Shaken residents are demanding answers from their estate management firm after workers bolted a “massive makeshift plank of wood” to the front of a site vehicle they say turned it into a “weapon on wheels”.

Stuart Fields says it’s a miracle no one was hurt in Ingress Park, Greenhithe by the buggy - which had no horn and was modified on-site by FirstPort staff without professional input.

He believes it could have led to a “catastrophic incident” when it careered down a path narrowly missing dog walkers.

Mr Fields, whose partner was among those forced to leap out the way, understands the wooden block was fixed to the front of the agricultural rough terrain vehicle (RTV) so workers could push heavy refuse bins up a ramp on the Greenhithe estate rather than do it by hand.

But, he claims, the adapted buggy, which also had no seatbelts, front headlights or flashing beacons at the time of the incident, quickly became a “weapon on wheels” when it encountered walkers on a public section of the estate which he argues it should never have been on.

He added: “The driver didn’t stop, and careered in front of them.

“It was coming down at speed. You imagine a vehicle coming at you with a plank of wood on the front.

“It was absolutely wreckless, it was totally irresponsible and so dangerous.”

FirstPort says it is investigating the incident which saw police interview a man under caution.

In a letter seen by KentOnline sent to Mr Fields last month, from FirstPort operations director Jamie Turnbull, the company admit it was an “improvisation made on site”.

He wrote: “A piece of wood attached to the RTV to protect it while pushing the bins up the ramp on a weekly basis is not the manufacturers intended use of the RTV, however the team have used the vehicle carefully in this way while team members provide oversite, for several years and it has never resulted in any accidents.”

The letter goes on to address Mr Fields’ concerns the buggy was not designed for public spaces.

Mr Turnbull continued: “It has also been brought to my attention that the RTV is used across different areas on the site and due to the terrain and topography it is required to cross public roads and access ways to get to private areas of the development.

“I asked the team to investigate how the vehicle was registered and understand if it has been registered for the correct use as The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 define an ‘agricultural motor vehicle’ as a motor vehicle which is constructed or adapted for use off roads for the purpose of agriculture, horticulture or forestry and which is primarily used for one or more of those purposes.

“Upon review, I note the vehicle is mainly used on the private grounds, but I have asked the team to contact the DVLA to ensure that the vehicle has been registered correctly and for its intended purpose.”

Mr Turnbull went on to say: “In addition to the above, our Health and Safety team advised that we fit some basic safety features such as a flashing beacon, horn, front headlights and seat belts.

“We are exploring these options in a cost-effective manner and looking at additional options such as leasing or purchasing a different vehicle which will satisfy all requirements of the vehicle being able to be used on both public and private roads.”

The furious flat-owner, who reported November’s events to the police says the incident is one of a long list of complaints neighbours have about FirstPort’s operations on-site.

The management company is responsible for maintaining shared spaces in many of the blocks of flats and grounds around the picturesque riverside estate.

They can’t justify where any of this money is being spent

With monthly service charges often running into hundreds of pounds per flat, Stuart says home owners are increasingly incensed at the lack of work being done to keep their living spaces up-to-scratch while problems with water leaks, mould, broken lights and unkept areas persist.

Stuart, who bought off plan in 2006, added: “We are paying for the tea, coffee and sugar for the office.

“£500 for a footpath we didn’t even have.

“They can’t justify where any of this money is being spent.

“I wouldn’t mind paying my £300 if there was marks they fix … if I wasn’t cleaning the bin shed.”

Service charges – or estate management fees – for homeowners living in new-build properties are increasingly commonplace.

But the practice is contentious, with residents who are paying for the upkeep of communal areas, on top of their council tax, often finding they have little control over how much they're charged or where the cash might go.

Just this week the government announced proposals to ban new leasehold flats in England and Wales, under plans to reform home ownership, that would abolish third-party landlords and instead see homeowners themselves own a share of and have control over buildings they live in.

More than 40 Ingress Park residents recently turned out for a public meeting where Stuart Fields says he heard accounts of people’s mortgage renewal offers falling through because they can’t obtain the necessary documents from FirstPort in time.

Others are struggling to sell because potential buyers are put off by the “astronomical” fees, which can be as high as £600 a month.

“People are struggling to sell their houses because buyers are looking at these charges and thinking ‘I cannot afford that’,” he added.

“People are saying they’re absolutely trapped.”

Alex Ingram lives in a flat in Capability Way with his girlfriend Eve and a room mate.

Shortly before Christmas the 28-year-old received from FirstPort an “adjusted” bill asking for money to cover £7,000 of electricity for communal service lighting dating back to the financial year 2023/2024.

But Alex, who adds he wasn’t living in the flat at the start of that time period, said no proof of the electricity usage came with the letter asking him for £1,000 — and with more than 20 apartments most likely billed for money he believes the amount FirstPort is asking for must exceed the £7,000 he has been told is outstanding.

From studying accounts he also questions whether money in reserve funds could cover-off the unexpected charge — on top of the £600 a month he already pays — without residents needing to part with more cash.

“I haven’t paid this charge, I don’t think it’s reasonable” he said.

“But I have not had any official answers to my questions.”

