• 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 / Jailed Bryanston Court fraudster Brian Copsey exposed by £1.8m bounced cheque

Jailed Bryanston Court fraudster Brian Copsey exposed by £1.8m bounced cheque

April 17, 2014 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

MailOnline reports Brian Copsey being remanded last year
MailOnline reports Brian Copsey being remanded last year

‘He lived among his victims with no apparent shame or remorse’

The respected finance director of a residents’ management company at Bryanston Court in central London was exposed as a thief after a £1.8 million cheque bounced.

Brian Copsey, an accountant from New Zealand, plundered his neighbours of £1.1 million “to pay for his children’s education” … and to fund an “extravagant lifestyle”.

On Tuesday, Copsey, 60, was jailed for eight years at Southwark Crown Court, and banned from being a company director for 12 years.

He stole the money at the 57-flat block, near Marble Arch, by forging bank documents authorising money paid in service charges by residents. The funds were transferred in £100,000 tranches to companies that he controlled.

Because he was a chartered accountant, Copsey was appointed to finance chairman and director of Bryanston Court Management Limited and Bryanston Court Freehold Limited.

Bryanston Court, where Brian Copsey helped himself to £1.1 million of the communal funds
Bryanston Court, where Brian Copsey helped himself to £1.1 million of the communal funds

He was responsible for gathering in the service charges at the flats, and manage funds for a substantial planned refurbishment of the building.

Instead, he decided to spend defrauded funds totaling £1,160,525 on himself.

Copsey was arrested on October 28 2012 by Westminster CID investigation after the horrified board learned that a cheque for £1.8 million had bounced.

For two years and nine months, bank transfers were made from the two companies to companies over which Copsey had sole control.

The cash was then doled out to recipients who included his wife, his two sons and to their private school in New Zealand. He also made payments towards his own personal bills.

Copsey attempted to hide his fraud from his neighbours by emailing board members to say the funds were safely invested in the money markets to achieve some “additional yield”.

Unsurprisingly, nothing was returned.

Copsey had been spending the money as if it were his own, and for the benefit of himself, his associates and his family.

“Brian Copsey abused the trust placed in him repeatedly for almost three years,” said Detective Constable Julie Jode of Westminster CID.

“The victims in this case were neighbours and friends whom he saw on a daily basis. Despite the revelations of Mr Copsey’s actions he continued to live among his victims with no apparent shame or remorse.

“These transfers appear to have been made in order for Brian Copsey to spend the money and in effect run these accounts as if they were his ‘pocket money’ accounts at an extortionate loss to multiple victims in this case.

“The victims were Brian Copsey’s neighbours, some of which were friends all living in the same block as him, some being elderly and retired, some who had to take loans out to pay their contribution to the service costs and refurbishments of the building.

“Money which Brian Copsey appears to have disposed of on his own personal bills and commitments.

“Hopefully this conviction will send a strong message to others that the Metropolitan Police Service will seek to arrest and put before the courts anyone engaged in this type of criminality to keep our communities safer.”

 

COMMENT

There is no denying that a jailed director of a residents’ management company sounds a cautionary note for those who campaign to empower leaseholders.

Especially when the sum involved, £1.1 million, was so vast. This total dwarfs the £120,000 stolen by managing agent Simon Van Houten, employed by Rendall and Rittner, who was jailed last year.

Leaseholders must be vigilant and demand to see evidence of accounts – bank statements and actual invoices, for example – rather than simply rely on breezy assurances.

Brian Copsey has demonstrated that that is equally important, whether dealing with a Rackman or your charming neighbour who lives on the fourth floor.

There will be no shortage of finger-wagging among the usual stooges of the status quo who will use this case as an example of why leaseholders should not manage their own affairs.

It will be argued that property management is best left to “professionals” who are regulated by codes of practice, vigilant trade bodies and have meticulous standards, confirmed by a slightly unfamiliar jumble of letters after their name.

They will be employed, of course, by freeholders of irreproachable character, whose offshore holding companies should cause no alarm at all …

The truth of the matter is that while the leasehold system can and should be reformed, there is little anyone can do to prevent outright criminality.

