Humiliating criticism of the troubled property manager, but the path is now clear for it to apply for membership of the trade body
Pensioners at Mere Court in Knutsford were encouraged to agree to ending the inhouse manager service … but Peverel / FirstPort owned her flat and its staff were in for a commission if it were flogged off
The regulator of the Association of Residential Managing Agents (ARMA) has admonished on two counts Peverel / FirstPort Retirement, which was applying to join the organisation.
But the decision means the controversial company, whose subsidiary Cirrus was found to have run a collusive tendering racket at 65 retirement sites, is now clear to apply for membership of the organisation.
The ARMA regulator, Keith Hill, a former Labour housing minister, wrote this afternoon to Sir Peter Bottomley, MP, one of the patrons of LKP.
“In summary, the Regulatory Panel upheld two complaints against FPRS [FirstPort Retirement] in relation to the proposed sale of a house manager’s flat at Mere Court, Knutsford, in 2013 and a failure to deposit transfer fees at Hillside Court, Ormskirk.”
“However, the Panel decided that the company was free to apply for ARMA- Q accreditation. The Panel has addressed a letter of admonishment FPRS.”
Both complaints have been extensively reported by the Campaign against Retirement Leasehold Exploitation At Mere Court residents were to be balloted on the ending of the resident house manager service and were wrongly told by Peverel / FirstPort that the manager’s flat belonged to the freeholder.
In fact, it belonged to Peverel / FirstPort, whose local middle ranking executives would have been paid a commission following a successful decision to sell it off.
At Hill Court, Ormskirk, Peverel / FirstPort Retirement had paid over in error contingency fee funds for the site to the freeholder (ultimately the Tchenguiz Family Trust based in the British Virgin Islands). After LKP intervened, more than £39,000 was re-paid to the site.
Mr Hill continues: “In total the Regulatory Panel investigated three complaints concerning FPRS and its predecessor Peverel Retirement (PR).
“These complaints dealt with the sale of house managers’ flats in retirement homes managed by FPRS / PR, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) decision on collusive trading in relation to works carried out on Peverel Group retirement properties, and a failure to deposit transfer fees into the reserve fund at Hillside Court, Ormskirk.
“In respect of the complaint about the sale of house managers’ flats the Regulatory Panel found FPRS to have been in breach of ARMA Byelaw 2.7.10 in the case of Mere Court in 2013 in relation to a failure to disclose an interest in the ownership of the flat and payments made to individuals associated with the proposed transaction.
Deep pockets and short arms … Peverel / FirstPort Retirement were slow to pay back £39,000 plus of residents’ cash until LKP took up the case
“The Panel noted that FPRS has made significant improvements in the information now provided to leaseholders. However, the Panel went on to recommend that full disclosure of financial interests should be made in future and also any possible resulting reapportionment of leaseholders’ [interests].
But the ARMA Regulatory Panel did not uphold complaints against Peverel / FirstPort Retirement concerning the Cirrus price fixing scandal.
“In respect of the OFT decision of 6th December 2013 on collusive tendering the Panel took the view that there was insufficient evidence from which it could conclude that FPRS was involved in the prohibited practices identified by the OFT and that the complaint was, therefore, not made out.
“The Panel was reassured that the matter had been thoroughly investigated by FPRS and that the tendering process had been altered and now involved an independent surveyor in the procurement process.”
Regarding the £39,000 plus that had not been paid over to Hillside Court, Ormskirk,
“In respect of the complaint concerning the failure of deposit transfer fees, the Panel found the company to have been in breach of ARMA Byelaw 2.2.2. in the case of Hillside Court, Ormskirk, in relation to compliance with the terms of the lease.
“The Panel noted the full restitution with interest had taken place although it remained concerned at the speed with which the complaint had been addressed. The Panel was reassured by the measures now in place to prevent, to the greatest extent possible, a repeat of such an error.”
Mr Hill described the complaints against Peverel / FirstPort Retirement as the “lengthiest and most comprehensive hearing conducted by the Regulatory Panel”.
