our request. Basically, the problem arises from the refusal of the builder to pay the council to adopt the area - they tell me that they have 'many other developments' where the developer is refusing to pay.

This is why we are exploring what options we have open to us to move this problem on (if any).

David

The developer is still in business (he keeps changing his companies' names......

The contractor employed by the builder is a one man band i.e. not a
company.

The land is owned by Howard King and his brother, two of the three directors of the original developers Ashwood Homes (the third is deceased). There are 44 properties on the development, and at present 38 of us are sharing the cost of employing our own contractor to mow the grass. The area includes a small children's play area (although most of us are pensioners - senior citizens) We have our deeds, and plans of the development (in the original sales brochures). Howard King is the person who is actively involved with the problem (he employs the person who has occasionally cut the grass (he is an ex-employee of Ashwood homes)

Three of us have been involved directly - two who originally cut the grass when the owner was not cutting it, and myself who has been doing all the correspondence with the council, the MP, the County Council and the owner.

No, the companies become 'dormant'. Searches of companies house records show all companies as being solvent. In the case of the original Ashwood Homes, it was sold to a third party, who subsequently went into liquidation, some of the Ashwood Home development projects had been transferred to Sovereign Homes priorto the sale. The original directors continued to trade under a series of different names (including Sovereign Homes, Seagate Homes), and have now started trading again as Ashwood Homes. The family use to be involved in cattle sales, and also currently own several farms......

It is my intention to see if our local Citizens Advice Bureau can help next week.

My suspicion is that we shall come up aganst a 'brick wall' in this matter.