RESIDENTS living on a Herefordshire housing development feel they’re being ripped off by rising costs for cutting a modest piece of grass beside their homes.

With householders at Kington Park paying more than £134 annually to Meadfleet, who manage the development’s communal areas, there is increasing anger that thousands of pounds are going into the company’s pockets for maintaining a tennis court-sized lawn and a 30-foot hedgerow.

Amid widespread concerns that these ongoing maintenance fees are being slipped into the deeds of new-build freehold properties, residents at Kington are dismayed to find themselves tied in to increasingly costly charges.

At first, households were charged £34.50 every six months by Meadfleet, though that figure has now risen to more than £134 a year in line with inflation.

On top of these worries, they are also fearful of difficulties written into the small print when it comes to selling their homes.

“We’re paying so much money in to cut a bit of grass,” said Peter Collins who was among the first to buy at Kington Park eight years ago.

“We are tied into a contract that nobody knew about,” he said.

The views of Mr Collins and his wife are echoed by other worried residents living on the development.

Their plight is shared by homeowners all over the country who have bought new-build homes from the UK’s biggest developers.

Before the first owners bought their homes at Kington in 2010, they claim they were led to believe the land management charges would contribute towards a ‘sinking fund’ against costs of future repairs to a soakaway beneath the communal grassed section.

All private home owners have to pay Meadfleet whether they are connected to the soakaway or not.

Since then, they have discovered that any costs incurred in relation to the soakaway must be borne by them. Resident Ian Spencer claimed, in a letter to Meadfleet, that the company had chosen not to set up a fund.

“They will simply charge the residents at the time for any costs they have to pay,” he said.

“We are bound to Meadfleet by our deeds of covenant with no right to transfer our business to a rival land management company if we are unhappy with the quality of their service or their level of fees.”

A spokesperson for Meadfleet said the company policy was to “engage with homeowners by way of a deed of covenant thus ensuring the open space areas are managed for the lifetime of the development”.

Meadfleet had not charged residents for a sinking fund, she said.

“Should we have included a sinking fund contribution on a site, this would be itemised on residents’ invoices.” The Meadfleet model offered “value for money”, and on the question of selling properties the company said it had dealt with 11 new purchasers since 2012 who have all signed the deeds.

“We are keen to work with residents wherever possible,” she added.