'It costs us £1,400 to park on our own property'
BBC North West Investigations
BBC
Homeowners found they were being billed £1,400 to park in the spaces that came with their own houses.
Residents of Tavington Road and Applewood Grove in Halewood, Merseyside, said while their homes were freehold, their parking spaces were leased and managed by a company called FirstPort.
One homeowner has to pay £370 a year just to drive up a 100ft (300m) service road to park on his own driveway.
The company told the BBC some "additional fees were mistakenly charged", but the residents said they were unconvinced by the firm's claim they would be given "credit notes" for the extra fees paid.
Google
The residents paid about £300 for "maintenance" of their parking spaces, but this has more than quadrupled.
Greg Morgan, 39, said: "We've all asked repeatedly for copies of the audited accounts to see what the money is being spent on, and we keep getting fobbed off.
"It's got to the point now where I'm paying this company as much as two additional mortgage payments a year, people are thinking of selling and leaving here."
Some of the residents said they were also being charged for the cost of running a block of flats nearby, even though none of them lived in it.
Letters seen by the BBC showed bills for cleaning, maintaining gates and fire safety equipment, carpets and even terrorism insurance for the flats, Applewood Court.
The homeowners said they had also received letters warning them about leaving bikes in the hallways.
Scott Traynor, 48, said: "The problem is quite clear, they're treating the freehold homes and the leasehold block of flats as the same development, but they're not."
Google
Applewood Grove resident Mr Traynor said the price he paid for using the service road to get to his own driveway had gone up from £250 in 2007 to about £370 now.
He said: "What bothers us all is that we keep getting additional charges and when you ask for details they talk about Applewood Court, which is a separate block of flats."
Linda Eccleston, who has lived on Tavington Road for last 18 years, said: "If all the additional fees we've paid are for that small car park, I want to know exactly what has been done to warrant those increases.
"I've asked repeatedly for meetings with the site manager, but he hasn't turned up."
Graham Perrins, 58, who lives next door to Mr Morgan on Tavington Road, said: "It's got to the point where I've had the conversation with my wife about selling up.
"It drives me to despair because I don't know what bill I'm going to expect each year.
"I don't know what I'm actually paying for, and I can't get hold of anyone to explain properly."
The residents said they were now investigating whether they could raise the money to buy the parking area and operate it themselves.
FirstPort told the BBC it managed the homes on Tavington Road, Applewood Grove and the block of flats, Applewood Court, as one development.
But it said homeowners "only contributed to cover the general maintenance and insurance of the estate, such as the car park, not any costs associated with the management of the apartment block".
FirstPort said fee increases in recent years had been due to rises in the real estate insurance market but said prices were starting to come down now.
It added: "This will be reflected in the service charge invoice for the year ending March 2025."
The firm said the large additional fees reported by homeowners last year were due to "human error".
"This was an isolated occurrence, which is now being rectified," the spokesman said.
Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas to northwest.newsonline@bbc.co.uk and via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.
Halewood
Liverpool
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
3 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of foreign aid on asylum support this year
The Home Office plans to spend about £2.2 billion of foreign aid to support asylum seekers this financial year, according to new figures. The amount of overseas development assistance (ODA) budgeted by the Home Office – which is largely used to cover accommodation costs such as hotels for asylum seekers – is slightly less than the £2.3 billion it spent in 2024/25. International rules allow countries to count first-year costs of supporting refugees as overseas development assistance (ODA). The figures, first reported by the BBC, were published in recent days on the Home Office website. The Home Office said it is 'urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs' which will cut the amount spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. It also said it was expected to have saved £500 million in asylum support costs in the last financial year, and that this had saved £200 million in ODA which had been passed back to the Treasury. A total of 32,345 asylum seekers were being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March this year. This figure is down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079, and 6% lower than the 34,530 at the same point a year earlier. Asylum seekers and their families are housed in temporary accommodation if they are waiting for the outcome of a claim or an appeal and have been assessed as not being able to support themselves independently. They are housed in hotels if there is not enough space in accommodation provided by local authorities or other organisations. Labour has previously said it is 'committed to end the use of asylum hotels over time', adding that under the previous Conservative government at one stage 'more than 400 hotels were in use and almost £9 million per day was being spent'. Jo White, chairwoman of the Red Wall group of Labour MPs, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday: 'We need to be looking at things like ECHR article eight. I don't think anything's off the table … including looking at new options such as processing abroad. 'So, we have to be open to see how we can move move that backlog as quickly as possible. I'm getting impatient. 'I know my colleagues in parliament are getting impatient and we're pressing the Government as hard as we can on this.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure and are urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs. 'This will ultimately reduce the amount of official development assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. 'We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4 billion by 2026. 'The Rwanda scheme also wasted £700 million to remove just four volunteers – instead, we have surged removals to nearly 30,000 since the election, are giving law enforcement new counter-terror style powers, and increasing intelligence sharing through our Border Security Command to tackle the heart of the issue, vile people-smuggling gangs.'