It involved the presence of two leaseholder witnesses and multiple documents, including the OFT ruling of price-fixing by Cirrus.
No appeal to the decision has been lodged.
The news of the ruling is available to FirstPort staff on its intranet, but it has yet to be made public on the FirstPort website.
The ruling can be downloaded from the ARMA website here .
The letter from Keith Hill to Sir Peter Bottomley is here22 June 2016 Letter to Sir Peter Bottomley
The full ARMA ruling is here FirstPortARMAruling
Related posts:
ARMA to rule on admitting scandal-hit FirstPort Retirement 
Peverel Retirement up before the ARMA regulator before it can join ARMA-Q 
FirstPort Retirement is allowed into ARMA 
ARMA regulator’s sanctions against FirstPort ‘did not address seriousness of what took place’ 
If Peverel Retirement is admitted to ARMA-Q, what message does that send thousands of cheated pensioners?
How can ARMA say they have insufficient evidence to come to a decision on the Price Fixing.complaint.
The OFT had enough to come to one but unfortunately did little about it.
ARMA will have received much more evidence over the years than the OFT ever had..
ARMA still have another chance to insist First Port fully compensate when they consider their application to join.
It would be of benefit to both ARMA and First Port and mean justice for the victims.
Michael,
I sent a complaint to the OFT and received a copy of the Investigation where they accepted the windblower from Peverel CEO/Director of Peverel Services ltd who informed the OFT of the 65 developments that were Price Fixed even named the 65 and paid each development circa £1,538.46 each, HOW MUCH PROOF IS REQUIRED?????
I am not sure how other property management are going to react to this decision, especially the ones that genuinely strive to meet the high standards attaching to ARMA-Q?
Indeed it could be argued that in the cases of the price fixing and sale of house manager’s flats, that without the revenue generated by these actions Firstport could have gone into liquidation.
And in regard to the failure to transfer funds to Hillside Court is it not the case that a sum is still in dispute?
This was sent to me on 22/06/16 18 months after I complained???
ARMA INDEPENDENT REGULATOR & REGULATORY PANEL
PUBLICATION OF DISCIPLINARY DECISION
Case No 2015 (1) Firstport Property Services Ltd
Organisation Firstport Property Services ltd
Regulatory Panel Right Honerable Keith Hill (Chairman), Alun Jones,Alan Walker
Clerk to the Panel: Jane Forsyth.
DECISION
Firstport Retirement Property Services Ltd appeared before the Regulatory Panel in connection with its wish to apply for ARMA-Q accreditation and ARMA membership.
The Regulatory Panel considered complaints concerning the:
1) Sale of development managers’ flats
2) Office of Fair Trading (OFT) decision, reference CA98/03/2013 dated 6th December 2013, on collusive tendering and
3) Failure to deposit transfer fees at Hillside Court, Ormskirk
Complaint I.
In respect of Complaint I. concerning the sale of housing/development managers’ flats, the Regulatory Panel considered a range of concerns and found Firstport Retirement Property Services Ltd in breach of Byelaw 2.7.10 (see below) in the case of Mere Court in 2013, in relation to a failure to disclose an interest in the ownership of the flat and in payments made to individuals associated with this transaction.
The Regulatory Panel notes that Firstport Retirement Property Services Ltd has made significant improvements in the information now provided to the leaseholders. The Panel recommends that full disclosure of financial interests should be made in future and also the possible resulting reapportionment of leaseholders’ responsibilities for making financial or other contributions.
Bye-law 2.7 STANDARDS OF SERVICE WHICH ARMA MEMBERS AGREE TO OFFER THEIR CLIENTS: Members must:
27.10 disclose in writing to relevant parties any existing conflict of interest or any circumstances which are likely to give rise to a conflict of interest;
Complaint 2.