Alex’s decision not to settle the extra bill without more information saw FirstPort add a further £90 administration fee for delayed payment.

It’s a charge he’s since successfully lobbied to have removed but yet he says he remains in the dark as to why the firm wants £1,000 from him alone and responses from the management firm have now dried up.

“For a year they couldn’t even fix the downstairs lights” he said.

“I don’t know what the money is being used for. What are we paying for?

“I am told our service charge is astronomical compared to other places.

“It’s an expensive place to live.”

Other residents agree and say they feel out of control when it comes to knowing — and having a say — in where their money is spent.

Alex’s neighbour Verity Martin currently pays £7,000 a year to FirstPort in service charges - up from £2,500 in 2018.

She remains in dispute with FirstPort over repairs to her block’s roof which, she says, leaseholders have been told is damage that is exempt from insurance cover and so has resulted in further demands for thousands of pounds.

In a trawl of FirstPort’s ‘analysis of expenditure’ documents she requested, Verity says alongside understandable utility costs are payments for private medical insurance, credit card bills, staff uniform, office stationary and petty cash — which they contribute to but don’t have any say or control over.

Where developments have staff on site, says FirstPort, it is standard practice for staffing costs to be factored into service charges, as part of the management agreement.

But Verity added: “What are we paying for? I have got no idea.

“Meanwhile the roof still isn’t fixed and upstairs have water pouring in when it rains.”

Police did investigate the incident involving the modified vehicle and confirmed officers interviewed a man under caution but the force says the case didn’t meet the “evidential test” for a criminal charge.

Dartford councillor for Greenhithe and Knockhall, Carol Gale (Con), who also issued a formal complaint to FirstPort about the use of the buggy, says the RTV has since been removed.

But she remains concerned about the service residents are receiving for the money they pay and the lack of meaningful communication.

“It was very frightening. One of the residents is quite scared to go around Ingress Park” she explained.

“It does worry me, there are so many things that are not being done and not being addressed.”

When an unresolved water leak led to a “cotton like” fungus growing in the stairwells of Clarinda House, Cllr Gale revealed she resorted to drafting in Dartford council for advice so frustrated was she communicating with FirstPort.

She explained: “It was an ongoing leak but there was something growing so we got Environmental Health in.

“There’s damp problems that have been going on for so long. The damp is eating into the fabric of the building.

“It’s putting people’s health at risk.”

Cllr Gale, who says her casework has never been so busy, says she regularly has residents on the phone in tears worried about issues like damp and mould or because they’ve received unexpected demands from FirstPort for extra money or additional bills they don’t understand.

“We have had residents in tears who were told if they didn’t pay within two weeks they will be taken to court,” she added.

“These are people that I know, people who go out to work, pay their debts, look after their property.

“People were saying they just can’t do it. It’s heartbreaking. It’s destroying some people’s mental health.”

In one case, Cllr Gale - who is also a director with the residents’ own Ingress Park General Management Company - says a resident discovered they actually had two accounts on their FirstPort payment portal and were being charged for maintenance connected to a garage they didn’t have and which had never been built.

In other cases, she says, people’s monthly service charges to FirstPort now exceed their mortgage payments, so expensive are the direct debits, which is putting people under immense pressure at a time when energy bills, council tax and water bills are all set to rise.

It’s heartbreaking. It’s destroying some people’s mental health

She says her suggestion that FirstPort meet individually with residents in “surgery-style” meetings face-to-face have fallen on deaf ears.

“We would like to see transparency in these service charges,” she explained. “People don’t understand them. They are not clear.

“People call up, they speak to different people, and they never get to the bottom of it.

“They are not getting the answers.

“People are being sent huge documents and huge bills.

“The whole system is a complete mess and it’s not acceptable.”

FirstPort is the largest property management company in the UK, with contracts for more than 5,000 developments — including many across Kent.

The firm has faced criticism in other parts of the country over its “rip-off” charges, with a group of Labour MPs — including Dartford’s Jim Dickson — recently writing to express their “grave concerns”.

The company was also reportedly slapped with a three-month ban recently from its own trade body The Property Institute.

A spokesperson for the company said: “We are in regular dialogue with homeowners at Ingress Park and have been ensuring that they are kept updated on the proactive steps that we are taking to address the matters raised.”

Ingress Park is not the only Kent development where FirstPort customers are unhappy.

Earlier this month FirstPort was forced to freeze the accounts of residents living at a development in Folkestone as it urgently investigated “inconsistencies” in how much people were being asked to pay.

At Shorncliffe Heights, where former army barracks are being turned into 1,200 homes, some families say they’ve been faced with “astronomical fees”.

And at the start of this year, fed-up FirstPort customers in Faversham worked together to stop the firm from running their new-build estate.

In a revolt over rising fees, and with people receiving wildly varying invoices, those living at the new 400-home Faversham Lakes site managed to give the company the boot with developer Anderson instead carrying out maintenance itself from last month.

Cllr Gale says that is an option Ingress Park leaseholders are exploring, with one block of flats potentially in a position to press-ahead in the not-too-distant future.

But with blocks needing to secure a certain percentage of a vote to take back control she says issues can arise in cases where there are “absent landlords” who are not around to take part in discussions or proceedings.