• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
Donate

Leasehold Knowledge Management Logo

Secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
  • Advice
  • News
    • Find everything …
    • About Peverel group
    • APPG
    • ARMA
    • Bellway
    • Benjamin Mire
    • Brixton Hill Court
    • Canary Riverside
    • Charter Quay
    • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
    • Cladding scandal
    • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
    • Commonhold
    • Communities Select Committee
    • Conveyancing Association
    • Countrywide
    • MHCLG
    • E&J Capital Partners
    • Exit fees
    • FirstPort
    • Fleecehold
    • Forfeiture
    • FPRA
    • Gleeson Homes
    • Ground rent scandal
    • Hanover
    • House managers flat
    • House of Lords
    • Housing associations
    • Informal lease extension
    • Insurance
    • IRPM
    • JB Leitch
    • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    • John Christodoulou
    • Justin Bates
    • Justin Madders MP
    • Law Commission
    • LEASE
    • Liam Spender
    • Local authority leasehold
    • London Assembly
    • Louie Burns
    • Martin Paine
    • McCarthy and Stone
    • Moskovitz / Gurvits
    • Mulberry Mews
    • National Leasehold Campaign
    • Oakland Court
    • Park Homes
    • Parliament
    • Persimmon
    • Peverel
    • Philip Rainey QC
    • Plantation Wharf
    • Press
    • Property tribunal
    • Prostitutes
    • Quadrangle House
    • Redrow
    • Retirement
    • Richard Davidoff
    • RICS
    • Right To Manage Federation
    • Roger Southam
    • Rooftop development
    • RTM
    • Sean Powell
    • SFO
    • Shared ownership
    • Sinclair Gardens Investments
    • Sir Ed Davey
    • Sir Peter Bottomley
    • St George’s Wharf
    • Subletting
    • Taylor Wimpey
    • Tchenguiz
    • Warwick Estates
    • West India Quay
    • William Waldorf Astor
    • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
  • [Custom]
Menu
  • Advice
  • News
      • Find everything …
      • About Peverel group
      • APPG
      • ARMA
      • Bellway
      • Benjamin Mire
      • Brixton Hill Court
      • Canary Riverside
      • Charter Quay
      • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
      • Cladding scandal
      • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
      • Commonhold
      • Communities Select Committee
      • Conveyancing Association
      • Countrywide
      • MHCLG
      • E&J Capital Partners
      • Exit fees
      • FirstPort
      • Fleecehold
      • Forfeiture
      • FPRA
      • Gleeson Homes
      • Ground rent scandal
      • Hanover
      • House managers flat
      • House of Lords
      • Housing associations
      • Informal lease extension
      • Insurance
      • IRPM
      • JB Leitch
      • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
      • John Christodoulou
      • Justin Bates
      • Justin Madders MP
      • Law Commission
      • LEASE
      • Liam Spender
      • Local authority leasehold
      • London Assembly
      • Louie Burns
      • Martin Paine
      • McCarthy and Stone
      • Moskovitz / Gurvits
      • Mulberry Mews
      • National Leasehold Campaign
      • Oakland Court
      • Park Homes
      • Parliament
      • Persimmon
      • Peverel
      • Philip Rainey QC
      • Plantation Wharf
      • Press
      • Property tribunal
      • Prostitutes
      • Quadrangle House
      • Redrow
      • Retirement
      • Richard Davidoff
      • RICS
      • Right To Manage Federation
      • Roger Southam
      • Rooftop development
      • RTM
      • Sean Powell
      • SFO
      • Shared ownership
      • Sinclair Gardens Investments
      • Sir Ed Davey
      • Sir Peter Bottomley
      • St George’s Wharf
      • Subletting
      • Taylor Wimpey
      • Tchenguiz
      • Warwick Estates
      • West India Quay
      • William Waldorf Astor
      • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
You are here: Home / News / Competition and Markets Authority / OFT / Bottomley: ‘possible criminal behaviour involving Peverel’ over tendering scams

Bottomley: ‘possible criminal behaviour involving Peverel’ over tendering scams

July 11, 2013 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

Scandalstrap

TimesLKPbannisterNov7Articles in The Times in 2009 also show Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation had publicly raised the issue of Cirrus’s tendering scams before Peverel turned itself in

Sir Peter Bottomley has waded into the Peverel price-fixing scandal by publicly doubting whether the company had “confessed” to the Office of Fair Trading before being alerted by the three Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation whistleblowers.

He also wants to know whether any public body was aware of “possible unlawful or criminal behavior involving Peverel”.

The three Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation whistleblowers – who include Susan Wood, Ken Kilmister and a third activist who prefers to remain nameless – contacted the OFT in January 2010, but the OFT is claiming that Peverel turned itself in the month before, in December 2009.

In an email to Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation yesterday afternoon Ms Yael Shine, the team leader of the OFT investigation, states: “I understand that you have approach Peverel to ask when Peverel first reported the matter to the OFT. I can confirm that Peverel reported this matter to the OFT in December 2009, prior to any complaint being received by the OFT.”

This was immediately passed to Sir Peter Bottomley who replied in a statement to Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation / LKP:

“What matters is who lost, who knew and who dominated this disgrace.

