Bob Bessell, the chairman of the developer Retirement Security, has issued a statement to Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation explaining why his company was expelled from the ARHM.
The ARHM announced the decision to expel the Stratford Upon Avon company, but gave not details for the dispute.
Bessell gives his explanation below, and adds his view that alternatives to the current state of retirement leasehold need to be considered:
“In particular, [Bessell] believes that the model of the management company being wholly owned by the leaseholders, which is the model in all of the Retirement Security developments, avoids many of the difficulties which have caused so much strife between freeholders and leaseholders.”
This is the first time a senior retirement house builder has urged an alternative to the long established retirement leasehold model, with all the controversial monetising opportunities that are involved.
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation is eager to ensure that ministers, their shadows and ALL stakeholders become aware of Mr Bessell’s views on the sector.
Statement from Retirement Security:
Retirement Security Ltd was expelled from the ARHM because its Chairman, Bob Bessell, who was a member of the Executive Committee, believed that one of the ARHM long-standing employees was being badly treated and he informed her of what was going on.
In the event, the member of staff was made redundant and a subsequent independent enquiry came to the conclusion that the executive committee were in the right.
Bob Bessell does not agree with the conclusion of the enquiry, but as it was set up at his request, he believes that there is nothing more to be said on the subject.
It remains to be decided whether Retirement Security Ltd will re-join the ARHM, or if renewed membership is acceptable to the Executive Committee.
However, he believes that whatever decision is made, a great deal of work is necessary either to ensure that leasehold retirement housing meets the needs of a significant number of older people, or that alternative models of tenure need to be devised.
In particular, he believes that the model of the management company being wholly owned by the leaseholders, which is the model in all of the Retirement Security developments, avoids many of the difficulties which have caused so much strife between freeholders and leaseholders.
There are many other issues on which an informed debate is urgent if the needs of older people are to have the priority which they need and it is his hope that this will be the focus of the ARHM in the future.
AgeUK would not get involved, Shelter has quit, Peverel has been expelled and Esther Rantzen is asking questions … the fiasco of the Campaign for Housing in Later Life
All it takes is one person in the industry to throw their hat into the ring and say ‘leasehold/retirement developments are not working and the industry needs reforming’… and this article will be the catalyst to open more doors…
Respect to Bob Bessell for doing the honourable thing and speaking out about the injustices in the leasehold industry.
Karen/Sebastian/Michael,
Hope you are all well,
We have recently found out that Peverel Management Services Ltd and Cirrus Communications had used the losing contractor Glyn Jackson to undertake the work at ABC as a Sub-Contractor after the Police informed us that the 2 operatives who undertook the work were from Doncaster.
This is where Glyn Jackson worked from, an office at his home.
The Police gave us the information after valuables were removed from our neighbour flat, whilst the Warden Call System was installed.
Our House Manager at the time informed us unknowingly, that the 2 operatives were sub-contractors.
So much for open and transparent?????
Chas,
You might like to know that OM have issued uniforms to some contractors, so that it appears they work for OM. Never assume who you believe to be doing te work is the ompany doing the work.
I seem to recall a case of an individual carrying out a fire risk survey and valuation giving residents a name of a person who was qualified to carry out such work. It later transpired that the actual qualified person was working 200 miles away that day.
M.E.
I find the lack of interest regarding the Price Fixing and the new information doing the rounds that Peverel not only Price Fixed developments but then used the losing tenderer to sub-contract the work.
Please phone me or comment on these findings?????
Chas Says:
May 8, 2014 at 9:20 pm
Since the Price Fixing Scandal, I have looked for other information from residents and recently after receiving replies from The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) had also considered whether the infringements were wider than found in their Report Decision.
Annexe 2
Extract from 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 their Report Decision regarding Peverel/Cirrus and involved Collusive Tendering (Price Fixing) in relation to more of or all the Peverel Management Services Ltd contracts involving Cirrus Communications Systems Ltd and O`Rourke, Jackson or Owens between 2005 and 2009.
Peverel Group Ltd (PGL) informed the OFT that, at least from late 2006, it was their view,that there was Collusive Tendering (Price Fixing) in respect of every such contract.
This means that a substantially larger number of bids (tenders) would have been the subject of Price Fixing than was found in their Decision.
With this in mind,and the fact that we had a Warden Call System Updated in 2008, we also found in the Report Decision that Glyn Jackson, had undertook sub-contracting work for Cirrus on a number of occasion’s.
We were informed earlier this week that the 2 operatives that under took our WCS update were from Doncaster and the Tenderer who lost the bid, Glyn Jackson was also from Doncaster and that our WCS was installed by Sub- Contractors?
This is how Peverel Management Services Ltd allowed their Management to behave for a four year period that we know of?