A group of 24 Labour MPs have invited FirstPort to Westminster to address “consistent complaints” about the property manager in their constituencies.
The MPs say that they have all “received similar complaints” from constituents.
These are listed are:
“Service charges have risen very significantly with little or no explanation and that FirstPort has repeated failed to respond adequately to requests for summaries or evidence.”
“There have been particular concerns raised about the charges your company is levying for insurance and the lack of transparency around the role your internal insurance brokerage, Knight Square, plays.
“The standards of service … have consistently been poor and do not justify the aggressive increases in service charges.
“Communications have been poor and there is little consultation before major works are carried out.
“FirstPort has often been unresponsive to residents’ concerns and complaints and escalation to head office has proven ineffective.”
The letter is addressed to FirstPort managing director Martin King.
FirstPort has long been the biggest leasehold property manager in the country, and began life as a sleepy estate agency in New Milton in Hampshire, rising to prominence as the manager of the retirement sites of McCarthy and Stone.
It has gone through several ownerships, belonging to financier Vincent Tchenguiz, who owned 1% of all the residential freeholds in the country, until his arrest with his brother Robert by the Serious Fraud Office in 2010. A subsequent judicial review found the arrests to be wrong. FirstPort is currently owned by private equity investors.
It may no longer be the largest property manager in the country as Swedish group Odevo has been hoovering up management companies, most recently Encore
The letter is below:
Related posts:
FirstPort ‘spy’ leaves company after infiltrating leaseholders’ group on Facebook
ARMA rules against FirstPort Retirement …
80% of Londoners like living in a flat, even ones run by FirstPort
Cooee! Peverel becomes FirstPort and heading for ARMA-Q … But will it be welcome?
French resi service group Emeria clears out FirstPort management in take-over
After begging to keep ground rents, why is McCarthy and Stone saying it now supports commonhold?
I trust that Mr King will attend Parliament and address those “consistent complaints” to those Members of Parliament with supporting evidence.
The geographical spread of the signatories to that letter suggests to me that this is a National issue and not a isolated local one.
I recently shared some statistics and figures with my Member of Parliament, Chris Webb, the analysis was a comparison of a dozen or so local residential apartment blocks service charges. Any reasonable person may notice that RTM Companys pay significantly less in service charge compared to others.
On further analysis it becomes clear that some RTM Companys achieve better deals on building insurance, management fees and the cost for building maintenance and other services.
The ever growing number of Landlords who actively support Right to Manage no longer surprises me. Value for money is demanded in return for goods and services provided and notjing less, competition is essential in my opinion
I live in a Extra Care Community in Harrogate. We own our flats. We pay Service Charge, wellbeing charge and ground rent. Service charges are accounted for. But we are now paying for lack of ongoing maintenance in past. I believe. Plus contractors come time and time again to do repairs. The Wellbeing charge is NOT accounted for and been told it never will be as they don’t have to have accounts by Law?
I love my flat. But had I known what I know now I would never have moved here. In 2021 monthly charge £731 steadily gone up to £1017 per month. Next year will be more due to recent Budget.
Am worried. Am a 77year old disabled widow.
It’s a shame that the invitation didn’t also extend to ‘Remus Property Management Ltd’. Many residents have shared similar frustrations regarding their lack of transparency, particularly around service charges and the costs passed on for services that are not delivered. For example, there have been numerous instances where cleaning contractors reportedly fail to attend, yet residents are still charged as if the work was carried out.
Additionally, the lack of proper consultation or detailed information regarding Section 20 major works is deeply concerning. Residents are often left in the dark about the scope, costs, and justifications for significant expenditures, leading to widespread distrust. Combined with their consistently poor customer service and unresponsiveness to complaints, it’s clear that these issues are not isolated to one property management company.
Extending accountability to companies like ‘Remus Property Management Ltd’ would help ensure that all leaseholders are treated fairly and with the respect they deserve.
To Ann Townsen
With regards to your point that First Port informed you that they do not have to provide accounts, what does your lease , a legally binding contract on the Parties to it, say about your entitlement.
It suggests your service charge is not protected in a statutory section 42 LTA 85 trust account in the name of your landlord or management company as landlord.
You are legally entitled under s 21 LTA 85 Act to inspect accounts and Leasehold Advisory Service has templates of Section 21 Notices to be served on your landlord or management company as landlord
They should also invite Churchill Living’s Churchill Estates Management.
Complaints of maladministration of Section 20 includes –
Knowingly and intentionally providing inaccurate documents to leaseholders.
Refusal to ackwnowledge or consider observations that part of the works tender was contrary to the leases.
Refusal to respond that one of two estimates presented to leaseholders was for a different development elsewhere.!
They would not even accept formal complaints regarding the above as to do with section 20!
I have had a leak for 5 years in my bedroom, which has become worse this sat 23rd. Clearly the roof needs fixing properly, I have been told the gutters overflowing, the wind blows the rain in. I’m now having to live in my front room and sleep on a ZBed. Im now going to seek legal advice now as I’ve had enough , I want compensation, this is a horrendous situation, my anxiety levels and mental health is not good. I didn’t sign up to live under slum landlords and crooks that are First Port.
Pauline,
I suggest that you also write to your Member of Parliament and include the above statement. The situation that you find your self in is disgraceful in my opinion.
It is no wonder that quality lobbyists are being hired to mitigate or deflect from the true state of Britain’s broken housing market by Freeholders and others.
It has been suggested to me that the lobbyists costs will paid for by Leaseholders? I know this statement sounds absurd and ridiculous, but could it be true?
FirstPort, and other managing agents, have been attending meetings in Parliament over many years. Most of these meetings are not publicly reported but several have helped resolve individual cases. However, FirstPort seems determined to keep its reputation as the property managers habitual recidivist. I first helped make them write a letter of apology to all ARMA managing agents over a decade ago. At the time they claimed their failure to meet the standards expected in the sector, not a high bar, was due to “historic” problems with their accounting systems. Working with some of the pensioners we helped drive the CMA investigation into collusive tendering in FirstPorts retirement developments that too was blamed on historic issues. Recently LKP trustee Liam Spender has been in the tribunal over excessive service charges. FP tactics remain the same denying fault and not making the best of efforts to disclose evidence. No doubt when FP meet a new set of MPs they will blame everything on historic issues and people who have moved on. Looking at some of their now senior staff they are some of those who the Tribunals decided had done a very poor job at my site a long time ago. The current senior management stopped engaging with LKP not long after ex ARMA CEO Glen became a member of the European private equity company that now owns FP. Glen is something to do with the groups ethical governance policies -Many FP customers might think this a distant future project – they may well be right.
Martin,
Thank you for sharing those illuminating factual details about the modus operamdi of that firm.
You write ” Their failure to meet the standards expected in the sector, not a high bar, was due to “historic” problems”
I believe that this largely unregulated industry sector is the “Wild West” of Britains economy and is completely out of control, and must be abolished.
I am have friends who are quality landlords and managing agents who I would not hesitate to recommend to others.
That obviously does not include the above or any firm featured on the LKP “DATA BASE OF SHAME”.
I seriously doubt that “firstport – peverell – valley sands” explanations will be accepted by this Government.
Any firm can be given one chance or more to get their act together, a decade or more is not acceptable in my opinion.
I am concerned about the “predictive text replys” that they appear to offer to any failure, concern or response to any genuine enquiry to their valued customers?
I hope that when that firm are held to account their answers are made public for all to read?
I would love for their answers to be made public however i doubt this will happen as for every answer they give there will be hundreds of Firstport leaseholders who can dispute their lies and provide truthful examples.