OFT price-fixing cheat Glyn Jackson is back at Peverel sites

Glyn Jackson Communications escaped £35,700 fine from OFT over bogus tendering by going into liquidation. Now a new company, Safeguard, is at work at the Adelphi site in Harrogate

Glyn Jackson Communications escaped £35,700 fine from OFT over bogus tendering by going into liquidation. Now a new company, Safeguard, is at work at the Adelphi site in Harrogate

Eight months after the Office of Fair Trading revealed the Cirrus collusive tendering scandal, scamming contractor Glyn Jackson is again working on retirement sites managed by Peverel.

Glyn Jackson, whose company did not pay an OFT fine of £35,700 after going into liquidation,, is this week installing similar electronic systems with a new company at the Adelphi retirement site in Harrogate.

It was reported that Glyn Jackson, based in Conisbrough in Doncaster, was also employed at an unnamed site in Essex, also managed by Peverel.

The inept and protracted OFT inquiry into the Cirrus scandal – for which Peverel was disgracefully granted “leniency” – found that Peverel had cheated pensioners in £1.4 million tenders at 65 retirement sites.

The archive of Carlex stories on this scandal is here

The OFT website with the collusive tendering ruling is here

Glyn Jackson Communication’s role was to make bogus pitches for business by bidding slightly higher than Peverel’s Cirrus subsidiary, which then won all the contracts.

Glyn Jackson Communications Limited, of which Glyn Jackson and Jayne Michelle Jackson were directors, went into liquidation in September 2012 while the OFT inquiry was in progress.

But in April 2012 they had already become directors of Safeguard Communication Systems Limited.

Safeguard is being employed by a subcontractor at Adelphi. Peverel says this was without its knowledge and Glyn Jackson will not be employed again.

On Monday Carlex / LKP was contacted by an anonymous caller who was indignant that a proven price-fixing cheat was again working at Peverel sites. We contacted Peverel for an explanation.

Its full statement is below.

The OFT inquiry into the Cirrus scandal involved tendering scams between 2005 and 2009 – for most of which period Peverel, Cirrus and, of course, the retirement site freeholds themselves  belonged to the Tchenguiz Family Trust. The scams predated Tchenguiz’s ownership of Peverel / Cirrus in late 2006.

The scandal has prompted Sir Peter Bottomley to say that there was ‘possible criminal behaviour involving Peverel’ over the tendering scams

More here

The other stooge companies involved in the Cirrus scandal were Peter O’Rourke Electrical, based in York, whose directors were Peter Alan O’Rourke and Tracey Sandra O’Rourke. It went into administration in June 2012 and so avoided fines of £15,933.

Only Owens Installations, based in Dorchester, is still operating with directors Jeremy David Owen and Joanne Owens. It – alone – paid a fine of £1,777.

Owen is the only person involved in the cartel – including past and present Cirrus operatives – who has expressed any remorse for cheating the most vulnerable and dependent in the community.

Of course, the prime culprit was Peverel / Cirrus itself, which escaped scot-free thanks to the OFT accepting the absurdity that Peverel had somehow turned itself in and therefore qualified for “leniency”.

Janet Entwistle, Peverel CEO, has assured Sir Peter Bottomley and Carlex that all those involved in the collusive tendering have now left the company.

At a meeting with Sir Peter and Carlex on February 10, Entwistle backed Andy Davey, Peverel’s “director of business excellence”, who was appointed head of Cirrus in 2007 – at the height of the collusive tendering scandal.

She assured the meeting that all those involved in the practice had now left the company.

The OFT decision to grant Peverel “leniency” in December 2009– and then to begin the inquiry a leisurely 18 months later – has infuriated politicians.

Carlex had urged the authorities to act long before Peverel’s change of heart, including LibDem MP Ed Davey, now the Energy Secretary.

The Times newspaper even outlined the scam in detail on December 4 2009. Nonethless, the OFT – now dissolved – accepted that Peverel had turned itself in.

