A disastrous Friday for FirstPort last week as it agrees to repay ALL 436 leaseholders at least £479,000 in overpaid service charges, rather than just the 120-odd who participated in the action mounted by Liam Spender.
Residents at the site have yet to see the final number, but the credits in relation to the tribunal decision could total around £600,000 when the landlord’s concessions on building insurance commission and other items are taken into account.
And in another action led by Mr Spender, a City solicitor, leaseholder and trustee of LKP, another £55,000 in government energy subsidies are being passed over which, unaccountably, were overlooked when setting the 2023 budget for the prime Docklands site.
All in all a hugely expensive week for FirstPort, which also agreed to refund £300 in Tribunal fees and to pay Mr Spender £2,500 for his time over the energy challenge – a most unusual occurrence in service charge disputes.
FirstPort managing director Kully Sahdra wrote to all leaseholders on 12 May to wave the white flag. The letter can be read here:
https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023.05.12-LetterfromFirstPort.pdf
It is an open question what French property management giant Emeria, which bought FirstPort in March 2022, makes of this debacle.
Initially, there was a possibility that the non-participating leaseholders at St David’s Square could be made to pay the legal fees of the landlord, FIT Nominee Limited and FIT Nominee 2 Limited both subsidiaries of the NatWest Group plc, even though it lost the case. The letter does not say whether this will happen.
“I would also like to take this opportunity to assure you that all leaseholders at St David’s Square will benefit from the reductions, not just those who participated in the Tribunal application,” wrote Ms Sahdra, adding: “We look forward to continuing to work with all residents to make sure that St David’s remains a safe and comfortable place to live.”
Of course, the non-participating leaseholders contributed nothing to the action, so any payback is a windfall. Doubtless they will show their appreciation to Mr Spender in some fashion.
The dispute over the energy subsidies concerned the 2023 estimated electricity budget of around £350,000, which paid for corridor lighting, lifts, swimming pool and street lighting.
The original budget was set ignoring extensive government subsidies provided under the Energy Bill Relief Scheme. The budget was also set on the basis that the current high prices would apply for all of 2023, when it was known they were falling and are likely to fall significantly from 1 October 2023.
A settlement, subject to approval by a judge so the application is still live, means all 476 flats and houses at St David’s Square will share a refund of at least £55,000, with potentially a further £30,000-£40,000 once reduced electricity prices are taken into account.
The final figure will be known in the next few weeks.
The overall reduction should be a minimum of £90 per flat and house, and up to around £250 per flat. The actual reduction will vary by the size of the flat. The houses only pay toward charges made on a flat-rate basis so should each receive the same level of refund.
The consent order can be read here:
https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/LiamSpenderEnergyConsentOrder.pdf
Related posts:
FirstPort blows a fuse: Why are energy subsidies absent from the £265,784 electricity bills – an increase of 154% – at St David’s Square, tribunal is asked
Victory over FirstPort at St David’s Square with £100,000s to be re-payed to leaseholders over insurance and leasing of ancient door entry system
FirstPort faces leasehold rebellion over service charges at St David’s Square
99% of FirstPort’s 3,800 service charge accounts are up to date
Mr Spender goes to war over St David’s Square service charges … and landlord caves in over more than £100,000 buildings insurance commissions on eve of tribunal
Net Zero is going to be difficult throughout the world … but with leasehold tenure, next to impossible
Congratulations to Mr Liam Spender and all at LKP on an unprecedented Victory for Leaseholders at St. David’s Square. The outcome of Mr Spender’s hard work is astonishing and the best so far In my opinion.
Mr O’Kelly writes “Non participating leaseholders” who “Contributed nothing” will benefit directly from what has been achieved “Doubtless they will show their appreciation”
Well, the non contributing Leaseholders at Priory Court (Blackpool) RTM Company Limited showed their appreciation by pocketing the first Years savings of £ 625.00, followed by another £ 936.00 in the second Year, without out as much as a thank you. Fortunately that type of Leaseholder is in the minority at this Residential apartment block and deservedly so.
I have detected a change in the way firstport conduct their business with regard to the above, Is their a glimmer of “Cultural change” taking place in that Firm? Time will prove this one way or another.
These rulings in themselves are grounds for St David’s Square to oust FirstPort with a section 24 court appointed manager which, if FirstPort had any sense of shame, it would not contest (but it doesn’t, and it will). Good news that your RTM is working out.
Congratulations to Mr Liam Spender and everyone and everybody concerned with and at St David’s Square regarding these controversial issues and events that are a constant historical and ongoing way of treatment in the day to day management and management by the FirstPort to leaseholds.