“It is vital to establish exactly when and in what circumstances the Serious Fraud Office, Trading Standards and the OFT first knew of allegations of possible unlawful or criminal behaviour involving Peverel.

“Unless the SFO, Trading Standards and OFT were alerted by Peverel before any public organisation had any indication of wrong-doing, it cannot be right to offer four years later immunity from penalty or from prosecution.

“I doubt whether the first Peverel confession does, in fact, pre-date the Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation whistleblowers or others contacting the SFO, Trading Standards or the OFT.

“Pensioners in retirement leasehold will be in despair if those who have cheated them for years are to be treated leniently. After such a protracted investigation, they have the right to expect restitution of defrauded funds and court action.

“Peverel have been dominant in this field. Provisions that might be appropriate when a minnow blows the whistle on major collaborating competitors cannot be right when the whale asks for leniency.”

The OFT’s fantasy that Peverel, out of an uncharacteristic sense of civic duty, turned itself in is debunked by media coverage of Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation in late 2009.

TimesSept252009

On September 26 2009, The Times journalist James Charles reported that the OFT had been swamped by complaints from pensioners living in retirement leasehold:

“It [the OFT] is investigating the industry after being inundated with complaints from residents who are appalled at the way that they are treated.”

TimesNov72009

On November 7 2009, The Times reported a meeting at the Commons of more than 100 Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation supporters, hosted by Ed Davey, LibDem MP for Kingston and Surbiton and now the Energy Secretary.

Davey is quoted in the article: “After meeting the Consensus Business Group [the Tchenguiz group that then owned Peverel] it seems to me that it knows that it is overcharging residents but it will not reduce the charges unless it is challenged. I find that approach outrageous.”

He urged the “monopolistic” group to be broken up, and added in a specific reference to the OFT:

“The OFT is considering a wider investigation into the residential home market and I believe that it should consider breaking up this cartel to increase competition.”

Cirrus, the warden call and door entry provider at the centre of the price-fixing scandal, was mentioned extensively in the article.

Nigel Bannister, the then chief executive of Peverel, rejected claims that the company awarded contracts to companies within the group.

“People are reading a conspiracy into a problem that isn’t there. We use Cirrus because it is an excellent service,” Bannister is quoted as saying.

TimesDec42009

Most damning of all to the OFT’s argument that Peverel turned itself in is the article of December 4 2009 in The Times.

Briefed by Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, it addressed contracts awarded to Cirrus.

“Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, the Campaign Against Retirement Leasehold Exploitation, has identified a number of developments where vulnerable residents were told of the need to upgrade their warden-call and door-entry systems but were given little choice over what the work would involve or who would do it.”

It continues: “In Heather Court, in Chichester, Sussex, and Chislet Court, Herne Bay, and Roman Court, Edenbridge, both in Kent, only two companies produced a tender for the work: Cirrus and Glyn Jackson Communications.”

Glyn Jackson Communications, which went into liquidation in June 2012 (its directors were Glyn Jackson and Jayne Michelle Jackson), is one of the three companies involved in sham tendering processes which always revealed Cirrus to be cheaper, according to the OFT.

The Times reported the case of Gibson Court in Esher, Surrey where residents were told that they would have to pay about £39,000 for a new system.

“Marina Golding [a Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation activist], who owns a flat in the development that is used by her mother, was at a meeting in which residents were told of two quotes, one from Glyn Jackson for £41,000 and one from Cirrus for £38,973.

“Mrs Golding was shocked at the huge bill quoted by Peverel and contacted another company to get an estimate for the work. Delta Communication Ltd carried out an onsite inspection and quoted her a price of £17,000 to upgrade the system in Gibson Court, more than £20,000 cheaper than the cost quoted by Cirrus.”

Although the OFT states that Peverel owned up to price-fixing in December 2009, it was not co-operative with The Times.

“Peverel refused to explain why Glyn Jackson was asked to quote in every case.”

COMMENT

The OFT’s argument that Peverel should be immune from the consequences of its fiddling because it may have contacted the OFT in December 2009 after a series of high-level exposures in the media is utterly contemptible.

It needs to explain why it is airing this fiction and – equally important – why it has taken four years to deal with this inquiry.

Questions need to be asked of the OFT at the highest level.

 

Related posts:

Peverel cheated pensioners in £1.4 million tenders at 65 sites, says OFT Default ThumbnailCampaign against Residential Leasehold Exploitation meets lawyers over Peverel price-fixing scandal Davey and Bottomley quiz OFT over its leniency deal with Peverel over the Cirrus price-fixing scam MPs demand ‘justice and recompense’ for victims of Peverel’s price-fixing scams … Peverel Cirrus price-fixing stooge says sorry …

Category: Competition and Markets Authority / OFT, FirstPort, News, Peverel Cirrus story so far, Press, Sir Peter Bottomley, Slider PostsTag: Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, Cirrus, Glyn Jackson, Nigel Bannister, OFT, Peverel, Sir Ed Davey, Sir Peter Bottomley

