Home

Welcome to the Website of 

Domewood Democratic Residents Association

 

How did we choose our Association name?

Old Domewood:- our home estate

Democratic :- our modus operandi

Residents:- all of us are neighbours and shareholders in the ownership of the road.

Association:- a group of like-minded persons.

Why did we form this association?

We aspire as a group to have Open and Honest discussions with each other and any other group who have an interest in Old Domewood.  We are fortunate to live in a democratic country and will try to uphold its standards. Democracy is not a right but a privilege and therefore has to be upheld and protected.

Stay informed by keeping up with our latest posts!

---ooo---ooo---ooo---

Quick Links:

Jump to:

Freeholders' Rights  in Old Domewood

Case and Statute Law Relevant Law to the Claims and Defences.

 

 

The Old Domewood Estate, Copthorne, founded in the 1930’s consists of 66 Freehold properties. The residents’ company DPRA Ltd (holding the road titles) has taken court action over the last four years against retired residents in an attempt to enforce payments. The actions were dismissed.

DPRA Ltd was previously set up as a dormant company specifically to hold safely the title deeds of the roads within Old Domewood. This company was made active by the directors on 13th September 2021. They made the change to the company status specifically to be able to use court action that they could not do under the association.

The result of this action has been that the Residents’ Association money has been wasted, a great deal of ill feeling has been created and the residents of Old Domewood have been taken down a path that was ill-conceived.

DPRA Ltd chose to take retired residents to court* for a problem of the company’s own making when all the six households wanted was to have openness and honesty, particularly from the directors.

Why did the residents from six properties (the defendants) withhold their contributions?- Simply because the directors of DPRA Ltd behaved undemocratically** and would not answer queries or questions that were put to them. The defendants' only way of protesting was to withhold their voluntary contributions.  DPRA Ltd unfortunately preferred to use threats, vilification, and harassment while promoting themselves as a ‘Management Company’ something they are not. The directors are all just residents and shareholders as are all the dwelling-holders in Domewood and are therefore equal.

The retired residents concerned have lived in Domewood for between 10 and 52 years and have paid their voluntary contributions for the upkeep of the road without any break until the present directors took over. The directors, led by Mr S. Etheridge, have had no inclination to accept other views that do not align with their own or to participate in discussion or mediation to resolve the impasse they have created. 

The DPRA Ltd directors have now after four years, ultimately behaved in a way that is quite unacceptable in any society,  the directors have ignored the judges' rulings:

One of the cases dismissed by the Court related to an 89-year-old resident whom having moved into sheltered accommodation had put her house up for sale with the help of her daughter who resides in France. Despite the judge stating that she, the defendant,  did not owe DPRA Ltd any monies and therefore there was no debt, Mr Etheridge for DPRA Ltd continued to pursue her insisting she was in debt to DPRA Ltd, even going as far as writing to the buyer’s solicitors telling them quite wrongly that she owed monies to DPRA Ltd, thereby compromising the company’s position under General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and putting it at risk of a claim under Torts.  

The defendants' counsel subsequently wrote an open letter to DPRA Ltd stating that due to the judge’s ruling, the defendant was not in debt to them.  This letter proves that DPRA Ltd claimed a debt was owed post-hearing when none was owed.  The letter also explained in brief,  the reasons for the judge’s dismissal of the case proving it was not simply “a technicality” as DPRA Ltd continues to claim. 

Mr Etheridge (DPRA Ltd) continued pursuing the money in clear contravention of the decision of a Court. The pressure placed on the resident’s daughter resulted in her conceding to pay over money,  that was plainly not owed.

We all live in a democratic country where the rule of law is paramount.  Despite a Judge in a County Court dismissing a claim by DPRA Ltd, Mr Etheridge pursued the collection of monies from the resident. The resident has been consistently adamant that, in view of the judge's decision, she would not concede to DPRA Ltd’s demands.

We believe that going against a court judgment for whatever reason, is immoral and undemocratic; DPRA Ltd should return the money forthwith as it sullies the reputation of Domewood for all residents. This action involved all of the directors who have acted “Ultra Vires”; they have acted beyond their authority.  There can be no excuse for this action.

The directors should now seriously consider their position and the residents of Domewood consider if this is the way they wish to be represented.

* Once a court action is started only the Claimant can stop it. The defendant, on the other hand, has to file a defence or they automatically receive a County Court Judgement (C.C.J) against them. We had no alternative but to defend the actions brought against us. 

** The chairman had also introduced an undemocratic addition to the association articles; ‘a simple voting or poll of those Dwelling holders Present'. The Ltd Company's Articles state that proxy votes must be allowed therefore a vote by those present, does not comply with the Articles.

 

A brief History of Domewood and Management of its common parts

The administration of Domewood's roads has gradually shifted over time, but recent changes driven by a small group, have created division and failed to benefit all residents.  This account is designed to share the other side of the story, providing perspectives and information that have generally been inaccessible to residents and previously withheld from shareholders.