On this occasion, the man going down was a leasehold resident director of an RMC. But it could be the turn of a property manager, a freeholder, a bent lawyer, surveyor or auditor.

It is an open question what the next leasehold scandal will reveal.

The only certainty is that there will be one.

Related posts:

Default ThumbnailChairman of leasehold RMC accused of stealing £1 million Leaseholders’ money ‘safe’ from £1.3 million fraudster at Hurford Salvi Carr Default ThumbnailFraudster managing agent gets 30 months jail for using East Londoners’ cash to fund high life in Chelsea LEASE uses debt-collecting Brady Solicitors for leaseholder survey Default ThumbnailHaving fraudster Simon van Houten manage our flats cost us £100,000

Category: NewsTag: Brian Copsey, Bryanston Court

Sign up to the LKP newsletter

Fill in the link here

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (44) ARMA (91) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (33) CMA (46) Commonhold (55) Competition and Markets Authority (42) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (55) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (55) Israel Moskovitz (32) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (36) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (31) Justin Bates (41) Justin Madders MP (75) Katie Kendrick (40) Law Commission (61) LEASE (68) Leasehold Advisory Service (65) Leasehold houses (32) Liam Spender (39) Long Harbour (51) Lord Greenhalgh (32) Martin Boyd (87) McCarthy and Stone (43) National Leasehold Campaign (42) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Retirement (38) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (67) Sir Peter Bottomley (211) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (34) Vincent Tchenguiz (45) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « Quango-crat Deep Sagar told: sack ‘disgraced and disgraceful’ Benjamin Mire or sack yourself!
Next Post: LKP wins press awards for two years running »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Anon

    April 17, 2014 at 7:59 pm

    Whilst it is true that there is little that can be done to stop someone who has decided to simply steal the service charges, had the money been stolen by, say, a managing agent, there would likely have been better prospects of recovery via a professional negligence / breach of trust claim and, if necessary, a call on their professional indemnity insurance.

    • AM

      April 19, 2014 at 9:04 am

      Or the client money protection schemes.

  2. Michael Epstein

    April 17, 2014 at 8:11 pm

    It should be made compulsory that all service charge trust accounts are protected by insurance against fraud.

    • AM

      April 19, 2014 at 9:06 am

      I agree, but as neither government has not commenced the enacted right to withold nor the penalties,don’t hold your breath.

  3. chas

    April 17, 2014 at 10:06 pm

    ME, how can we check that what we are informed is correct and how do we request the balances when they only provide photo-copies of statements.

    We had a Cheating House Manager who relived us of over £3,676 we eventually received 95% as a good will gesture, does this GOOD WILL GESTURE ring any bells when considering Price Fixing?

    Our Regional Manager refuses to allow monies used by the House Manager some £150 which was from the day she moved in she treated the Managers Phone as her own?

  4. Michael Epstein

    April 18, 2014 at 7:12 am

    What a silly boy you have been Brian Copsey!
    Next time if you want to get hold of service charge trust funds, set up associated companies and engage in a bit of collusive tendering! Oh! and don’t forget the insurance commissions you can help yourself to!
    Not only will that keep you out of jail, but because you have used “associated” companies you can still be a member of ARMA.

    • AM

      April 19, 2014 at 9:07 am

      Brilliant 😀

  5. Paul Joseph

    April 18, 2014 at 7:24 am

    No doubt members of the Institute for Residential Property Management, the Association of Residential Managing agents and their fellow travelers will want maximum publicity for this case to demonstrate that self-management is not safe. Unfortunately, any claims that the funds held by such people are safer is completely without foundation.

    What is there to prevent a Madoff type scam with a managing agent aggregating funds from all developments under its control and simply issuing entirely fake statements about balances?

    In reality, nothing.

    A great many people who feared their funds would disappear have in recent years switched to paying by direct debit precisely in order to mimimize such risks, or better still, managed to get rid of a managing agent that was simply notorious for its conflicts of interest and poor service. Members of these organisations have had,in recent years to repay six figure sums looted from the reserves of developments they manage, and managed to avoid publicity by doing so, because they could find the money.

