But don’t feel any obligation to join on our account!
ARMA has finally published a list of its full members – more than four months after making the more rigorous ARMA-Q the criteria for membership.
Until today, the only clue as to who was a member of ARMA was the stream of congratulations posted on Twitter, which began last October.
Now at least the trade body is formally acknowledging its membership.
As public and government re-assurance are the whole point of the ARMA-Q initiative – accompanied by repetitive intonations of “transparency” – the decision to keep the membership secret was very surprising.
Those companies that were ARMA members and are still dithering are only associates, and should not be proclaiming membership by using the trade body’s logos etc.
LKP has broadly welcomed ARMA cleaning up its act with ARMA Q, although the foot-dragging that it has shown by this long-overdue announcement does erode trust.
We would like to thank the efforts of Michael Hollands, who has been pestering ARMA on a weekly basis insisting on some kind of statement.
Of course, no organisation in property management needs to join ARMA, and plenty of good companies don’t bother, or are already members of RICS.
Nor should leaseholders feel reassured that one company is a member of any of these bodies, and another not.
Indeed, Walton & Allen in Nottingham, an LKP accredited managing agent, left ARMA because it was unenthused by the company it was keeping in the organisation. More here: https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/why-we-resigned-from-arma-by-lkp-managing-agent
Following its inquiry into leasehold management, the Competition and Markets Authority has gone out of its way to stress that problems in the sector are just as prevalent in companies signed up to trade bodies as those that aren’t.
Doing so has taken the wind out of the sails of Michelle Banks, the ARMA CEO, whose public speeches referencing rogue operators made the opposite point.
Meanwhile, ARMA has the conundrum of what to do about Peverel / Firstport.
It has admitted some of its property management companies, for example Stonedale and OM Property Management, but has yet to make a decision about the others.
Leaseholder concerns are strongest with Peverel / FirstPort Retirement, the subject of a four-year Office of Fair Trading investigation with a ruling in December 2013 of collusive tendering involving its subsidiary Cirrus.
Peverel / FirstPort Retirement manages c55,000 retirement flats for freeholds owned by the Tchenguiz organisation.
It is the principal funder of the supine trade body the ARHM (Association of Retirement Housing Managers), but had applied to ARMA.
ARMA-Q regulator Keith Hill, a former Labour housing minister, is supposed to be making a decision about whether this application should be continued.
A further complaint has also been referred to Mr Hill concerning Peverel’s ownership of hundreds of house manager’s flats, for which leases were issued in 2009.
Related posts:
If Peverel Retirement is admitted to ARMA-Q, what message does that send thousands of cheated pensioners?
Countrywide Estate Management is OUT of ARMA
ARMA-Q members to be revealed next month
Peverel Retirement up before the ARMA regulator before it can join ARMA-Q
20% of ARMA members ‘walk out over new ethical scheme’
Whistleblowers to Serious Fraud Office ‘wasting their time’
Hold the praise LKP!
Michelle Banks does say “A significant number of applications are still being processed”
She also refers to a number of firms that have been given Associate status whilst they attempt to qualify.
If the process over ran by a couple of weeks, most would accept that. But it is mid April, not January!
How must property management firms be feeling, who do either comply or exceed ARMA-Q and are not listed yet? I sincerely hope that ARMA’s failings have not cost those firms any management contracts.
Michael,
What a dilemma to have 3 members of ARMA holding Senior Positions at Peverel/FirstPort, can this be true?
We know that 19 Peverel Companies under Peverel Services Ltd, are separate different Limited Companies, with (shared common directors) so how can one Peverel Company with out Peverel in their name be allowed to become a member of ARMA-Q?
How is this seen as Open and Transparent?
What positions do these 3 members hold at ARMA?
What positions do they hold at Peverel?
The position of Self Accreditation allows corruption to run amok and who polices the police?
Where were ARMA when Peverel/Cirrus Pleaded Guilty to Collusion and Price Fixing and also Excessive Commissions?
Was any of these Senior Peverel Employees part of an Investigation by ARMA into Peverel Management Services and Cirrus Communications Services Ltd?
Who from ARMA investigated these complaints or were they ignored or swept under the many carpets that Peverel seem to have?
Reply
Michael,
I have looked at the list of some 180 names that have been accepted as members of ARMA-Q.
I noted, the way they have been presented, seems an attempt to hide any Peverel Related Companies?
Is this dishonest of ARMA?
This is what ARMA stated about the new (Q) added:-
Why we have introduced ARMA-Q?
“The leasehold management sector is currently unregulated so anyone can set up as a managing agent and start trading. This has led to inconsistencies in service levels and has dented consumer confidence in managing agents. The truth is that there are a lot of good managing agents out there and we want to make them stand out.
We remain optimistic that statutory regulation for all managing agents will be the long-term solution. In the meantime, ARMA-Q will benefit anyone using an ARMA member and help raise standards across the industry as a whole”.
Note: Not a Peverel Company Mentioned?
Who is
OM Property Ltd?
Stonedale Property Management Ltd?
Pembertons Residential Ltd?
What links these 3 companies and why has ARMA attempted to disguise and hide Peverel Services Ltd companies?
I have written to ARMA complaining about Peverel Retirement who refuse to accept that previous Senior Managers had colluded in failing to produce full and complete information regarding Insurance Claims and the Price Fixing Scams that have not been properly investigated by the very Senior Management that were working for Peverel during 2004/05 to 2009/2010 and up to 2013/14.
Surely if any Peverel Company has been allowed a full membership of ARMA-Q it shows how Self Regulation by ARMA would be seen by many, to have lost all Credibility amongst Leasehold Tenants?
I note no McCarthy & Stone why would this company, the very company that gave Peverel the start in the 1980s not be ARMA-Q validated and proud???