@LKPleasehold @ARMAleasehold @FoPRA @LEASEonline – looking forward to working to improve standards for leaseholders & practice in the sector
— Sally Keeble (@Sally_Keeble) July 29, 2016
Former New Labour minister Sally Keeble is to be the new ARMA regulator, after former housing minister Rt Hon Keith Hill, also a minister in the Blair governments, quits in November.
Sally Keeble will chair the Regulatory Panel, which oversees ARMA members and determines disciplinary outcomes of cases involving member firms.
“As a government minister Sally had responsibility for social exclusion and housing and has enjoyed a varied and highly successful career in senior positions, including council leader of the London Borough of Southwark.
“As a minister Sally took the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 through Parliament, and most recently held a senior role in international development.”
Mr Hill said: “The calibre of applicants was exceptionally high and Sally is expertly placed to take over a role which is crucial for the standing and integrity of the independent status of the Panel.”
Sally Keeble will take up the appointment in November 2016 when Mr Hill stands down after three years in the role.
Congratulations to Sally in landing this position which gives her a great opportunity to make a difference.
She appears to be a very honourable person as indeed is Keith Hill.
I hope Sally will do everything she can to improve the lot of Leaseholders, and not just ARMA, the organisation who employs her.
For the Regulatory Board to have previously exonerated a price fixing offence (despite all the evidence available), is not the way forward and I hope she will look again at the question of fair compensation for those Complexes that suffered. from.it.
I did apply for the Regulators position myself, but failed to make the shortlist.
Most likely, the fact that I wanted to give the system a shake up and showed much sympathy to Leaseholders problems, probably counted against me.
This recent news that Peverel/Firstport have been found guilty of 4 accounts regarding the fire at Gibson Court, can this be used to keep them from achieving ARMA-Q?
Probably not! If ARMA have not found sufficient evidence concerning Peverel/Firstpor’st price fixing they have no reason to deny them ARMA-Q status on those grounds. That Peverel/Firstport found sufficient evidence of the price fixing to report themselves to the OFT (thus avoiding penalty fines) does not seem to have registered with ARMA? What other evidence other than Peverel/Firstport admitting their guilt does ARMA need?
ARMA may try to claim the price fixing was an “historical event” undertaken by the former management.
That would only be correct, had the money that residents were cheated out of had been fully repaid.
Yes, the fraud was committed by the old management, but crucially the new management has kept the funds that were stolen from residents. and are still using those funds for their advantage. until fully repaid the price fixing is very much a current issue.
If we accept the ARMA assertion that the offences were committed by former Peverel/Firstport management, they clearly will know the names of those former managers.
And yet, when those former managers set themselves up in property management (Freemont Property Managers, ARMA happily admitted them into ARMA. WHY?
These postings are from About Peverel Website, regarding Gibson Court Fire 2011 previously posted on Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation.
Mark Time: posted 02/08/16
Amazing news report that on 22 July 2016 Peverel pleaded guilty to charges in Guildford County Court over the fire at Gibson Court in which Irene Cockerton lost her life five years ago. Was this a fire regulations or H&SE case?
A bit surprised to hear this has been going on, considering that the 2014 inquest seemed to have accepted Peverel’s excuses. What were the charges – presumably failings under fire safety regulations such as having the fire doors propped open?
I am guessing this was a corporate charge rather than against individuals – eg Cocky Keith and Carol Crowe – for negligence over fire safety, or for putting all their energy into spinning a version of what happened instead of looking after those affected.
Please can we read all about this … where is the detail?
And, please, can we all remember Irene, and her family, and all the residents and their families who were so badly let down. I hope they can take some comfort from this news, as I have, that someone has taken the time and trouble to pursue justice. I will never forget.
Mark Time on 01 August 2016
Simon Williams: posted:
I worked for Barry Everritt and despite his failings he was very strict on Health & Safety. My guess would be that if he had a team of Technical Officers he would have instructed one of them to inspect this fire curtain after the repair.
With Mr Edgar’s and Mrs Crowes decision to remove the Technical Officers, Mr Everritt didn’t have anyone to instruct. So, in my opinion, the decision to save £350,000 per year by removing a service to the residents may have been the reason for this tragic event.
Simon Williams on 02 August 2016
The role of an inquest is to establish a cause of death, which it does by investigating the circumstances that led to that death.
Though the death of Irene Cockerton was ruled accidental, there was sufficient concern expressed during the inquest to have led to Surrey Fire Brigade to launch a prosecution, for which Peverel/Firstport pleaded Guilty on 4 counts. Sentencing is set for late October.
It should be remembered that those in charge of Peverel/Firstport at the time of the fire are now directors of Freemont Property Managers..
It should also be remembered that the fire was not the first time Gibson Court had been in the news. it is not commonly known, but it was through a resident of Gibson Court that the price fixing fraud was first exposed.
Along with many others, I will not forget Irene Cockerton and have such great respect for the dignified way in which her family have acted.
When the Price Fixing Scandal was first uncovered in 2008/09 at Gibson Court, it began the Campaign Against Residential Exploitation (Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation).
The Times Newspaper in 2009 reported Peverel/Firstport had been found systematically cheating Retirement Developments using Bogus Tenders. This ensured Peverel/Firstport would win all Warden Call/Fire System Contracts they could cope with over a 5 Year Period from 2005 to 2009 when it was stopped.
The Peverel Group now Firstport were informed in 2009 the Price Fixing Scam had been uncovered by Ken Kilmister one of the original Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation Members.
It was later reported during December 2009, the then Peverel Group Director, Nigel Bannister phoned the Office of fair Trading (OFT) informed them, Peverel Retirement and Cirrus Communication, both Peverel Group Companies, had collude in Bogus Tendering and Price Fixing.
The OFT were known to have a Whistle Blowers Charter, this allowed Peverel Retirement (now Firstport) and Cirrus Communication (now Appello) to be immune from prosecution. Peverel Retirement along with Cirrus Communication were the main players in Bogus Tendering/Price Fixing. Three other Bogus Tenderer’s were fined circa £57,000 between them. Owens paid £1,777 fine, the other two placed their companies in Administration, not paying a penny of the fines, some justice?.
The OFT Investigation into the Price Fixing cost £500,000, therefore we were stung twice. Peverel stung 65 developments making £1.4 million pounds, during the five year period We the tax payer then were stung with the full cost of the OFT Investigation.
Following this scandal in 2010 it was reported the Peverel Group, MD, Keith Edgar made all Technical Officers Redundant except for one. These redundancy’s meant that Peverel/Firstport no longer were able to check on repairs/work undertaken but relied on photos, as in the fire at Gibson Court.
As Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation expand to become a more formidable force to protect the interests of leaseholders, would it be their intention to apply for accreditation from ARMA?
Sounds like a good idea.
There seems to be a good relationship between Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation and ARMA and it might enable them to give ARMA the shake up they so badly need.