Our group (the defendants) have additionally been denied information that has been given to other residents, the narrative fed to these residents has been inaccurate simply to provide support for the directors.

Established in the early 1930s, the Domewood estate featured freehold bungalows sold by Mr. Dohm in a 'Mock Tudor' style. These oak-framed buildings included Norfolk-latched oak doors, diamond leaded-light windows, and an inglenook for an open fire. Buyers could select their plot(s) and specify the layout of their homes.

After a few years, the new purchasers formed a 'Residents Road Fund,' later renamed 'Domewood Private Residents Association' to maintain the access road to all properties in good order.  The association collected a voluntary contribution from each property and used the funds to resurface the road with tar and grit approximately every 8-10 years. This approach, set in a woodland populated with many fine mature trees, rhododendrons, and silver birch trees, promoted the 'Sylvan Setting'  endearing Domewood to many people.

The freehold properties were sold with access rights over the road, but for several reasons, primarily due to the last war, it was impossible to identify the owner of the road, and access to the Land Registry records was not permitted. In 1990, following a change in law, the ownership of the roads in Domewood was clarified, allowing the title deeds to be purchased for £1 from the estate of the late Sir William Pearman-Smith.

The Residents Association based upon legal advice vested the titles in a dormant company; DPRA Ltd *** with all residents having the option of becoming shareholders. This action was taken because the Residents Association was not a ‘Legal Entity’ and therefore could not hold the title deeds. The Residents Association continued with the administration of the road for a period of around 70 years up until 13th September 2021

 *** Note:- The dormant company was required to submit an annual return to Companies House, therefore for convenience the association committee members also became its directors. 

After forming the company the shareholders, in an effort to protect the company and its property,  passed a resolution setting the Company articles requiring 80% of residents to approve any change to it. At the time the residents believed that it would be extremely unlikely that level could be democratically achieved. 

The level of funding was set each year by residents at an AGM. The contribution increased gradually with inflation but also latterly with the committee’s increased spending. This increased spending triggered requests for clarification and information from the last association committee who declined to provide any information or explain those increases to us. After numerous meetings and ignored requests, six householders decided to use their democratic right to ‘withhold’ their contributions until a democratic and open approach was adopted by the Association committee.

The association committee’s stance, using threats and vilification rather than trying to solve the problem, then deteriorated into them taking legal action ****.  They initiated a small claims action in County Court without realising that the association, being a non-legal entity, was not eligible to file, leading to the action's failure

 

**** Note- Once a court action is started only the Claimant can stop it. The defendant, on the other hand, has to make a defence or they automatically receive a County Court Judgement (CCJ) against them. Therefore we had no alternative but to defend the actions brought against us. 

The threats and harassment from the committee forced us to take legal advice and a solicitors letter was sent to the association treasurer explaining their inability to take legal action. They responded accordingly and withdrew their claim. 

By now Covid was upon us but unabashed and undeterred the committee decided to change the status of the resident’s company, DPRA Ltd from dormant to active. The only reason to do this was to be able to again use court action. The action was still only against the same retired residents who the directors now stated were ‘refusing to pay’ rather than stating truthfully that we were ‘withholding’. We can only surmise the reason for this change in language was to justify their aggressive action and to prevent other residents from asking; ‘why should they want to withhold payment’?

On a questionable vote the committee then instructed solicitors; Cripps Pemberton Greenish (“Cripps”) to advise on implementing the change to the status of the company.

Firstly the association had no mandate to seek legal advice and secondly, they were using residents money held on trust and collected for road maintenance. 

Cripps either ignored these facts or were given misleading information by the association, we do not know as again despite a request for the same we have never seen the actual letter of instruction to Cripps.  Cripps also failed to follow the correct procedures for engaging with a client; we therefore lodged an official complaint. Cripps denied that they had not acted correctly but now 4 years later the advice they gave has been shown to have been misleading and incomplete.  In all the Court actions to date, the Court has held the Articles are not binding and there is no contractual relationship between DPRA Ltd and the freeholders. Approximately £6500 of residents' money has been needlessly wasted on the solicitors Cripps and subsequent actions. All of the actions now taken have stemmed from that now misleading and incomplete advice. 

RELEVANT COURT CASES AND RESULTS:

Court Reference.

1.  Claim 110MC773 DE 27th January 2020, Case withdrawn as illegal

2.  Claim 130MC429 DE 10th March 2020,   Case withdrawn as illegal

3.  Claim 285MC957  SF 23rd January 2023 Judgement on "balance of probability" for the claimant.

4.  Claim 290MC726, GP Final Hearing 18th December 2023, Result: Case Dismissed.

5.  Claim 387MC428, SF Final Hearing 18th January 2024,   Result: Case Dismissed,   Judgement for the Defendant. Claimant to pay witness's costs. Debt entered in the Public Register of Judgments, Orders, and Fines. County Court Judgement (CCJ) registered against DPRA Ltd as DPRA Ltd fails to pay within the 1-month time limit.