In respect of Complaint 2. the Regulatory Panel considered the decision of the Office of Fair Trading dated 6th December 2013 and had the benefit of questioning the witnesses from Firstport Retirement Property Services Ltd.
The Regulatory Panel is of the view that there is insufficient evidence from which it could conclude that Firstport Retirement Property Services Ltd was involved in the prohibited practices identified by the Office of Fair Trading. Complaint number 2 is therefore not made out.
The Panel was reassured that the matter had been fully investigated by Firstport Retirement Property Services Ltd and that the tendering process has been altered and now involves an independent surveyor in the procurement process.
Complaint 3.
In respect of Complaint 3. concerning the failure to deposit transfer fees, the Regulatory Panel finds the company in breach of Byelaw 2.2.2 (see below) in the case of Hillside Court, Ormskirk in relation to compliance with the terms of the lease. The Panel notes that full restitution has taken place with interest, although the Panel is concerned at the speed with which the complaint was addressed. The Panel is reassured by the measures now in place to prevent, to the greatest extent possible, a repeat of such an error.
Bye-law 2.2.2 To manage the client’s property in compliance with al/ the current applicable legislation, terms of leases, contract documentation and good business practice.
Sanctions
In light of the above determination, the Regulatory Panel shall issue a letter of admonishment to Firstport Retirement Property Services Ltd.
The Regulatory Panel directs that Firstport Retirement Property Services Ltd shall be liable for the costs of the case, to be determined by the Regulatory Panel unless otherwise agreed.
Signed………………………….
Right Honerable Keith Hill, Independant Regulator
Telephone 020 7978 2607
Email jane@arma.org.uk
ARMA decides that cheating of circa 2000 Retired Pensioners in 65 Retirement Developments, where they were forced to pay £1.4 Million Pounds for works that was not necessary is acceptable.
This is when a major contractor Peverel Management Services Ltd (PMSL) trading as Peverel Retirement now Firstport Retirement uses a subsidiary company Cirrus Communication to Price Fix Tenders over a 5 year period.
The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) were aware that PMSL were the instigators of the Price Fixing, not Cirrus Communication as ARMA seems to intimate. A CEO/ Director of The Peverel Group also confirmed this.
A decision of 6th December 2013 on Price Fixing, was sanitised as Collusive Tendering, in laymen’s terms is Fraudulent Behaviour. It seemed to have been condoned by the OFT, in their 3 year investigation costing the Tax Payer £500,000 and Peverel and Cirrus escaped Scot Free.
The ARMA Panel took the view that there was Insufficient Evidence from which it could conclude that Firstport Retirement Services Ltd (FPRS) was involved in the Prohibited Practices identified by the OFT and the complaint was, therefore, not made out?
Firstport Retirement did not exist in 2005 to 2009 and was only Incorporated in March 2015. Why did ARMA identify a name FPRS and say there was Insufficient Evidence. The name of the Price Fixing Company was Peverel.
The OFT not only found Peverel Guilty of the 65 Cheated Developments, but also The Peverel Group CEO/Director agreed that the 65 was the tip of the Iceberg and claimed that many more were Price Fixed. “The Panel was reassured that the matter had been thoroughly investigated in house by FPRS and that the tendering process had been altered and now involved an independent surveyor in the procurement process.”
Here at Ashbrook Court the Regional Manager SG has been forced to scrap the External Painting Contract only this week, after we resident pointed out that the tendering undertaken was flawed. Not only was the lowest tender circa 300% more than the last time it was painted. On checking the detailed items that were to be filled in a section 4.00 Schedule of Works was priced in total and not individually. This failed to comply as the SoW Ref items 4.01, 4.02 4.03 each had a different Description and was not individually priced and was to be read in conjunction with an attached System Code, which was missing.
These tenders were administered by an Independent Surveyor atached from Cunningham Lindsey, who failed to notice the lack of itemised pricing.
ARMA, so much for Firstport and the Independent Surveyors in the Procurement Process.
ARMA state that there is no evidence to link Peverel, now First Port, to the price fixing. And that the OFT judgement was against Cirrus, not Peverel.