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (37) ARMA (87) Bellway (30) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (31) CMA (45) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (41) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (42) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (54) Harry Scoffin (150) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (35) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (30) Justin Bates (40) Justin Madders MP (67) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Long Harbour (48) Martin Boyd (80) McCarthy and Stone (39) National Leasehold Campaign (38) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Redrow (30) Retirement (37) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (55) Sir Peter Bottomley (201) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (31) Vincent Tchenguiz (43) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « Fury as OFT may give Peverel immunity over Cirrus price-fixing scandal
Next Post: Cabinet minister celebrates Charter Quay ‘independence day’ as it breaks free from ‘monstrous companies’: Tchenguiz and Peverel »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. OMhostage

    July 11, 2013 at 6:42 pm

    Does anyone seriously believe that this is the only such malpractice that Peverel were engaged in?
    Painting and decorating anyone?
    Hauling away items of rubbish supposedly too big for the council?

  2. LHA

    July 12, 2013 at 2:25 pm

    As always expenditure is subject to section 19 and any leaseholder can challenge these expenses.

    • Paul

      July 14, 2013 at 7:42 am

      LHA

      The problem, in reality, is the bigger trickster the managing agent/’freeholder is the worse it is for the leaseholder; I have seen for myself that some blocks of flats have been going to the LVT for over thirteen years— the freeholder will try one set of bogus accounts and fail at a cost of say£3,600, in accountant’s fees , which he would benefit by say £! 120, 000! However, he will then come back with a recycled version and try again, GROUNDHOG DAY. Even when the freeholder may have CCJs or a criminal record, he still carries on until leaseholders run out of monies.

      • LHA

        July 15, 2013 at 10:18 am

        Paul if this is a case of a “war of fees”, leasholders can look at alternatives such as the right to manage or appointing a manager via the Tribunal.

        • Paul

          July 15, 2013 at 11:22 am

          LHA

          In reality, a tricky freeholder is one step ahead— we spent £12000 putting a high profile manager from London in as two other LVT managers had failed with our freeholders non cooperation. Before our freeholder was replaced, he rushed into getting a roofing company,
          which cost was about £70,000 more than the quote we had sort.
          Where as there was £119,000 in the sinking funds we now have found he only handed over £ 17,000.

          He also set up the present building contractor before he left, who are doing the whole building, including, which is all the communal areas, we have noted this same contactor is also doing his eight flats. How do we know that we the minority leaseholders are not paying for this work? There is a major disadvantage for us to see any accounts at all, we spend most of our lives trying to keep up with this flawed system.

          • LHA

            July 15, 2013 at 2:15 pm

            You keep saying “in reality” Paul I have been doing this “in reality since 1984 🙂 An injunction could have been sought against the freeholder and pre Daejan the LVT could have capped the expenses to £250, as well as consider under S19 the scope and cost of the works. If the lease does not provide for “accounts” exercise the statutory rights under S21 and 22 to have the certified.

  3. Karen

    July 21, 2013 at 6:47 pm

    Are we being asked to believe by the OFT that Peverel actually went to them with their hands up and Peverel confessed all voluntarily ! do they really, think that the British public are that stupid?

    I think the OFT could find themselvs under investigation if they are not careful.

    Why is it that everytime anyone tries to make dubious managing agents or landlords accountable for what they are doing, there is somebody/organisation somewhere down the line of which ever government is in power that tries to put up hurdles to shove it under the carpet….

    Are they not listening to us?

    WE WILL NOT GO AWAY – WE WILL CARRY ON EXPOSING IRREGULARITIES AND CORRUPTION WITHIN THE LEASEHOLD PROPERTY WORLD…….

    Well done Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation and LKP………

  4. Michael Epstein

    July 21, 2013 at 9:33 pm

    Karen,
    Like a dictator that has not realised that his time is up, so those in authority such as the OFT or those that allow the continued abuse of leaseholders have not yet grasped that the pendulum has swung. Too many people are putting too much effort in to turn back now.
    Either the authorities who “tolerate” the excesses of freeholders and managing agents and do “convenient” deals with the freeholders and managing agents will have to take notice of the new situation or they too will be swept away by the tide of protest.

Above Footer

Advising leaseholders. Avoiding disasters.
Stopping forfeiture. Exposing abuses. Urging reform.

We depend on individuals for the majority of our funding.

Support Us and Donate

LKP Managing Agents

Become an LKP Managing Agent

Common Ground
Adam Church
Blocnet property management2

Stay in Touch

To achieve victory in the leasehold game where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well - stay informed with the LKP newsletter.
Sign Up for Newsletter

Professional Directory

The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders.
Click on the logos for company profiles.

Footer

About LKP

  • What is LKP
  • Privacy and data

Categories

  • News
  • Cladding scandal
  • Commonhold
  • Law Commission
  • Fleecehold
  • Parliament
  • Press
  • APPG

Contact

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
Open Data Institute
5th Floor
Kings Place
London N1 9AG

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

Copyright © 2023 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership | All rights reserved
Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Limited (company number: 08999652) is a company limited by guarantee that is a registered charity (number: 1162584) with the Charities Commission.
LKP website is hosted at www.34sp.com
Website by Callia Web