It is also extremely surprising to discover there is such a person called Kully Sahdra FirstPort Managing Director and her Operational Team. This is and has been a very serious question that thousands of other FirstPort leasehold customers like myself across the country believed was fictional as most customers can never get any response or answers to the very many financial questions that need immediate attention and actions.
Our own questions go back to the pre Peverel/FirstPort rebrand yet Kully Sahdra and her operations managers and directors just refuse to reply by actually ignoring any emails or telephone calls which surely must be unprofessional and unacceptable.
Once again congratulations and thanks to Liam Spender & St David’s Square for giving us all hope and faith in humanity and justice in the future.
Dear Mr. Walsh,
Firstport are owned by a firm called “Emeria” a highly reputable Company based in France. I have posted their Chief Executive Officer contact details below.
Mr Philippe Salle
Chief Executive Officer
Emeria
27 Avenue Carnot
91300 Massey
France
I hope this information is of some use and benefits Firstport in replying to genuine reviews, and aides resolution of real complaints.
Thank you for Mr Phillips Salle works address could you now kindly forward his email address as I have items and issues regarding our FirstPort Financial Figures and past and present expenditure history that concerns and worries me.
When writing to Emeria make sure you give your site address and relevant details. It saves them time in filtering out internet trolls.
Congratulations to Liam Spender and LKP. Does LKP think that the introduction of Nigel Glen is making any difference? If that is the case then we must continue to inform the Emeria hierarchy of the major problems Firstports Leaseholders experience and hope that a Cultural change will quickly take place.
They must surely know by now that without this change the company they recently purchased will fall apart.
What’s going to make a lot of difference is developers seeing how FirstPort cocked this one up, and could be caught out elsewhere (as in the past, ad nauseam), so why entrust your site to them? Cheating and inept don’t make a good look.
Glen would be a comfortable fit for a well remunerated sinecure. But he has left ARMA knowing an awful lot about FirstPort’s rivals, which is not popular.
How do we know we not been scammed by first port roseberry mews Nunthorpe ts70pp
Drop us an email and outline the issues and we can suggest a few options martin.boyd@leaseholdknowledge.com
Given the gestation period of the deal Emeria must have been well aware of what they were buying. ARMAs recent record on taking action against agents doing the wrong thing, or rather their lack of action, does not inspire confidence of the likelihood of a change of approach.
All FP customers might focus on the utility rebate errors in Liam’s case and check that the same error does not apply to their site
In terms of culture change there have been claims that has been ongoing since at least 15 years. We have been writing about FP for all of that time. We have also met with their last two chief execs on a number of occasions, we’ve helped resolve issues on many sites and helped some sites on their RTM journey. FirstPort have also been persuaded to speak in Parliament. We plan to meet the new management.
Some LKP readers might remember this letter which followed my complaint to ARMA in 2009 which resulted in Peverel (now FirstPort) being required to write to all ARMA members apologising for their actions. The letter included this para:
“Whilst going forward we can be confident of our ability to retrieve information, deal with our customers and manage queries it is fair to say that this is not the case for many queries and issues that relate to historic matters. Certainly when these businesses have handed over instructions to new managers they have not always been smooth transitions and indeed on occasion information that you would reasonably expect has not been available. I would unreservedly apologise to ARMA members who have suffered from this in recent months”
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose Rodney – as Dell might say
What about all the other Firstport developments that they mange up and down the country, where our management fees include all the above . Will we be given a reduction in charges!!!!
“Mange” = Freudian slip.
First of all I would like to congratulate Liam Spender for his success, hard work and dedication. It should not take an almost heroic action and going to Court to receive a government’s subsidy! I also would like to echo Martin Boyd’s surprise expressed in his tweet “It shows how badly the law is broken that a) Firstport even needed to be persuaded to refund all leaseholders – the law says it’s only the case participants b) there is no fine for Firstports action on energy subsidies.” I raised a question regarding such electricity subsidy with my MP who contacted the Government. I received a detailed response from the Government, which in summary said that “…if an intermediary has its energy bills discounted under the EBRS, the intermediary must then calculate the just and reasonable amount to pass on to its end user. For example, a landlord on a commercial tariff would pass on the discount to their tenants.” Happy to share the full text from the Government if it is of interest.
Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows the extent of the fraud carried out by Firstport on mainly unsuspecting octogenarians just wanting somewher safe and secure to live. It is outrageous that this has become so acceptable by the legal industry, judges and politicians to allow it happen. Usually to the most vunerable in society and no punishment, as if its passed off as some accounting error.