As ARMA were only considering First Port no action should be taken.
On the LKP website 11 August 2014 the following was stated, which I believe to be true.
1 The OFT Inquiry found that Peverel had cheated pensioners in £1.4m tenders at 65 Retirement sites.
2 It was Peverel who turned themselves in.
3 Janet Entwistle the CEO of Peverel stated that those in her company who were involved had all left Peverel..
With this knowledge how could ARMA say that Peverel were not involved.
Michael,
ARMA have within its organisation Directors of Peverel/Firstport Companies who no doubt are true and honest and would never risk their credability in allowing Peverel/Firstport to be a ARMA-Q Member, would they?
Following the departure of Keith Hill, perhaps the new head of the regulation panel should be someone that is trusted such as Bob Smytheman from the FPRA?
I am sure if he was appointed he would re-visit this craven short term decision.
In the meantime, if i were looking to appoint a managing agent, at the top of my list would be any company that made it clear that they comply with ARMA-Q but resigned so as not to be associated with Firstport.
I understand that only around 1/3rd of property managers are members of ARMA
I cannot believe that Lord Hill would have agreed to this decision, I hope he gives his comments after his departure.
The cop out is bad for ARMA, their members, even First Port.
And terrible for the Leaseholder victims.
As a matter of interest I did apply for the new Regulator position myself but did not make the short list. My experience and intentions did not meet their criteria.
I had explained to them that I would sort this issue very quickly to the benefit of all parties. They have now done exactly the opposite..
I wish the new Regulator the best of luck, there is still time to persuade First Port to adequately compensate before they are accepted as members.
At least this decision proves beyond any doubt that self regulation simply does not work. Arma-Q was the last drink in the saloon., it is plain to see they blew it big time.
This is a precis of the BBC
By Chris Mason Political correspondent, BBC News 6 December 2013
Security firms ripped off elderly, regulator suggests:
Elderly people may have paid over the odds for electronic security devices.
Vulnerable elderly people may have been ripped off by home security system suppliers acting as a price-fixing cartel, regulators say. Four security firms were found to have broken competition law. The Office of Fair Trading said their behaviour “likely” meant “higher prices were paid by many elderly and potentially vulnerable people.” Tory MP Sir Peter Bottomley said the case had left people feeling “frustrated, impoverished and angry.”
The four firms are:
Cirrus Communication Systems Limited,
Peter O’Rourke Electrical Limited of York,
Owens Installations Limited of Weymouth and
Glyn Jackson Communications Limited of Leeds.
Chas Says:
Note:- No mention about Peverel Management Services ltd, trading as Peverel Retirment now Firstport Retirement, who not only colluded but began the Price Fixing using Technical Officers who typed up the tenders for each of the 4 contractors named as was informed by the CEO/Director of Peverel Group to the OFT during the 3 year investigation.
‘Collusive tendering’
The OFT has found that, between 2005 and 2009, they engaged in “a number of collusive tendering arrangements in relation to the supply and installation of certain access control and alarm systems to retirement properties in the UK”. We accept the findings and are very sorry for the failings identified by the OFT: Peverel Group
The OFT identified what it called “at least 65 tenders that were affected by the collusive tendering arrangements with a combined value of approximately £1.4m.” O’Rourke, Owens and Jackson were fined a total of £53,410.
Cirrus were not fined as its parent company Peverel had brought the arrangement to the attention of the OFT in December 2009. The firms provided electronic devices that allow access via a code to a property.
The Executive Director of the Office of Fair Trading, Cavendish Elithorn, said: “Our investigation found considerable evidence of collusive tendering between these companies which restricted price competition in the tendering for this work.
“This decision sends a clear message to businesses, however large or small, that we will pursue enforcement action where we believe competition law has been broken. We urge any business engaged in similar practices to call our cartels hotline for leniency – before their co-conspirators do.”