NigelBannisterA month before Peverel accepted that the game was up its chief executive Nigel Bannister was quoted in The Times on November 7 2009 saying:

“People are reading a conspiracy into a problem that isn’t there. We use Cirrus because it is an excellent service.”

Nigel [Gordon] Bannister is now a director of Hawthorns Retirement UK Limited, Hawthorns Retirement Management Limited, Hawthorns Eastbourne Limited, Holiday Retirement (Eastbourne) Limited, Hawthorns Braintree Limited.

He is also a director of Freemont Property Managers Limited along with Keith (Alan) Edgar, another former managing director of Peverel Retirement and Philip James Cummings, also an ex-Peverel executive.

Peverel’s statement to Carlex

Peverel Retirement uses independent third parties to manage tenders for all major works. Peverel Retirement has instructed these independent third parties not to issue any new work to Peter O’Rourke Electrical Limited, Owens Installations Limited, Glyn Jackson Communications Limited or any new companies that their previous management are now running.

At The Adelphi, after the independently-run tender process, residents chose Goldshield to install their new emergency call upgrade system.

Unfortunately, we have discovered [On being informed by Carlex] that Glyn Jackson was subcontracted by Goldshield to carry out part of the work at The Adelphi without our knowledge. We have raised this with Goldshield and its management team has confirmed it will not subcontract any work to Glyn Jackson or Safeguard at any Peverel Retirement developments in the future.

We are reviewing our internal processes with a view to ensuring that this doesn’t happen again at any Peverel managed site.

Sign up for LKP newsletters

To achieve victory in the leasehold game – where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well – stay informed with the LKP newsletter

Comments

  1. Karen says

    Why do they bother even putting pen to paper to apologise… everyone knows it will all happen again and again until the law is changed to stop these people operating in this or any other industry.
    The British legal system is again being abused and circumvented and most in the Government can see it going on but does nothing…..

  2. Michael Epstein says

    So Peverel Retirement (a trading name) now admit they do not have a clue as to the identity of who is working on their developments?

    • says

      Michael,
      When you mention a four-letter word such as WORK this has been known to reverberate around the Senior Peverel Management.

      If it is enlarged to state WORKING on their developments, does this include THE ******* amongst the Senior Management as well?

      The ******* stands for workers not what you thought?

  3. AM says

    Well they wouldn’t know the names of every individual operative and its rare that specialists/subcontractors are banned or must be named or identifed except in special circumstances, common say in public buildings where tenders have extensive provision for identification.

    • Michael Epstein says

      AM,
      Whilst i accept Peverel could not be expected to know the identity of every individual working on a development, they should be aware of the names of each company that have ben sub-contracted for work.. It is rare indeed for a company to be banned by Peverel.
      After very poor work and after proof was supplied that false specifications were given, one such firm . G.PF Lewis was banned from ever working on one development, (though Peverel still use them for others).
      Oddly following their ban, another firm attended the development (Westminster Decorators Ltd) who just happen to share an address with GPF Lewis!

  4. says

    Michael, Karen and AM,

    How many other contracts have Safeguard Communications Services Ltd Sub-Contracted for any Peverel Company.

    The Peverel Companies may own the development and be either known as Freeholder (Head Lessor) will be shown on the lease)

    Landlord (Lessor) shown on the lease, this could be Peverel under another name such as a Meridian Housing Retirement or a similar name.

    Managing Agent (Peverel Management Services Ltd) trading as Peverel Retirement (Peverel Retirement Ltd is NON TRADING)???

    It has taken me 2 years to have a small understanding of how they have managed to create such confusion as is necessary to cause the regular residents, mind to boggle.

    If any resident is aware that similar work has been carried out, by the main Contractor Goldshield.

    We can then check how many other developments Glyn Jackson has worked on since 2012?

    The cost of the OFT investigation was £500,000.00 which should be added to the cost for Warden Call Systems and Fire Alarm Systems as we paid for the OFT investigation?

    The fines that were levied some £57,000, actually only received £1,777.00 from Owens Communications who are still trading, are they working for Peverel Retirement.