6.  Claim 275MC327,BD Final Hearing 9th February 2024, Result: Case Discontinued by Claimant, DPRA Ltd

7.  Claim 393MC247, BD Final Hearing 9th February 2024, Result: Case Discontinued by Claimant, DPRA Ltd

8.  Claim 436MC451, BD Final Hearing 9th February 2024, Result: Case Discontinued by Claimant, DPRA Ltd

9. Claim 392MC245 DE  Final Hearing due 6th June 2024 initiated 2nd April 2023

10. Claim 436MC445 SF Final Hearing due 6th June 2024

11. Claim 436MC448 DE  Final Hearing, waiting a hearing date, initiated 12th August 2023

12. Claim 290MC724 DE Final Hearing case adjourned by claimant after 2 years 3 days. Waiting for a further new hearing date.

The Legal Position of DPRA Ltd and Freeholders as established by the Courts

DPRA Ltd holds copies of counsel’s skeleton arguments to the cases together with their own pleadings, that they can make available to any resident seeking clarity.  Court transcripts of hearings are also available via court transcribers. It is only with full knowledge of the law and the outcomes of the cases that residents can properly assess any proposal put forward by the directors of DPRA Ltd. 

This is a short summary:

1.The principle of Halsall and Brizell does not apply because the estate’s original properties hold inherent rights over the estate roads from necessity as the estate was developed for housing in the era of motorised vehicles. No Deed of Grant with DPRA Ltd was therefore needed for residents to enjoy the rights of way, nor will be needed in the future.

2. The principle was further defined by the courts in the 1990s that the burden and benefit had to be conferred together.   Judge Ginesi, in DPRA Ltd’s very first claim explains:

"......it is necessary for the principles in Halsall v Brizell to apply that the benefit and burden of the right of way was conferred in the same transaction….."

“in fact it would be rather odd if the owners did have a right of way at that time and notwithstanding the same, they then entered into a deed of covenant which repeated the right which they already thought they had and went on to agree to pay the costs of maintenance”

3. As now has been proven to the courts, the rights of way did indeed pre-date the Deeds of Grant so nullifying any claim under Halsall. The road is also legally a “Public Highway” as it has been accessed by the public since the estate’s inception, a  period in excess of 20 years  The public have full right of way over the estate road as do the residents.

4. The Articles of Association do not form a contract with the dwelling holder, as Company Articles cannot control a third party, the role of the-dwelling holder being separate to that of a shareholder.

5 The wording of the Deeds of Grant,  does not allow for charges for items that fall outside of maintenance such as administrative expenses, legal and court fees, meeting rooms, improvements and other sundry expenditure;  charges cannot be made in advance of expenditure and must be substantiated by invoices of items claimed.  However, as previously explained in 1-3, the Deeds of Grants do not apply to Old Domewood properties.

Counsel for the defendants has concluded that given the outcome of the cases that were argued on legal submissions only  (i.e. matters decided on the relevant law)  there is no prospect of success for DPRA Ltd in the remaining outstanding cases and all should rightly be discontinued.  To continue would be a misuse of court resources and of resident’s funds  and may result in punitive costs for DPRA Ltd who are relying on the very same basis of claims that have already been dismissed by the court.

                                                                                             ---0---0---0--- 

 

Sunday 17th December

To All Resident Freeholders of Old Domewood:

We wish to address several pertinent issues concerning our Old Domewood Estate. Recently, we have noted the unexplained removal of the estate's message board. Additionally,  an unsigned and defamatory letter was received from a single household, purportedly to include an individual resident who claims to be an officer of DPRA Ltd.

In light of these events, we encourage all residents to critically evaluate why such actions, potentially orchestrated by DPRA Ltd, aim to hinder the dissemination of information about your rights as freeholders.

It is essential to be aware that the Articles of Association do not constitute legally binding contracts between you, as freeholders, and DPRA Ltd. This has been substantiated in recent legal judgements, which both rejected DPRA Ltd's claims of enforceability.

Should these Articles have been legally binding (which they are not), it would imply that the freeholders tacitly consent to DPRA Ltd unilaterally imposing charges. This interpretation was acknowledged by the judge in light of the arguments presented by legal counsel during the last hearing.

Importantly, for freeholders of the original properties within the estate, there is no legal obligation to accept any deed with DPRA Ltd, due to pre-existing rights of way, and implied by necessity. That the original properties enjoy rights of way was a point upheld by the Judge at the latest hearing.

To any freeholder contemplating selling their property in Old Domewood, it is vital to thoroughly understand the legalities specific to your property. We strongly advise against relying solely on DPRA Ltd's assertions and recommend seeking independent legal advice before entering into any agreements with DPRA Ltd.

In closing, we urge vigilance in protecting your rights and property value. Entering into a one-sided agreement with DPRA Ltd could negatively impact future sales, particularly as such arrangements are likely to be viewed unfavourably by lenders and solicitors representing potential buyers. 

With best wishes for the festive season,

DDRA