    Frankly, for the leaseholder it’s a choice between putting money in a bank that might go bust, Barings style, and one that with an endless list of stratagems to monetise your business, and which also might go bust.

  6. Karen

    April 18, 2014 at 9:36 am

    I think to put this into perspective we have to remember that there are thousands of extremely well managed self managed sites out there, ours being one of them. We should all be quick off the mark to remind those self pontificating bodies and their legal representatives who try to say RTM Co’s do not work that they DO WORK…. They are only trying to justify their own positions and salaries not to mention keep the heat off all the unscruplious companies operating out there….

    • AM

      April 19, 2014 at 9:12 am

      And, on the other hand, a lot of those resident controlled schemes use agents that provide a service from “”mmm”to ok to excellent. A lot of those schemes are also very well run until they find out that they still need to do section 20,aren’t keeping service change separate in a section 42 fund, dont comply with section 47 or 48 and look blankly when summary of rights are mentioned, and any other number of mistakes.

      The point is neither side of eh coin is right mistakes and ignorance abound on both sides, as does the potential for fraud.

      • Karen

        April 19, 2014 at 4:43 pm

        That is not my experience of our RTM or any of the leaseholders I speak to who have a RTM on their sites……. and our funds are kept seperatley as is our sinking fund…

        • AM

          April 22, 2014 at 9:10 am

          Sadly it is an all to common problem with the number of people not only in business experience but with my other hat on where leaseholders are helped at two websites. I am glad to see that the RTM money is held separately to SC & RF/SF, BUT has the bank confirmed that the monies are recognised as held under section s42? if they haven’t, then they are treated as the company’s money and not, as they should be, as held on trust, and separate from the company’s cash or assets.

          • Michael Epstein

            April 23, 2014 at 6:45 am

            AM,
            I understand that separate readily identifiable service charge trust accounts cannot be counted as managing/freeholdercompany assets..
            In every case an acknowlegement should be obtained from the bank.
            Whilst that should protect service charge trust accounts from a managing/freeholding company default,those funds have to be readily identifiable. At what point are those funds readily identifiable and at what point do they cease to be identifiable? Does it refer only to funds in the actual account? what about funds yet to be paid in or funds taken out to pay invoices?
            Is there protection against fraud for service charge trust accounts?
            Is insurance available to cover service charge trust accounts?
            If so, would it be dificult for a company that has a “history” to obtain such insurance?

  7. chas

    April 19, 2014 at 12:01 am

    Fully agree Karen, lets look at how these Managing Agent survive?

    We pay £12,000 a year of which 20% is VAT to Peverel Retirement who advertised on the WEB stating that they had 1,500 developments, 50 Area Managers and 5 Regional manager.

    Divide the 50 into 1500 this is 30 developments that each Area Manager would have to manage?

    As there is only 48 weeks that they can work in a year that means that 30 weeks from the 48 weeks leaves 18 weeks to be divided by 30 developments.

    Therefore each development can only be allotted 1.6 weeks a year each?

    35 hours a week meant that 0.6 of a week is a 20 further hours, making a total that can be spent per year on each development by the Area Manager is 56 hours a year for each of the 30 developments?

    £12,000 a year for Management Fees so divide 56 into £12,000 means that Peverel Retirement earn £214.00 an hour for each of the 56 hours that they allow for MANAGING OUR DEVELOPMENT???

    I have been informed that the Area Managers have to undertake unpaid overtime just to keep their heads above water some working over 60 hours to maintain the poor service that they offer?

    The Area Managers do not check any weekly or monthly invoice that is sent to HQ but rely on personnel to put together the Invoice Files which are a disgrace with invoices for other development often found and others filed in wrong heading, but mostly all contract documents are removed before they are sent to us for checking as they have been at ABC.

    They claim that they can be checked up to 30 days after a contract is agreed but they then do not place the contract documents within the Expenses File, so you have to ask as I have done and 18 months after asking for the Warden Call System documentation only half of the information/documentation has been provided.