    Cirrus Is still the main contractor that Peverel Retirement use:-

    WHY ARE PEVEREL RETIREMENT STILL USING A CONTACTOR WHO INSTGATED THE PRICE FIXING AND HAVE MADE A GREAT PLAY TO PREVENT GLYN JACKSON FROM SUB-CONTRACTING?

  5. Karen says

    How has this company obtained Indemnity Insurance if they have gone into liquidation?
    Who is their Indemnity with?
    Do their insurers (if they have insurance) know of their jagged past?
    I wonder if Peverel have even checked to see if they have insurance!
    We are talking about having trades people into elderly and vulnerable peoples homes…..

  6. says

    Karen how right you are?

    Following on from the Peverel/Cirrus/Glyn Jackson Fiasco.

    Peverel’s Statement to Carlex

    Peverel Retirement uses independent third parties to manage tenders for all major works. Peverel Retirement has instructed these independent third parties not to issue any new work to Peter O’Rourke Electrical Limited, Owens Installations Limited, Glyn Jackson Communications Limited or any new companies that their previous management are now running.
    ——————————————————————————————-
    Charles Says:
    The Independent Third Parties were introduced after Keith Edgar made 250 redundancies in 200/10. They informed us that Peverel Retirement would still be able to manage the works. Peverel Retirement intended bringing in Building Surveying Contractors who would undertake the larger Contracts for a mere 10% of the contact Sums. Peverel Retirement did not reduce any Management Fees, the fees were left as they were, with Peverel Services Ltd saving MILLIONS OF POUNDS ON WAGES FOR THEIR STAFF?
    ——————————————————————————————-
    Peverel Cont.
    At The Adelphi, after the independently-run tender process, residents chose Goldshield to install their new emergency call upgrade system.
    ——————————————————————————————-
    Charles Says:
    Note the third and forth using of the word (Independent) – Run Tender to emphasise that they have changed and are now listening?
    ——————————————————————————————-
    Peverel Cont.
    Unfortunately, we have discovered [On being informed by Carlex] that Glyn Jackson was subcontracted by Goldshield to carry out part of the work at The Adelphi without our knowledge. We have raised this with Goldshield and its management team has confirmed it will not subcontract any work to Glyn Jackson or Safeguard at any Peverel Retirement developments in the future.
    ——————————————————————————————-
    Charles Says:
    Does this mean that Glyn Jackson can carry on undertaking the works on The Adelphi?
    Does this mean that Glyn Jackson can undertake any of the contracts already signed?
    How many other contracts have Glyn Jackson or O`Rourke and Owens been allowed to sub-contract?
    Remember Friends, when Cirrus /Glyn Jackson won the contracts, Glyn Jackson undertook the work at a discounted price so Peverel were able to name their own price and then sub- contract making more money
    than they would have if they had undertaken the works themselves???
    ——————————————————————————————-
    Peverel Cont.
    We are reviewing our internal processes with a view to ensuring that this doesn’t happen again at any Peverel managed site.
    ——————————————————————————————-
    Charles Says:
    Why after 2009/10 are they only now reviewing internal processes to see this doesn’t happen again. How many times has this been said over the past 9 years in the LVT and now the FTT.

    The words Peverel Managed Site in the same sentence, leaves me shell shocked.

    Comments

    • says

      FURTHER TO THE PEVEREL RETIMENT STATEMENT:

      “Peverel Retirement has instructed these independent third parties not to issue any new work to Peter O’Rourke Electrical Limited, Owens Installations Limited, Glyn Jackson Communications Limited or any new companies that their previous management are now running.”

      Charles Says:
      Note, Peverel use of the words Independent THREE TIMES to emphasise their credibility? AND FAILS TO MENTION THE NEW NAME OF GLYN JACKSONS NEW COMPANY?

      Peverel Cont.
      “At The Adelphi, after the independently-run tender process, residents chose Goldshield to install their new emergency call upgrade system.”

      Charles Says:
      HOW WERE ADELPHI RESIDENTS ABLE TO CHOOSE GOLDSHIELD AS THE CONTRACT WAS SENT OUT TO TENDER?

