Fwd: Millbrook Park CHP Failures
RTA5759HDD
From: Sean Ridley <Sean....@taylorwimpey.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 7:42 AM
Subject: Millbrook Park CHP Failures
To: rta57...@gmail.com <rta57...@gmail.com>
Dear Residents,
Thank you for your letter dated 9 December 2025 and your follow-up on 9 February 2026. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding. As Managing Director at Taylor Wimpey North Thames, I am writing to address your concerns regarding the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system.
We recognise that the issues with the CHP system have caused disruption and inconvenience, and we appreciate the impact this has had on residents.
In April 2024, we agreed to fund the replacement of the boilers and the permanent CHP system in order to help ensure residents had a reliable supply of heating and hot water. This was done in good faith, as we understood the earlier boiler failures to be linked to a lack of appropriate maintenance.
While we funded the works, the replacement was instructed and overseen by FirstPort in their capacity as the appointed managing agent responsible for the operation and maintenance of the plant. The contractors who carried out the installation were appointed through FirstPort’s management arrangements. As the works were not undertaken by our original subcontractors, and were not procured under a Taylor Wimpey contract, Taylor Wimpey does not hold a warranty for that installation. Responsibility for the installation contract, associated warranties and any ongoing maintenance or callouts therefore sits with FirstPort and their appointed contractors.
For background, before FirstPort’s appointment, Mainstay was the management company responsible for 55 Henry Darlot Drive, where the plant room is located. During that time, they were responsible for maintenance and did not permit Taylor Wimpey access to the plant room. When management transferred to FirstPort, we attended the site if requested; however, responsibility for maintenance remained with the managing agent and its contractors.
The shared CHP system was installed in line with the approved design for the wider development. From the outset, it was designed with sufficient capacity to serve the whole development, and it was always intended that future phases would connect to the central plant as part of a coordinated, long-term approach, rather than installing separate standalone systems.
Regarding the independent review, we understand you may be referring to the inspection carried out by FirstPort’s appointed plumbers. Taylor Wimpey did not commission a separate independent review prior to the replacement works. If you would like a copy of any review or report held by FirstPort, we would recommend requesting this directly from them, as they are responsible for managing the system and liaising with contractors.
In relation to the day-to-day operation of the plant and how costs are allocated, Taylor Wimpey does not have ongoing responsibility. This includes fuel costs, temporary plant costs and the way service charges are apportioned. These matters are managed by FirstPort as the appointed managing agent. We understand they are currently reviewing residents’ concerns and are best placed to respond to questions about service charges, operational issues and any impacts from neighbouring buildings, including Garrison Heights. As a result, we are not able to determine or amend how these costs are divided.
We fully appreciate that this situation has been frustrating for residents. While we will continue to provide reasonable assistance where appropriate, responsibility for the ongoing operation, maintenance, and cost allocation of the CHP system rests with the management company. We would therefore encourage you to continue liaising directly with FirstPort in relation to these matters.
I trust this clarifies our position regarding the CHP system. Should you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards
Sean Ridley | Managing Director | Taylor Wimpey North Thames
The Dock, Station Road, Kings Langley, WD4 8LZ
m: 0208 236 3800: sean....@taylorwimpey.com
Taylor Wimpey North Thames is a division of Taylor Wimpey UK Limited
Think before you print!
This e-mail and its attachments are confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message or any part of it without the prior permission of the sender. If you have received this in error please inform the sender and immediately delete the message.
Use of your personal information
Taylor Wimpey takes data protection very seriously and the privacy notice that will apply to our use of your personal information can be found at www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/privacy-policy
Taylor Wimpey plc (Registered No. 296805) and Taylor Wimpey UK Limited (Registered No. 1392762) are each registered in England and Wales with their registered office at Gate House, Turnpike Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3NR.
Abbey Beyene
Dear Sean,
Thank you for your response of 20 February.
The central point remains unaddressed.
The CHP system failed in January 2024. Leaseholders exchanged between December 2021 and September 2022. The development was therefore well within the two-year build warranty period (to September 2024).
This was a complete infrastructure failure during warranty.
You suggest that the earlier failures were linked to a lack of appropriate maintenance. That position is difficult to reconcile with a system requiring full replacement within 18–24 months of occupation.
We know the CHP unit serving our buildings had been operational since at least 2017. It was not newly installed at the point of our purchases, yet it was presented to buyers as part of a new, centrally designed energy solution for a newly built development.
If, as you state, the system had been subject to poor or inappropriate maintenance prior to our occupation, that only deepens concern. Leaseholders were sold homes on the basis of new core infrastructure, when in fact the central energy plant was an existing asset that had already been in operation for several years and, by your own account, may not have been appropriately maintained.