‘Totally unacceptable’
The BBC has attempted, but failed to contact O’Rourke, Owens and Glyn Jackson. But, in a statement, Peverel Group, the parent company of Cirrus, said: “We accept the findings and are very sorry for the failings identified by the OFT.
“These practices were totally unacceptable. They stopped in 2009 when Peverel Group brought the matter to the attention of the OFT and this is not how we do business today. We have cooperated fully throughout the investigation.”
It added: “Peverel Group has decided to make a goodwill payment to the developments affected of 10% of the price of any work resulting from the tenders.”
Sir Peter Bottomley, a long standing campaigner on the issue, told the BBC: “It can’t be right that people on fixed incomes have been charged for things they might not need, or at prices which are much higher than the competitive price would bring.” Sr Peter was strongly critical of the practice of offering leniency in punishment to firms that admit to behaving improperly and inform the authorities.
“If I committed a crime, I would expect to be charged and if found guilty, penalised. “In this case people have done things really bad but they have been let off. Is this the most we can do? Where is the compensation for people who have been abused, misused and overcharged?”
Annexes 2
Precis from the Extract of the OFT’s Decision
Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.9:
‘During the course of the Investigation, the OFT has also considered whether the Infringements were wider than found in this Decision and involved collusive tendering in relation to more of or all the Peverel Management Services Ltd contracts involving Cirrus Communication and either O ‘Rourke, Jackson or Owens between 2005 and 2009.
Peverel Group Ltd informed the OFT that, at least from late 2006, it was of the view that there was collusive tendering in respect of every such contract. This would mean that a substantial larger number of bids would have been the subject of anti-competitive behaviour than is found in this Decision.
However, following a careful review of all the relevant evidence and while it continues to have reasonable grounds for suspecting an infringement of the Chapter / prohibition in respect of a number of the contracts failing outside of the Infringements,
The OFT’s conclusion is that there is insufficient evidence to make infringement findings of that scope and that further work would be required before a clearer conclusion could be drawn in respect of these bids. The OFT has decided that it is not an administrative priority to carry out further work.
Chas Says:
The 65 developments owned up to by Peverel Group only included those put forward by Peverel Group Ltd. It did not include any development’s where the Area/Regional Managers were still working for Peverel as they could not risk having to sack those that were aware of the total Price Fixing.
OFT Continued:
The OFT has concluded that the scope of the Infringements should be confined to those contracts in respect of which there is evidence that Cirrus did, in fact, disclose its bid to either of O’Rourke, Jackson or Owens and that either of O’Rourke, Jackson or Owens participated in collusive tendering. In the latter regard, the OFT has considered whether the bidding process might have been corrupted in some way by behaviour other than collusive tendering. To exclude that possibility, the OFT has included within the Infringements only those contracts in respect of which there is evidence that Cirrus did not act alone and either of O’Rourke, Jackson or Owens was contacted and did participate.
And yet Andy Davey Head of Cirrus and MD of Peverel Building Technologies during the worst of the price fixing scandal is currently the MD of Appello. Go figure ARMA!
Understandably a number of people remain very unhappy about the collusive tendering matter. Unfortunately with each passing year that issue is likley to become more and more a closed door (excuse the pun) in terms of taking action. Despite the efforts of Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation and the Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation whistle blowers none of the 65 sites ever took the matter to court and no site has come forward with evidence to show the OFT/CMA that it had been omitted from the list or that the same issue has arisen since 2009.
The OFT accepted that the matter stayed within the Cirrus subsidiary and was not know to the wider group. At the time many doubted this claim and remain unconvinced. As Micheal Epstein points out it is difficult to believe that no senior member of staff who may have know about the process is still employed within the group.
It was certainly not accepted by the Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation whistle blowers or MP Ed Davey that the overall company self reported it subsidiary first. More importantly the logic of the OFT in deciding this was a Chapter I investigation rather than a Chapter II was not accepted by us, the MPs or the whistle blowers. That decision was critical to limiting the actions the OFT could take. At the outcome of the OFT finding there was a very clear expectation from them that the decision would facilitate a challenge in the courts. We warned the OFT this may not happen and that’s turned out to be the case.
