To the homeowners and Members of the
Spinney Hill Management Company Ltd.
A few weeks ago you received the Directors’ ‘Update – July 2026’. It contained comments, in respect of ‘taking ownership of the maintained areas’, which were an inaccurate and unfair account of one resident’s ‘opposition’ to ‘the plan’ (you may find it useful to re-read the Update). The ‘resident’ is me and I need to set the record straight. I did ask the Directors to circulate my response but they declined – which is why I am hand-delivering it.
I am not objecting to ‘the plan’. I am in favour of the transfer of the land from Jeakins Weir to the Spinney Hill (Oakham) Management Company if it is in the best interests of the Company’s members. That is not yet entirely clear and my website ‘Spinney Hill Notes’ suggests aspects of the transfer we should consider before voting.
The Update claims that I ‘threatened to place a restriction with the land registry to prevent the transfer going ahead’. What actually happened is this.
At the Owners’ Meeting on 6th May 2026, the Directors stated that the acquisition of the land had been approved by a vote taken at the 2025 AGM. I pointed out this was incorrect (the vote was at an Owners’ Meeting). I was told to put my case in writing, which I did – and received no response. It appeared that the land transfer was to go ahead without further reference to the Members.
On 25th May, in the interests of complete transparency, and as a last resort, I gave the Directors a draft of an objection (on multiple grounds) that I could possibly make to the Land Registrar, if an application was made to register a transfer of ownership. In this draft, my proposed request to the Land Registrar would be that the transfer should be permitted only after it had been approved by the Membership at a General Meeting (GM). Just that, nothing else.
In giving the Directors the draft of my possible approach to the Registrar, I also proposed meeting to discuss our differences and perhaps find solutions – which is what the Registrar would first require, should an objection be filed. I have since repeated that proposal but there has been no such meeting.
Instead, as the July Residents Update reports, the Directors sought legal advice (at ‘additional cost’) and ‘the upshot’ is a decision to hold a General Meeting – which is what the Directors had persistently avoided, what I have long been pressing for, and what the Companies Act requires. I think we should see what that advice was.
My call for the land transfer to be considered and voted on at a General Meeting of the Company seems to have been answered. And yet some concern remains, since the Residents Update refers to ‘ratifying’ the vote taken at the 2025 and 2026 Owners’ Meetings. Ratify implies there will be no debate, and Members will only be asked to legitimise the 2025 ‘vote’. There was no vote at the 2026 Owners’ Meeting.
You will have read in the Residents Update that I have been asked to ‘submit a written objection to be sent out with the EGM announcement’. I have no ‘objections’ but I will write to explain why the 2025 vote was invalid.
In my report I will also set out the possible consequences of the general public having access to our communal areas. I will suggest what remedies might be available, and report on my communications with the Council and the Local Government Ombudsman.
In Spinney Hill Notes I suggest some of the liabilities that might come with ownership of the land. Hopefully, prior to the GM, the Directors will release to the Membership the legal advice they have obtained about those liabilities and explain why, on balance, owning the land will be of benefit.
I will suggest that there should be prior negotiations with Jeakins Weir. There are concessions we might be able to obtain.
I am not the villain presented in the Residents Update. Remember, all I would have asked the Registrar to agree with was that the Members should be allowed to vote at a GM - which is what the law requires anyway. That is now possible, perhaps because of the legal advice the Directors were given.
Mike Nason
3rd Aug 2026 (amended 18th August)