That plant then failed within the warranty period, and leaseholders are now being required to bear the financial consequences of its failure.
Leaseholders purchased properties on the basis of a newly constructed development with new core infrastructure. The failure of a pre-existing energy plant within the warranty period raises serious concerns regarding disclosure and the adequacy of the installation relied upon.
Following the January 2024 failure:
Temporary plant was installed solely because the system failed within warranty
Leaseholders continued to be billed for gas via Energy Centric
Leaseholders are now exposed to temporary plant and associated fuel costs arising directly from that warranty-period failure
If a central energy system fails within warranty, the reasonable expectation is that the full consequences are remedied, including temporary plant and fuel, not selectively absorbed.
Both Taylor Wimpey and FirstPort now appear to be redirecting responsibility to the other.
Taylor Wimpey appointed the managing agent and retains the position of landlord. Are we to understand that Taylor Wimpey is relinquishing oversight responsibility for the agents it appointed, and that leaseholders are expected to bear the full financial consequences of:
A pre-existing energy asset sold as part of a new development
A complete system failure within the warranty period
Temporary and fuel costs arising from that failure
We request a clear and direct response on these points.
We look forward to your timely reply.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RTAHDD57&59 Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtahdd5759-commi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rtahdd5759-committee/CAGJdT9WqUQA-E38f5medEyNoF4f2x1BeMR8qD_ajNJVgigzwwg%40mail.gmail.com.
Eva Ip
Leaseholders are now exposed to temporary plant/boiler and associated emergency call-out, fuel, and all the costs arising directly from that warranty-period failure, except for the replacement of the boilers which FP claimed they have credited back through the balance sheet, but is not visible at all in our service accounts
Temporary plant/boiler and all associated call-out, fuel, and all the costs arising from that failure
That plant then failed within the warranty period, and leaseholders are now being required to bear the financial consequences of its failure. We do not consider that TW and FP have entered into lease agreements with us in good faith.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rtahdd5759-committee/49933730.3253081.1771962796974%40mail.yahoo.com.
Penny Venner
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rtahdd5759-committee/CADOe9Fs6S1HaBHLaz%3DneY_iKO6fKjUweJh3oxwcoF%3D31a51tZQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Abbey Beyene
Think before you print!
This e-mail and its attachments are confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message or any part of it without the prior permission of the sender. If you have received this in error please inform the sender and immediately delete the message.
Use of your personal information
Taylor Wimpey takes data protection very seriously and the privacy notice that will apply to our use of your personal information can be found at www.taylorwimpey.co.uk/privacy-policy
Taylor Wimpey plc (Registered No. 296805) and Taylor Wimpey UK Limited (Registered No. 1392762) are each registered in England and Wales with their registered office at Gate House, Turnpike Road, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP12 3NR.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RTAHDD57&59 Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtahdd5759-commi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rtahdd5759-committee/CAGJdT9WqUQA-E38f5medEyNoF4f2x1BeMR8qD_ajNJVgigzwwg%40mail.gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RTAHDD57&59 Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtahdd5759-commi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rtahdd5759-committee/49933730.3253081.1771962796974%40mail.yahoo.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RTAHDD57&59 Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtahdd5759-commi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rtahdd5759-committee/CADOe9Fs6S1HaBHLaz%3DneY_iKO6fKjUweJh3oxwcoF%3D31a51tZQ%40mail.gmail.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RTAHDD57&59 Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtahdd5759-commi...@googlegroups.com.
Abbey Beyene
Dear Sean,
Thank you for your response of 20 February.
The central point remains unaddressed.
The CHP system failed in January 2024. Leaseholders exchanged between December 2021 and September 2022. The development was therefore well within the two-year build warranty period (to September 2024).
This was a complete infrastructure failure during warranty.
You suggest that the earlier failures were linked to a lack of appropriate maintenance. That position is difficult to reconcile with a system requiring full replacement within 18–24 months of occupation.
We know the CHP unit serving our buildings had been operational since at least 2017. It was not newly installed at the point of our purchases, yet it was presented to buyers as part of a new, centrally designed energy solution for a newly built development.
If, as you state, the system had been subject to poor or inappropriate maintenance prior to our occupation, that only deepens concern. Leaseholders were sold homes on the basis of new core infrastructure, when in fact the central energy plant was an existing asset that had already been in operation for several years and, by your own account, may not have been appropriately maintained.
There is also a documented history of the fire alarm system within Garrison Heights triggering shutdowns of the boiler. When the alarm is activated, at times with notable frequency, the boiler shut down. Restarting the system was not a simple reset - it routinely required engineer attendance, replacement parts and further intervention before becoming operational again – some shut downs lasting up to 8 consecutive dates in winter months. Repeated forced shutdowns and reactive repairs inevitably placed additional strain on an already ageing plant.