    No contract document have been seen or sent and we like others are aware we also were possibly Price Fixed as was reported by The Peverel Group to the OFT into Price Fixing where it was stated that possibly all contracts undertaken by Cirrus after late 2006 to 2009 had been Price Fixed,

    Peverel Group, own words seen in the OFT Report which can be seen on line???

    • AM

      April 23, 2014 at 8:24 am

      Chas that is how some agents survive, not by any means all.

  8. AM

    April 19, 2014 at 9:03 am

    No surprisingly I disagree,but bear with me. Whoever is in control, there is always the risk of fraud-“thank you”s to freebies to £1.8m or more. For resident controlled groups there is marginally more risk (though a lot more to lose if the fraudster lives there 🙂 ), so the motto for everyone, RMC/RTE/RTMs especially,is “Trust, But Verify”.

    Don’t rely on breezy assurances or excel spreadsheets ensure that the original bank statement wherever the money is are brought to each quarterly board meeting,and when dealing with a block of this size and the level of funds,have the auditor verify that they are correct and reconciled each quarter. Don’t have one signatory or sole online access restrict it to 2 or even 3 if its over £10K and banks will alert you if there are more than a certain number or volume of transactions.

    The worry for residents groups is that they rarely understand this nor even ensure that the funds are even held in section 42 accounts. rather than just bash the “stooges” this stooge ( as some say) suggests that a simple advice sheet on the site might be a lot more useful to those you encourage.

  9. Karen

    April 19, 2014 at 4:49 pm

    We employ managing agents to run our site so no leaseholders have access to any of the funds. I personally go into our managing agents office every 2 months and scrutinise EVERY invoice to ensure we are not being overcharge. I also insist that where possible we use local services who are not vat registered because as we know vat can add 20% onto the overall running costs of a site.
    It is important that complacency does not set in once RTM has been achieved and do not assume that you can trust anyone because you can’t.

  10. martin ellis jones

    April 20, 2014 at 8:00 am

    This man was good,; but not good enough……..

    Having any form of direct debit arrangement to the favour of ANYONE is a risk worth avoiding

    Watch people’s personal habits, and if they keep a suite at the Savoy or the Westbury…… or have six children at private schools – like my father did – look out

    Working out how l can get a position on the board at the Co-op Bank

    Pip pip

    Martin Ellis Jones

  11. Philomena

    April 20, 2014 at 9:34 am

    Leaseholders are too complacent when it comes to their money especially in RMCs. They are uncomfortable about questioning their neighbor directors in case it is seen as an assault on their integrity. If neighbor directors are unscrupulous, they will exploit this and say anyone asking questions is a troublemaker (and much worse). In some cases neighbor directors bully leaseholders into agreeing with them on fear of being singled out for special treatment for minor breaches of leases.
    As leaseholders wear two hats – that of leaseholders and that of shareholders – their position is complicated. If they wish to challenge the landlord they are in effect challenging themselves. If legal action is necessary the leaseholder has to pay twice, once as an individual leaseholder and once as a shareholder in the landlord company.
    Proper, detailed RMC accounts should be a legal requirement, so many items can be lost in abbreviated accounts.

    • AM

      April 22, 2014 at 9:17 am

      You are right and that is a rub, though the Articles must allow the company to ask shareholders or members to make a contribution, most don’t, and therefore it cannot be approved by a vote. However it actually helps the shareholder by being a leaseholder. While dormant accounts should never be accepted a leaseholder does have the contractual rights in(most) leases for a detailed statement or report or certificate, even an audit, and the statutory right to a summary and the right to inspect the invoices. In most cases the addition of a detailed I & E to most company accounts solves the problem for most.

  12. AM

    April 23, 2014 at 8:23 am

    ME re 23-4 To make them identifiable, the funds passed in and out that are service charge should only go through a trust account, not say a pool account that hold other non SC money eg a Karen type RTM could not use their company account to bank/pay and transfer funds to and from the SC/RF/SF accounts. An agent might use a single trust account, for SC/RF/SF, to bank/pay for all blocks and allocate or reconcile funds between them

    I agree this is only worst case protection, and there is yet to be requirement for all landlords and all agents to have a money protection scheme as you suggest.

Primary Sidebar

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.

Barry Passmore

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 © 2025 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