Firsrtport have been trying to game the system with landlord Fairhold for over a decade at numerous sites.
The industry is crying out for so-called honest professional management companies and again Firstport are exposed for whart they are.
Firstport and other chumps passing themselves off as professional stating the leasehold system needs them. It`s laughable.
SIR,
I live in a McCarthy & Stone built complex managed by First Port. How would I be able to find out if First Port received a grant on our behalf as an electricity subsidy and in what amount. This is a building containing 11 two bed apartments and twenty nine one bed apartments. The electricity subsidy I refer is a subsidy towards the cost of power to the communal areas of the building
Thank You
Dear Mr Hughes,
I reside in an residential apartment block made up of twenty one apartments managed by our own Right to Manage Company. We receive Monthly communal electricity bills which clearly show the cost per kWh for Day & Night usage.
The Governments “Discounted Energy Bill Relief Scheme Rate” is displayed prominently on the bill. From the 01 October 22 to 31 March 23 we saw a substantial reduction in the cost per kWh for Day and Night rate.
I suggest that you obtain a copy of your communal electric bill and see for your good self if that Government discount has been passed onto you.
I also suggest that you take a note of what VAT rate is being applied to your bill, up to going Right to Manage this apartment block paid 20%. The Managing Agent of our choice, Home Management Group Limited, took the required steps and reduced the amount of VAT to 5%, a significant cost saving involving little effort just Knowledge.
I answered David’s post near the end of May with links to the Government site but for some reason LKP did not publish. It explained the Government’s “pass through” scheme for MAs to pass onto residents. Government website states MAs are required to write and tell what they are charging the residents Oct 22 to March 23. Churchill have written to all their applicable residents advising of kWh costs. Google is your friend
David, it seems very complicated, to me at least, but this link should give you some insight
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pass-through-requirements-for-energy-price-support-provided-to-intermediaries/guidance-on-the-pass-through-requirements-for-energy-price-support-in-great-britain-provided-to-intermediaries
You can also use the Template from within the link titled “letter for end users” to ask the question to Firstport
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pass-through-requirements-for-energy-price-support-provided-to-intermediaries
My friend has recently had a letter from Churchill Estate and Management saying as follows – Under the Energy Prices Act, brought in on 25 October 2022, the Government has introduced schemes
to provide support for energy bills and established a requirement that energy price support is passed on in
a just and reasonable way to end users.
This means that intermediaries (i.e. those who provide energy but are not a licensed energy supplier), such
as Churchill Estates Management, in receipt of support from the Energy Bills Relief Scheme (EBRS) must
pass a just and reasonable amount of the benefit obtained to the end users of the energy.
Therefore, now that CEM has started to receive invoices from your energy supplier, we are able to confirm
that for your communal electricity and heat pump energy supply, the credit rate calculation is based on
weighted day and night consumption month by month. This means that the EBRS credit rate awarded
can vary from month to month. I can advise that the credit awarded is the maximum amount supported
by the government, meaning that you are only being charged 21.1p per kwh for the wholesale power
element of your energy tariff.
We have determined it is just and reasonable for 100% of this support to be passed on to the development.
It therefore looks like Churchill are doing things correctly
Hi,
Congratulations to Liam Spender on winning the case with Firstport.
Here in Thamesmead, Firstport are charging each leaseholder £6000 to replace windows in 2 blocks without carrying out a proper consultation on tender costs as is required by Section 20 or even providing a clear justification.
I have set up the Birchdene Leaserholder Group and I would appreciate some guidance from Liam or the LKP on how to challenge this.
Regards
Clive
birchdeneleaseholder@gmail.com
Dear Clive,
The Professionals on Leaseholder Knowledge Partnership will no doubt furnish you with expert advice in dealing with your current issue with FirstPort.
But I can tell you this from first hand experience that the best way to deal with issues of that type once and for all, is quite simply go Right to Manage. The cost to achieve Right to Manage can work out at less than £ 100.00 per apartment and is a one off cost.
In only fifteen Months we have reduced the service charge by more that 39% and received credits from the utility suppliers in excess of £ 9,800.00, and we are only a Residential apartment block consisting of twenty one apartments.
Most reputable Managing Agent will guide you through the process of going Right to Manage, and If It Is agreed, will deal with the paperwork, etc, in achieving the desired outcome for a reasonable Fee.
Prior to achieving RTM many Residents had to give up their apartments due to financial difficulty’s caused by “service charge poverty” Since we incorporated the “Priory Court (Blackpool) RTM Company Limited”, no Resident has had to give up their home due to financial hardship, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I wish you the very best in resolving this issue to your complete satisfaction.