As leaseholders of 57 and 59 Henry Darlot Drive, we were also charged for engineer call-outs and associated costs arising from fire alarm activations within Garrison Heights. We do not reside in that building, we have no control over its fire alarm system, and we have no responsibility for the operational failures within it. Yet costs triggered by that building’s alarm activations were allocated across the shared plant and passed on to us. That position is neither equitable nor justifiable.
While the design may, in theory, have been sufficient on paper, the operational reality has not reflected a system performing at its intended capacity. Leaseholders have experienced water temperature dropping mid-flow, an inability to fill a bath without loss of heat, and prolonged delays before hot water reaches taps, resulting in significant water waste. These are not isolated fluctuations but persistent performance issues inconsistent with a centrally designed plant operating as approved.
That plant then failed within the warranty period, and leaseholders are now being required to bear the financial consequences of its failure. We do not consider that TW and FP have entered into lease agreements with us in good faith.
Leaseholders purchased properties on the basis of a newly constructed development with new core infrastructure. The failure of a pre-existing energy plant within the warranty period raises serious concerns regarding disclosure and the adequacy of the installation relied upon.
Following the January 2024 failure:
- Temporary plant was installed solely because the system failed within warranty
- Leaseholders continued to be billed for gas via Energy Centric
· Leaseholders are now exposed to temporary plant/boiler and associated emergency call-out, fuel, and all the costs arising directly from that warranty-period failure, except for the replacement of the boilers which FP claimed they have credited back through the balance sheet, but is not visible at all in our service accounts
If a central energy system fails within warranty, the reasonable expectation is that the full consequences are remedied, including temporary plant and fuel, not selectively absorbed.
Both Taylor Wimpey and FirstPort now appear to be redirecting responsibility to the other.
Taylor Wimpey appointed the managing agent and retains the position of landlord. Are we to understand that Taylor Wimpey is relinquishing oversight responsibility for the agents it appointed, and that leaseholders are expected to bear the full financial consequences of:
- A pre-existing energy asset sold as part of a new development
- A complete system failure within the warranty period
· Temporary plant/boiler and all associated call-out, fuel, and all the costs arising from that failure
We request a clear and direct response on these points.
We look forward to your timely reply.
Penny Venner
Abbey Beyene
Dear Sean,
Thank you for your response of 20 February.
The central point remains unaddressed.
The CHP system failed in January 2024. Leaseholders exchanged between December 2021 and September 2022. The development was therefore well within the two-year build warranty period (to September 2024).
This was a complete infrastructure failure during warranty.
You suggest that the earlier failures were linked to a lack of appropriate maintenance. That position is difficult to reconcile with a system requiring full replacement within 18–24 months of occupation.
We know the CHP unit serving our buildings had been operational since at least 2017. It was not newly installed at the point of our purchases, yet it was presented to buyers as part of a new, centrally designed energy solution for a newly built development.
If, as you state, the system had been subject to poor or inappropriate maintenance prior to our occupation, that only deepens concern. Leaseholders were sold homes on the basis of new core infrastructure, when in fact the central energy plant was an existing asset that had already been in operation for several years and, by your own account, may not have been appropriately maintained.
There is also a documented history of the fire alarm system within Garrison Heights triggering shutdowns of the boiler. When the alarm is activated, at times with notable frequency, the boiler shut down. Restarting the system was not a simple reset - it routinely required engineer attendance, replacement parts and further intervention before becoming operational again – some shut downs lasting up to 8 consecutive dates in winter months. Repeated forced shutdowns and reactive repairs inevitably placed additional strain on an already ageing plant.
As leaseholders of 57 and 59 Henry Darlot Drive, we were also charged for engineer call-outs and associated costs arising from fire alarm activations within Garrison Heights. We do not reside in that building, we have no control over its fire alarm system, and we have no responsibility for the operational failures within it. Yet costs triggered by that building’s alarm activations were allocated across the shared plant and passed on to us. That position is neither equitable nor justifiable.
While the design may, in theory, have been sufficient on paper, the operational reality has not reflected a system performing at its intended capacity. Leaseholders have experienced water temperature dropping mid-flow, an inability to fill a bath without loss of heat, and prolonged delays before hot water reaches taps, resulting in significant water waste. These are not isolated fluctuations but persistent performance issues inconsistent with a centrally designed plant operating as approved.
That plant then failed within the warranty period, and leaseholders are now being required to bear the financial consequences of its failure. We do not consider that TW and FP have entered into lease agreements with us in good faith.
Leaseholders purchased properties on the basis of a newly constructed development with new core infrastructure. The failure of a pre-existing energy plant within the warranty period raises serious concerns regarding disclosure and the adequacy of the installation relied upon.