I can understandable why the ARMA regulator would be far more likley to find on those issues which apply under the current owners of FirstPort rather than those actions which applied when they were owned by the Tchenguiz group in 2009. If other actions continue they will need to be raised with the CMA.
It is not appropriate to make cheap shots about Keith Hills motives or the basis of his decision. That he found FirstPort at fault on two of the three matters does not suggest the process is somehow fundamentally flawed.
This case is now the second formal admonition that the Peverel/FirstPort Group has had from ARMA. In 2010 the then Managnig Director of Peverel Residential was required to write to all ARMA members appologising for the behavior of their group.following the complaint made by Charter Quay.and one other site. On that occasion ARMA also fined Peverel the maximum amount available at the time.
While some will be unhappy with the ARMA decision and that FirstPort Retirement can now ask to become an ARMA member I tend to take the opposite view. FirstPort’s main residential arm is already an ARMA member. If the retirement part of the group now joins they do so with two strikes against their name plus the 2010 decision. I would assume if FirstPort choose to join they would enter under certain conditions as well as falling under the ARMA audit systems which now come into play..
In the absence of formal regulation which almost everyone in the sector including ARMA have called for the alternative is for FirstPort to do what Countrywide did last year and just walk away and choose not to be regulated by ARMA at all. .
.
Martin
I do not think anyone has been critical of Lord Hill who we all agree is an honourable man. We think he has been “sat upon.”
When the ARHM did a similar cop out with Peverel on this issue they got slated..
Why should ARMA not be criticised in a similar fashion
Micheal,
While you have every right to be cautious but I have no concerns that Kieth has been “sat upon” or put under any pressure. From our contacts with ARMA we know there is a complete separation between the regulatory team and the rest of the organisation. That’s meant we knew more about the hearing than they did/do.
I’ve seen no evidence that Kieth and the regulatory panel were influenced to make a decision one way or another. From what I know of Kieth he would not have accepted that pressure anyway. He had taken on the role to help ensure the process was rigorous. As far as I know he also extended his role for longer than he’d originally committed to bring this case to a conclusion.
The fact that Kieth felt it relevant to send a note to Sir Peter explaining how he had conducted the process suggests he feels confident he’s done things as well as he could.
.
.
Fair enough, but I would still like Keith or the Regulatory Board to explain how they came to the conclusion that Peverel (now First Port) had not committed an offence. It appears the OFT did with much less evidence.
I do not think anyone has been critical of Lord Hill , we think he is an honourable man, and has been under pressure to come to this conclusion.
The ARHM were severely critisised when they treated Peverel so leniently on this issue, so why should ARMA be treated any differently.
Whilst I agree it maybe inappropriate to make cheap shots against Lord Hill (which for the record I don’t think anyone has), I do have concerns over the motives of ARMA for this perverse decision.. Currently I understand ARMA only represents 1/3rd of the property management companies in the UK.
If Firstport Retirement could not be admitted to ARMA, it would be inconceivable for the other Firstport companies to remain with ARMA..
That would reduce the number of ARMA regulated companies to under 20%.
It is my genuine belief that ARMA have been struggling for 20 months to find any way they can to admit Firstport Retirement.
Martin you posted that:
Despite the efforts of Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation and the Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation whistle blowers none of the 65 sites ever took the matter to court and (no site has come forward with evidence to show the OFT/CMA that it had been omitted from the list or that the same issue has arisen since 2009)
I have sent the evidence in the past to Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation and posted that we were set up to be Price Fixed?
I can send it again.
Why, may I ask would a property management company that wishes to uphold the highest standards of ARMA-Q seek out to use a contractor that was found guilty of collusive tendering?
And after Cirrus (now called Appello, still headed up by Andrew Davey) why was it Peverel/Firstport that offered “goodwill payments” to the named 65 developments?
