Our story about homeowners on private estates facing uncapped fees for maintaining communal areas prompted a stream of responses

Last month Guardian Money revealed how thousands of homeowners, who bought on “unadopted” private estates, face escalating costs after developers sold off management contracts to private companies in what many describe as “fleecehold”. Following our report we were contacted by many homebuyers with tales of woe – but one name seemed to feature more than any other: Greenbelt.

Greenbelt is a Glasgow-based company responsible for maintaining the communal areas of about 550 developments, home to 52,000 households across Scotland and the north of England, with another 30,000 due to join the company shortly.

The allegations against Greenbelt seen by Money largely consist of overcharging and under-delivering on its obligations. The firm vigorously denies the allegations.

Typically, Greenbelt owns or maintains the communal areas – normally patches of grass or children’s play areas – on private estates not adopted by the local council. It arranges for necessary work to be done and then splits costs between the properties on each development.

We have been contacted by English homeowners with gripes about Greenbelt on estates in Leeds, Bradford, Middlesbrough and Bedale; and, in Scotland, estates in Kilmarnock, Kirkcaldy, Edinburgh and Menstrie.

The complaints follow a broadly similar pattern. When they bought their homes, most were aware they would have to chip in for maintenance of the estate’s communal areas by way of “burdens” – additional responsibilities and/or obligations written into their title deeds.

However, some householders say that costs escalated and service levels fell, with some questioning the legality of their agreements.

In many cases the patches of land are relatively small. For example, on the Brookdale estate in Aiskew, near Bedale, North Yorkshire, it is just an area of grass and a small play area. In 2017 the 90 homes on the estate paid a total of £7,380 to maintain it.

Michael Marriott bought his house on the West Myreton estate in Menstrie, near Stirling, from Bett Homes (now Avant) in 2005.

“Our deeds contained a detailed maintenance specification, with a cap on cost increases – with the exception of every fifth year,” he claims.

“We had very little in the way of maintenance, above-inflation rises and a large number of charges.”

Under normal “factoring” laws in Scotland it should have been possible for Marriott and his neighbours to sack Greenbelt as property managers but, as it owned the land as well as managing it, the company could not be dismissed. Marriott set up a lobby group, Greenbelt Group Action, in 2007 and a long legal battle, including visits to Westminster, the Scottish government, and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, ensued.

Marriott argued that the burden in his title deeds was unenforceable. He eventually won the case in 2015 on a technicality, with the tribunal finding the “burden” was invalid because there was uncertainty as to what comprised the open ground.

Since Marriott’s court case, the deeds for his estate have been made invalid and it has become a test case for Scottish homeowners (the law is different in England).

Greenbelt accuses Marriott of waging “a war of misinformation and defamation” against the company.

But Marriott is not the only unhappy Greenbelt customer.

A Facebook group titled “Unhappy Owners Against Greenbelt Group” has more than 700 members, while reviews site Trustpilot plays host to more than 100 Greenbelt reviews, with the company awarded just one star – the lowest possible rating.

Greenbelt rejects the criticisms and says it achieves “a very high level of customer satisfaction all across the UK”. It says that out of the 52,000 households, representing about 150,000 residents, its customer care team received 7,747 inquiries in 2016-17, adding: “This year, to date, we have had 1,000 fewer inquiries than this time last year.” It adds that only 0.25% of cases are resolved through court action.

Greenbelt says it is aware of the Facebook group and claims the discussion posts contain “disingenuous, often defamatory statements” as well as “profane, threatening and offensive comments” about its staff.

It says on some occasions it has been forced to apply its “unacceptable actions policy”, which involves restricting contact to senior staff or stopping contact altogether.

Following Marriott’s test case, burdens on properties on six estates have subsequently been declared invalid by Registers of Scotland (which maintains Scotland’s land register), freeing some homeowners from paying Greenbelt further.

However, some claim Greenbelt has continued to issue bills.

Gary Gardiner bought a 10-year-old house on a private estate in Kilmarnock, East Ayrshire, in 2013.

Greenbelt owns and maintains the small amount of communal land, including two play areas.

In January 2016, unhappy with the work done, Gardiner refused to pay a £175 bill, claiming Greenbelt failed to provide a breakdown of tasks completed and any justification of the costs – something Greenbelt denies.

Gardiner says Greenbelt started court proceedings over the unpaid bill and he, in turn, applied to Registers of Scotland to have his title deeds reviewed.

In December 2016 the department found a “manifest inaccuracy” within his deeds and updated them to make the burden invalid and the Greenbelt fee unenforceable. “The play parks have never been fit for use as they do not have the proper matting installed as per the council’s planning consents from 2005, and Greenbelt has refused to rectify this unless the residents agree to pay for it,” says Gardiner, who works as a project manager for a major company.

“Despite my own, and my neighbours’ title deeds being made invalid, Greenbelt is continuing to charge us for its poor services, and many of my neighbours are scared to stop paying due to the threatening letters that non-payers tend to receive.”

Greenbelt claims Gardiner’s estate is well-managed and maintained. It says it is in the process of challenging the decision and that it will continue to provide a service until an outcome is achieved.

Another resident, who wishes to remain anonymous, lives on an estate in Kirkcaldy, Fife, and has also had the Greenbelt burden in his property deeds declared invalid. But he says he is still being billed by Greenbelt, and claims that maintenance charges increased by 45% in seven years.

“In return, we have received an ever-deteriorating standard of maintenance: the play park doesn’t appear to have seen any maintenance in the seven years we have been here, play equipment is tired and worn out, rubber safety surface has peeled away at the edges leaving concrete exposed, and woodland areas are overgrown and full of rubbish,” he says.

“The bills also include ridiculously high charges for inspections – what are they inspecting, given that nothing ever gets fixed? – and for planting of new shrubs and trees. I’ve never seen any new shrubs or trees.”

In response to his allegations, Greenbelt says the facilities are “maintained regularly and to a high standard”, but adds: “The development is effectively ‘on hold’ until any challenge to the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland’s decision is made and an outcome determined by means of a Lands Tribunal.

“This means that, while we continue to provide a full service and therefore send out bills as normal, we are not pursuing for outstanding debt.”