Following the January 2024 failure:
- Temporary plant was installed solely because the system failed within warranty
- Leaseholders continued to be billed for gas via Energy Centric
- Leaseholders are now exposed to temporary plant/boiler and associated emergency call-out, fuel, and all the costs arising directly from that warranty-period failure, except for the replacement of the boilers which FirstPort claimed they have credited back through the balance sheet, but is not visible at all in our service accounts
If a central energy system fails within warranty, the reasonable expectation is that the full consequences are remedied, including temporary plant and fuel, not selectively absorbed.
Both Taylor Wimpey and FirstPort now appear to be redirecting responsibility to the other.
Taylor Wimpey appointed the managing agent and retains the position of landlord. Are we to understand that Taylor Wimpey is relinquishing oversight responsibility for the agents it appointed, and that leaseholders are expected to bear the full financial consequences of:
- A pre-existing energy asset sold as part of a new development
- A complete system failure within the warranty period
- Temporary plant/boiler and all associated call-out, fuel, and all the costs arising from that failure
We request a clear and direct response on these points.
We look forward to your timely reply.
RTA5759HDD
Dear Sean,
Thank you for your response on 20th February.
The central point remains unaddressed.
The CHP system failed in January 2024. Leaseholders exchanged between December 2021 and September 2022. The development was therefore well within the two-year build warranty period (to September 2024).
This was a complete infrastructure failure during warranty.
You suggest that the earlier failures were linked to a lack of appropriate maintenance. That position is difficult to reconcile with a system requiring full replacement within 18–24 months of occupation.
We know the CHP unit serving our buildings has been operational since at least 2017. It was not newly installed at the point of our purchases, yet it was presented to buyers as part of a new, centrally designed energy solution for a newly built development.
If, as you state, the system had been subject to poor or inappropriate maintenance prior to our occupation, that only deepens concern. Leaseholders were sold homes on the basis of new core infrastructure, when in fact the central energy plant was an existing asset that had already been in operation for several years and, by your own account, may not have been appropriately maintained.
There is also a documented history of the fire alarm system within Garrison Heights triggering shutdowns of the boiler. When the alarm is activated, at times with notable frequency, the boiler shuts down. Restarting the system was not a simple reset... It routinely required engineer attendance, replacement parts and further intervention before becoming operational again with some shut downs lasting up to 8 consecutive dates in winter months. Repeated forced shutdowns and reactive repairs inevitably placed additional strain on an already ageing plant.
As leaseholders of 57 and 59 Henry Darlot Drive, we were also charged for engineer call-outs and associated costs arising from fire alarm activations within Garrison Heights. We do not reside in that building, we have no control over its fire alarm system, and we have no responsibility for the operational failures within it. Yet costs triggered by that building’s alarm activations were allocated across the shared plant and passed on to us. That position is neither equitable nor justifiable.
While the design may, in theory, have been sufficient on paper, the operational reality has not reflected a system performing at its intended capacity. Leaseholders have experienced water temperature dropping mid-flow, an inability to fill a bath without loss of heat, and prolonged delays before hot water reaches taps, resulting in significant water waste. These are not isolated fluctuations but persistent performance issues inconsistent with a centrally designed plant operating as approved.
That plant then failed within the warranty period, and leaseholders are now being required to bear the financial consequences of its failure. We do not consider that TW and FP have entered into lease agreements with us in good faith.
Leaseholders purchased properties on the basis of a newly constructed development with new core infrastructure. The failure of a pre-existing energy plant within the warranty period raises serious concerns regarding disclosure and the adequacy of the installation relied upon.
Following the January 2024 failure:
- Temporary plant was installed solely because the system failed within warranty
- Leaseholders continued to be billed for gas via Energy Centric
- Leaseholders are now exposed to temporary plant/boiler and associated emergency call-out, fuel, and all the costs arising directly from that warranty-period failure, except for the replacement of the boilers which FirstPort claimed they have credited back through the balance sheet, but is not visible at all in our service accounts
If a central energy system fails within warranty, the reasonable expectation is that the full consequences are remedied, including temporary plant and fuel, not selectively absorbed.
Both Taylor Wimpey and FirstPort now appear to be redirecting responsibility to the other.
Taylor Wimpey appointed the managing agent and retains the position of landlord. Are we to understand that Taylor Wimpey is relinquishing oversight responsibility for the agents it appointed, and that leaseholders are expected to bear the full financial consequences of:
- A pre-existing energy asset sold as part of a new development
- A complete system failure within the warranty period
- Temporary plant/boiler and all associated call-out, fuel, and all the costs arising from that failure
We request a clear and direct response on these points.
We look forward to your timely reply.