The Grand Folkestone: Residents Report Utility Billing Disputes, High Energy Charges and Unresolved Fire Door and Corridor Lighting Concerns

Residents at The Grand in Folkestone have contacted us with a new set of concerns about day-to-day management of the building — including what they describe as long-running problems with how utilities are metered and billed, alongside complaints about fire-door works being prioritised inside flats while communal fire doors and corridor lighting remain unreliable.

The messages follow our recent reporting of enforcement action linked to unpaid electricity and a court judgment against the residents’ company. But the latest accounts shift the focus from one large debt to something more persistent: whether the building’s basic systems — and the governance around them — are fit for purpose.

“Inadequate” metering — and a legacy residents say never ended

One resident describes what they believe is an historic hangover from when parts of the building operated as a hotel-style “system”, arguing that utilities arrangements were not merely confusing but potentially unfair.

They told us they had to “fight” to be separated from the building’s wider water arrangement after moving in around three years ago. According to their account, two water companies took almost a year to disentangle a private flat from what they say was a legacy registration linked to the building’s former set-up.

The resident’s central question is blunt: if a private flat was still tied into an old “system” years later, what exactly had been registered — and what had not — and why did it take so long to correct?

These are allegations and perceptions from residents, but they point to a serious issue: in any mixed-use or historically complex building, unclear metering and account responsibility can create the perfect conditions for disputes, delays, and unexpected bills.

A £500 summer gas bill — and nearly a year to resolve

The same resident describes a separate episode involving gas charges, which they say was only resolved last year. They claim they were billed £500+ for a single month’s gas in a one-bedroom flat, during July, which they describe as a summer month.

They told us it took almost a year to resolve the issue, and that the building’s managing arrangements and those responsible for oversight “were not interested”.

Whether the underlying cause was metering, tariff, estimated readings, account allocation, or a supplier error, the practical impact is what matters to residents: a household bill that felt wildly out of proportion, followed by a long, exhausting dispute.

Fire doors: £900 requested inside flats — while communal doors “do not close at all”

Residents also raise concerns about what they see as skewed priorities on fire safety and maintenance.

According to one account, leaseholders are currently being asked to replace brush seals around flat entrance doors — described to them as “fire doors” — at a cost of roughly £900, using suppliers approved by the building’s management.

At the same time, the resident says corridor fire doors do not close properly, frequently jam, and sometimes fail to close at all. They also describe corridor lighting sensors that do not activate until someone is near the point of exit — leaving sections of corridor dark, particularly in winter.

They say they have reported these issues and that “experts” have visited, but that practical fixes have not followed.

This is, potentially, the most alarming element of the complaints. In plain English: residents accept that flat entrance doors matter — but they are asking why they are being pressed to fund expensive works to their own doors while communal fire doors and lighting appear to be underperforming.

The deeper issue: accountability and responsiveness

Running through the resident correspondence is a repeated frustration: not simply that problems exist, but that residents feel they are being left to carry the burden of chasing them.

One resident asked whether the building has truly moved on from its past difficulties, or whether leaseholders are now facing “ego based inexperienced management” — a pointed phrase, but one that reflects a wider theme in large blocks: when things go wrong, residents want to know who is responsible, who is checking the work, and how decisions are being made.

Even where residents disagree with one another, the basics they typically want are the same:

• clear accountability for utilities, with transparent metering and billing responsibility;

• prompt action on safety-critical communal issues;

• service charge demands that are properly explained, evidenced, and fairly allocated.

What leaseholders typically need to see in black and white

Without making assumptions about the specific contracts at this building, residents raising these kinds of concerns generally need clear documentary answers:

On utilities

• What meters exist (and where), what each meter serves, and who is responsible for each account.

• Whether any flats are still tied to a legacy arrangement, and if so, what the plan and timetable is to rectify it.

• A reconciliation showing how charges are apportioned, with readings and dates.

On fire safety and works

• The most recent fire risk assessment findings relevant to doors and lighting in escape routes.

• Evidence that communal fire doors close correctly and are maintained as part of routine checks.

• A clear explanation of why brush seals are required, whether alternatives exist, and why the proposed cost is considered reasonable.

On governance

• Who signed off the scope and cost of works, what quotes were obtained, and how residents can scrutinise that process.

A simple public-interest question

For residents, this is not an abstract debate about building management theory. It is about money and safety — unexpected bills, prolonged disputes, and common areas that do not function as residents believe they should.

If utilities systems are genuinely still tangled in a legacy “hotel” configuration years later, that is not a minor inconvenience. And if communal doors and corridor lighting are not reliably working while expensive works are being pushed onto leaseholders, it is entirely reasonable for residents to ask: are priorities being set correctly, and is anyone effectively supervising the basics?

Next steps

We have not named any individuals and we are not asserting wrongdoing. We are reporting concerns raised to us by residents. We have approached this as a matter of public interest because the themes — utilities accountability, service charge pressure, and fire-safety maintenance — are exactly the areas where poor governance can cause real harm.

If further residents wish to contact us, we will continue to collate accounts and compare them against the paper trail: the building’s stated arrangements, the service charge demands, and the evidence for how and why costs are being allocated.

And one question will keep coming up until it is answered plainly: who is in control of the basics at The Grand — and how are residents supposed to know they can trust the system?

If you have story you think we should be telling then please do contact us at: TheShepwayVoxTeam@proton.me – Always Discreet, Always Confidential

The Shepway Vox Team

Discernibly Different Dissent