  7. says

    This article was seen on the Charter Quay Residents Association Website regarding the Tchenguiz Brothers and the Peverel Group of Companies.

    Charles Says:

    1.One of the main reasons why leaseholders need to know about the structure of this group is to be aware if the managing agent is complying with regulation 7.4 of the RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code.

    This regulation obliges the managing agent to obtain at least two estimates for qualifying works “at least one of which must be from a firm wholly unconnected with you or the landlord”.

    Clearly if leaseholders do not know which companies are related to a landlord or managing agent there is no way they can know if regulation 7.4 is being correctly applied.

    If Peverel according to 7.4 of RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code must have:- “at least one of which must be from a firm wholly unconnected with you or the landlord”.

    When Peverel/Cirrus sent out tender’s for our Warden Call System in 2007, both Cirrus Communications and Glyn Jackson were not wholly unconnected as both Cirrus/Jackson were previously employed by Peverel as Sub-Contractors and had Price Fixed contracts so how were they wholly unconnected?

    • AM says

      The acop is only guidance and the requirement for “at least one etc” is in fact from s 20, LTA 1985. Wholly unconnected has long been determined as referring not as you say having conspired with , sorry, worked with, them before, but where there is some form of shared or common ownership management or other connection that would conflict with tenders being obtained that are fair and reasonable.

      To follow through on your argument might that mean that no contractor could be used more than once? :)

      While Cirrus are not wholly unconnected as their services are not qualifying works sct 20 and therefore the acop does not apply in this case. they only fall under s 19 for costs and scope in general being fair and reasonable.

  8. says

    martin from Carlex says:

    August 28, 2014 at 10:14 pm

    The Tchenguiz structure document was always intended to be an article set at a particular time. When started we did not know we were about to record the group as part of it fell into administration. The document attempted to detail almost all the group structure as it was understood at the time. A small group of companies were omitted from the list just in case others borrowed it for their own uses.

    The notes were always intended to highlight some of the key issues. The inter company deals which we knew were happening on our site, but were also happening on many others, is the one you mention. It’s sad that three years later the notes still have relevance, despite the fact the sector has a raft of new initiatives, customer charters, standards compliance, best practice, fully supportive of all initiatives to raise standards, codes of practice and awards galore.

    Yet the systems were not in place to prevent Mr Jackson, who is just a bit-part player, from slipping back into the system.

    What we did not publish was the list of common directors, but as you might guess many names cropped up time and again across the group companies.

    As has been made clear by Peverel, no member of staff linked to the bid-rigging remains with the group, no senior member of staff was aware of the practice and no director knew about the practice.

    For five years a bunch of unnamed, rogue employees supposedly just ran a bid-rigging system with nobody having any idea what was going on, especially in Peverel Retirement.

    That is, even though they signed off those 65 deals spread across the country and an unknown number of other contracts where the OFT asserts bid-rigging may have occurred.

    In contrast, the judge in the last s27 Charter Quay case recorded about the property manager and our door entry system:

    “(a) that she had not read the contracts;
    “(b) that she had not obtained quotations from other contractors;
    “(c) that she has made no attempt to negotiate the terms of the contract

    “In effect she simply signed what Interphone put in front of her.”

    Her submission was that at her level employees did not know these companies were part of the group.

    This begs the question that if the junior staff did not know about these things, and it is claimed that the senior staff did not know either, who did?

    Or has someone been telling fibs?

    As the judge said, it was astonishing that systems were not in place to tell employees they were going to enter contracts with related companies.

    Reply

  9. says

    At a meeting with Sir Peter Bottomley and Carlex on February 10, Janet Entwistle backed Andy Davey, Peverel’s “Director of Business Excellence”, was appointed head of Cirrus Communications in 2007 – at the height of the collusive tendering scandal.

    Yet, Andy Davey is now “Director of Business Excellence” at Peverel.

    Janet Entwistle assured the meeting that all those involved in the practice had now left the company???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>