Surely, that was a matter for Cirrus, if Peverel was not involved?
So who was it that initiated the works that were price fixed? It surely could not have been the contractor?
How did it come to be that supposedly protected development service charge funds were used for the price fixing fraud?
And which Company was it who had most to gain from the Price Fixing scam
And which company was it that by not paying all the money back that residents were cheated out of, still has money in their bank account, instead of where it belongs in the development service charge accounts?
It would be nice to know what is the official LKP view of the ARMA decision.
Or is it exactly as per Martins comments which appear very sympathetic towards the Regulatory Board decision.
It is difficult to believe that ARMA were unable to find evidence of Peverels collusion. In fact Sir Peter has previously stated that “if anyone was found guilty of a criminal offence they should be found guilty and penalised”.
I am not suggesting that ARMA could do that, but to exonerate them and possibly reward them with membership (without adequate compensation being paid) is rather stretching it.
Yes of course it is an official LKP view and of course we expect to be in contact further with ARMA on the matter.
You will have read the independent regulators letter to Sir Peter.
Speculating without any evidence that the regulator was somehow “sat on” hardly seems to help the process.
What is the official LKP view you refer to?
I think the key statement was made by the ARMA Regulator when he says there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Peverel had been involved in price fixing. It is the opinion of some of us that the Regulating Board were encouraged to come to this conclusion because we think it to be untrue.
I hope that the Regulating Board will further explain this decision.
What is the LKP view on this point?
Peverel Management Services Ltd trading as Peverel Retirement NOW FIRSTPORT RETIREMENT, helped in collusion of the 65 developments by providing not only the names as they became close to twenty years old. Then filled in the tenders for the Cirrus and the other 3 contractors, that they allowed to be Price Fixed.
Cirrus Communication was only bit player in the scam.
What report did ARMA read as is certain wasn’t the report that I read?
I asked the Senior Managers at OFT for names and developments of the sites they claim had been checked, for further Price Fixing.
I was informed that this information was private and confidential, not for publication, as the OFT stated this information was not in the PUBLIC INTEREST???
Surely the ARMA Board in their deliberations on the Price Fixing would have had access to all information including that which was withheld from the public.
The ARMA Board have some explaining to do, they cannot just state that there was no evidence and think the situation will disappear.
Since it was the Peverel group (now Firstport) ‘turned” themselves in, what evidence does ARMA need?
They only have to look at the transcript of what Peverel provided to the OFT.
The OFT made it clear that they had no power to order repayment to the cheated residents. So Peverel/Firstport offered an insulting 100k as a goodwill payment, spread over 65 developments.
That means, even as membership of ARMA progresses,Firstport have still kept the money they cheated residents out of..
Hopefully this is the LKP view and they will get some answers when they meet either ARMA or the ARMA Regulatory Board.
Michael
You made a comment this morning on a LKP story that has suddenly disappeared.. You seemed to indicate that the First Port Company ARMA investigated was not the Peverel company who had committed the sins.
Are you suggesting that the ARMA Board have spent 21 months investigating the wrong company’?
Can you please further explain.
Taken from the Firstport website:
not only do we carefully assess our partners in advance, we also assess them on a regular basis to make sure their appointment matches our excellence in all we do.
The partner companies we choose to work with must share our values and meet our tough criteria across health and safety., insurance, financial matters..
How carefully have Firstport assessed their partners given that they award contracts to a company that admitted to collusive tendering?
And how careful where they being when it was found (by residents) that Glyn Jackson was back working for them.
Surely over the past 21 months The Regulatory Board must have gathered all of this type of information and all the evidence that has been detailed on the LKP websites and others. Plus they will most likely have evidence from the OFT which was not available for public consumption..
The point I have been trying to make is why with all this information the Regulatory Boards Judgement is just a simple statement that there was no evidence for them to act upon.
If they cannot give a better explanation than that then people will think there is an ulterior motive.