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of foreign aid on asylum support this year
The Home Office plans to spend about £2.2 billion of foreign aid to support asylum seekers this financial year, according to new figures. The amount of overseas development assistance (ODA) budgeted by the Home Office – which is largely used to cover accommodation costs such as hotels for asylum seekers – is slightly less than the £2.3 billion it spent in 2024/25. International rules allow countries to count first-year costs of supporting refugees as overseas development assistance (ODA). The figures, first reported by the BBC, were published in recent days on the Home Office website. The Home Office said it is 'urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs' which will cut the amount spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. It also said it was expected to have saved £500 million in asylum support costs in the last financial year, and that this had saved £200 million in ODA which had been passed back to the Treasury. A total of 32,345 asylum seekers were being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March this year. This figure is down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079, and 6% lower than the 34,530 at the same point a year earlier. Asylum seekers and their families are housed in temporary accommodation if they are waiting for the outcome of a claim or an appeal and have been assessed as not being able to support themselves independently. They are housed in hotels if there is not enough space in accommodation provided by local authorities or other organisations. Labour has previously said it is 'committed to end the use of asylum hotels over time', adding that under the previous Conservative government at one stage 'more than 400 hotels were in use and almost £9 million per day was being spent'. Jo White, chairwoman of the Red Wall group of Labour MPs, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday: 'We need to be looking at things like ECHR article eight. I don't think anything's off the table … including looking at new options such as processing abroad. 'So, we have to be open to see how we can move move that backlog as quickly as possible. I'm getting impatient. 'I know my colleagues in parliament are getting impatient and we're pressing the Government as hard as we can on this.' A Home Office spokesperson said: 'We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure and are urgently taking action to restore order and reduce costs. 'This will ultimately reduce the amount of official development assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. 'We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4 billion by 2026. 'The Rwanda scheme also wasted £700 million to remove just four volunteers – instead, we have surged removals to nearly 30,000 since the election, are giving law enforcement new counter-terror style powers, and increasing intelligence sharing through our Border Security Command to tackle the heart of the issue, vile people-smuggling gangs.'
Telegraph
7 hours ago
- Telegraph
Why the BBC thinks it can get Labour to give it more funding
Tim Davie struck a gloomy tone when discussing the BBC's finances on Tuesday, as he renewed calls for extra funding. 'I want proper investment and not begrudging, grinding cuts to the BBC, which you've had in the last 10 years, which have just not helped,' the director general said. The timing of his comments was key. Davie is currently locked in talks with ministers ahead of the BBC's Charter renewal in 2027, as he fights for the future of the licence fee. Bosses in W1A acknowledge that the funding model requires reform in the modern media age. But how this will affect the BBC's stretched finances is a critical question as it continues to lose viewers at an alarming rate. Identity crisis The licence fee has existed in some guise since the BBC's launch in 1922, when the government decided the new broadcaster should be publicly funded. This, the corporation says, allows its UK output to remain 'free of advertisements and independent of shareholder and political interest'. While the BBC was initially limited to radio services, the first combined radio and TV licence was issued in 1946 for £2. Fast-forward to the 21st century and the BBC has transformed from a fledgling broadcaster into a public service behemoth. Income from the licence fee stood at £3.7bn last year, a significant chunk of the UK's entertainment and media market, which is valued at around £100bn by PwC. However, this scale does not tell the full story. With the emergence of streaming rivals such as Netflix and Disney, as well as social media platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, the BBC is facing an identity crisis. While the public service broadcaster continues to dominate the UK media space – around 86pc of adults consume its services each week, according to the latest Ofcom figures – it is losing ground. This is particularly acute among 16 to 24-year-olds, who spend just 5pc of their in-home video time with the BBC, compared to the 23pc for over-35s. Waning interest has meant lower income as viewers vote with their feet. The number of households paying the licence fee dropped to 23.9m last year – a 500,000 fall that sucked £80m from the BBC's budget. The figure is 2.3m lower than the peak of 26.2m between 2017 and 2019. Cost is likely to be a factor. At £174.50 per year, the licence fee comes in at around £14.50 a month. That compares to £5.99 a month for Netflix's ad tier, or £12.99 for its standard ad-free service. Disney charges £4.99 with ads and £8.99 without. While the BBC argues it offers good value for money given the breadth of its service, this is unlikely to win over apathetic youngsters who consider Auntie irrelevant. The fall in licence fee payers is not the only driving force behind the BBC's squeezed finances, however. Over the last 15 years, repeated government interventions have taken their toll. In 2010, George Osborne announced the licence fee would be frozen for seven years at £145.50. Nadine Dorries, former culture secretary, then froze the levy again in 2022, even as inflation