u/Lanskiiii

For some of us, our exercises (with qualifying heart rates) stopped being recognised in the Vitality app in February. This means that even when the day's step count was below 12,500, a long strenuous exercise did not show up in the app to give you the 8 points. I don't recall if we ever got to the bottom of the issue but I can confirm that it's still affecting me.

Does anyone have any updates on resolving it? I use Samsung Fit and wonder if it's to do with porting the exercises into it via Healthsync. This wasn't an issue pre-February though. Did anyone succeed in getting it fixed or get a response from Vitality?

Hi all,

I'm a leaseholder of an apartment in England and my block has recently taken over the management company and appointed directors to its Board. I'm in a strange situation where I'm being treated in a way that seems to defy numerous legal and ethical principles, but I would really appreciate some guidance on where to start.

The management company has recently informed us that they are to begin works to upgrade all residents car park spaces (which we bought and paid for) with EV charging stations, funded via the service charge and a grant (which unhelpfully keeps the SC contribution under the magic £250/leaseholder). All spaces except mine.

The reason is that mine does not sit next to a wall or structural column, so it would need a ground mounted charger, which is possible to install at minimal cost, but they just haven't decided to. As it happens, as part of my former role on the residents committee I obtained a quote from the EV company they are using to do this, confirming that they could install chargers for all residents without issue.

My concern is that I paid a huge amount for my parking space and once it becomes the only one in the lot without a charger, and once EVs become the norm, it will be worth very little (and also possibly pretty useless to me).

It seems that there should be a responsibility for the RTM company/directors to:

1. Treat all leaseholders fairly and equally

2. Treat all shareholders equally (I'm a shareholder in the company)

3. Protect the value of all leaseholder's property

4. Not impose a loss on an individual leaseholder

On a personal note, this just feels so unfair and unethical. When this question originally came to the Residents Committee, I was asked if I wanted to switch my space with someone else's before it became a problem. My response was absolutely not, and that we had a responsibility to ensure all the residents were looked after, treated fairly, and their property was protected. It seems sad that these principles are no longer being applied. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.