surged. The fee will now increase in line with inflation until the end of the Charter in 2027, but only after another Tory culture secretary, Lucy Frazer, stepped in to prevent a 9pc – or £15 – rise amid concerns it would fuel the cost of living crisis. Adding further strain to the budget, the government in 2015 forced the BBC to take over the cost of providing free licence fees to the over-75s, while it also handed over the main burden of funding the World Service. Analysis shows that Government interference, coupled with a decline in licence fee payers, amounts to a real-terms decrease of around 30pc – or £1.4bn – in the broadcaster's domestic funding over the last 15 years. The question, then, is how to plug the gap. Davie has been wielding the axe on both staff and programming as he seeks to strip £700m from the BBC's annual budget. Yet this whittling down of resources has fuelled anger and concern about the impact on the quality of the broadcaster's output, with spending on new shows poised to fall by £150m this year. The BBC has also ramped up enforcement of the licence fee, with 41m warnings sent out in the 2024 financial year – an increase of almost 13pc year on year. Another method championed by Davie, the former BBC Studios boss, is to boost the broadcaster's commercial income to help balance the books. Measures so far have included taking full control of BritBox International, the BBC's joint streaming venture with ITV, after buying out its rival for £225m. The BBC has also struck a co-production deal with Disney to air Doctor Who overseas, worth an estimated $100m (£73m). But other schemes, such as its plan to run adverts around radio and podcast output, have been scrapped in the face of fierce opposition from commercial rivals. Despite its bold aims, the BBC's commercial income fell to £1.7bn last year from just under £2bn the year before. Overall, the BBC is forecasting a £33m deficit for the coming year. While this is down from the eye-watering £500m shortfall the previous year, it highlights the ongoing strain on the corporation's finances. It is against this precarious backdrop that the BBC has entered discussions with the Government. Ministers have made it clear, however, that reform, or even scrapping, of the licence fee is top of the agenda. While the licence fee is now lower as a proportion of average household income – 0.46pc last year compared to 0.64pc in 2012 – the levy is facing scrutiny in a world where viewers have a plethora of entertainment options. What's more, the licence fee is regressive, with poorer households paying more relative to their income and women disproportionately prosecuted for not paying. So if the licence fee were to be scrapped, what could take its place? One option is replacing it with a subscription model, similar to those of streaming services. However, critics have warned that such a move risks undermining the BBC's ability to serve its audiences and would limit the scope of its output. 'A subscription funding model would be antithetical to the BBC's public service mission, necessarily ending universality of access and undermining its breadth of content,' said analysts at Enders Analysis. Similarly, funding the BBC through advertising has been viewed as a non-starter as it would draw too much money away from the commercial TV and radio sector. Both Davie and Samir Shah, the BBC chairman, have pushed to retain the licence fee with reforms, acknowledging the shortcomings of a regressive flat tax. But what would this look like? Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, has pushed back against the idea of funding the BBC through general taxation, saying it would leave the broadcaster exposed to political interference. Another option is a household tax similar to the one used in Germany. This would boost the BBC's income by widening the payment of the licence fee to all households, rather than just those who use its services. It could also be linked to council tax bands, creating a more progressive system where wealthier households pay more. Other options under consideration include linking the levy to broadband bills – a measure that would take on particular relevance as Britain prepares to switch off terrestrial TV and move to a streaming-only model. It is thought that any of these reforms would reduce the rate of evasion, though ministers will no doubt be reluctant to introduce new taxes, especially in light of the upcoming spending review. In a speech last month, Davie said: 'When it comes to funding, we are not asking for the status quo. We want modernisation and reform. But in doing so, we must safeguard universality.' Alternatively, as the BBC's Charter comes up for renewal, ministers could opt for a bolder rethink. The corporation retains its Reithian principles to inform, educate and entertain. But in the modern age, does the BBC still need to be all things to all people? Some industry watchers note that the BBC could drop some of its more peripheral services, such as its education unit Bitesize. BBC bosses are themselves alive to this possibility, and the broadcaster in March launched its largest ever public survey to ask audiences what they want from the broadcaster in the future. A more radical view espoused by a number of industry bigwigs is a merger between the UK's public service broadcasters. Sir Peter Bazalgette, the former chairman of ITV, says: 'There's no doubt in my mind that there ought to be mergers between domestic broadcasters, not just in England, but right across Europe, in order for those broadcasters to survive and have big enough businesses in their streaming services.' Speaking at a conference in London this week, Sony Pictures international boss Wayne Garvie said: 'We've got five public service broadcasters in Britain. The rest of the world might have one. 'It is unsustainable and the future has got to be, surely, Channel 4 and the BBC coming together.' The idea of slimming down the BBC or combining it with its rivals will no doubt rankle supporters who view the universality of access as a key tenet of its purpose. But as competition grows and audiences continue to defect, it is clear the status quo cannot continue.
