Comments

  1. chas Willis says

    Please believe this is a Precis.

    This was posted today and is typical of Fleecehold by Unscrupulous Developers and Managing agents on both Leasehold and Freeholds.

    As a resident on a private housing estate in Gwent, South Wales. The estate was constructed in 2008 by Redrow Homes Limited, with 55 dwellings a mixture of Freehold Houses and Leasehold Flats.

    The poster purchasing their property Freehold in 2015, and was advised by Conveyance Solicitor that a management company “Peverel” maintained the whole estate. Three months after purchasing we received Management Fee Charges.

    On enquiring with a neighbour, they were astonished to find they did not contribute any fees at all and neither 15 other Freehold property owners. Solicitor advised them the road to the front of the property was adopted by local authorities when in fact it was a private road. Both properties are within the boundaries of the private road but the developers Redrow Homes only enforced the TP1 Title Deeds Covenant on the one property, not both.

    Four years have been spent disputing Managing Fees fees charged, and has been extremely stressful, and very frustrating. The conveyance solicitor stated the Management Company Peverel now Firstport was, in fact, the Managing Agents (MA) for the Resident Management Committee (R.M.C).

    Firstport has never been seen to provide any service to the estate, residents raised complaints in September 2017 as fees increased unreasonably. Even after a site meeting when work was scheduled, to date, none of it has been implemented.

    At the time of purchase, each owner became a member of the Residents Management Company Ltd. There were 3 directors of the R.M.C. two being Redrow employees, the third a non-resident owner of an apartment on the estate. The listed company secretary is Firstport Secretarial Limited (Registration Number 05806647).

    The R.M.C. Directors also appointed FirstPort as MA for the estate, bearing in mind this setup, residents are concerned there are a number of conflicts of interest, preventing Directors and the Company Secretary acting in the best interest of the estate, the reasons for these concerns are as follows:

    1. Sub-standard or non-existent work carried out by First Port on behalf of the RMC.
    2. Lack of transparency in costings
    3. Significant price increases (63% in 4 years) on their Management Fees
    4. Directors of the RMC did not wish to be contacted directly by Residents
    5. Communications had to be via Firstport Secretarial
    6. Multiple communications to Directors via Firstport Secretarial not communicated
    7. Two directors confirmed on 22/05/2019, they had not been receiving messages
    8. A meeting was held were representatives of the LA together with local Member of the Welsh Assembly and staff, who supporting residents with our issues with Redrow and Firstport.

    Firstport Secretarial Limited is a subsidiary of Firstport Property Services Ltd, hence residents feel this calls into question their independence in this matter, hence the perceived conflict of interest. Residents are also concerned about the independence of the two directors employed by Redrow. Residents are in dispute with Redrow the way the site was set up.

    Residents are also suspicious about a strip of woodland, adjacent to the estate, that was originally owned by Redrow but ownership has now been transferred to the RMC. This land has little monetary value but does present a risk to the estate. In 2013 one of the residents made an enquiry to purchasing a portion of this land to construct a garage, Redrow wanted £8,000, and was declined, however, recently this land had been transferred to the R.M.C.

    On original drawings, this land was owned by Redrow, not the R.M.C. In fact, the ownership of the whole estate was only recently transferred to the R.M.C from Redrow July 2018. Residents suspected because of the risk associated with this land the title has been transferred to the R.M.C, limiting risk to Redrow. The Directors of the R.M.C. employed by Redrow who were party to these decisions, so again questioning their independence in this matter, and hence the perceived conflict of interest.

    2. Other Issues Worth Attention

    (i) The Articles of Association state that owners/new owners on the estate should be issued with a Certificate of Membership signed by a Director and affixed with the Company Seal, this has not happened, residents were not even aware of the existence of the R.M.C. until recently.

    (ii) In line with the Articles of Association, there should be an A.G.M. held and members provided with proper notice, no A.G.M has ever been set up or held with residents.

    (iii) Increases by 63% in Firstport Management Fees during the last four years. The R.M.C. Directors have taken no action to query this increase and no action has been taken to monitor and control cost increases imposed by Firstport, residents feel the directors are not acting in the best interest of the Members or R.M.C.

    (v) Regarding current director positions, there is a duty to keep directors’ information up to date and the registrar should be notified of any changes, including address details. Failure in this duty is an offence. When attempting to contact directors it has come to light that the address provided on Companies House for Anthony Ralph is Firstport Property Services Ltd. Contact with the Firstport C.E.O.to obtain an email address for Mr Ralph showed Firstport had no one with that name at the address. Directors have since confirmed Mr Ralph is an employee of Redrow!!!

    (vi) At a recent meeting with the directors, Wayne Rees stated that neither he or Anthony Ralph was aware that Chris Meredith had been appointed as a director of the RMC as neither himself or Anthony Ralph had signed this off?

    (vii) Directors have signed off accounts with glaring errors, which were picked up by residents, hence Directors are not performing their duties as outlined. Residents are not aware if any of these points breach the Companies Act. However, residents are concerned that the Companies Act is being used by big construction companies to pass on liabilities to people who purchase properties in good faith?

    (viii) Redrow and Firstport are pushing for residents to become directors of the RMC, however, we have been advised legally not to do this because of the issues that the estate currently have. Part of the Estate leasehold Apartment blocks and leasehold flats are above garages and the Freehold to this building has been sold by the developers Redrow to a private company, Wallace Estate.

    (ix)The estate common areas S1 areas under the MA are charged equally between Leasehold and Freehold. The fees charged are unfair as the ECP that affect the Freehold properties is very small in comparison to the communal areas surrounding the leasehold properties. These areas around leasehold properties are well maintained compared to the areas surrounding Freehold properties. It took many hours to research the Estate due to the manner in which Redrow developed it into multiple schedules which is in such a mess, confirmed by Redrow Director Mr Wayne Rees. ( May have a different MA, this would explain the quality of maintenance)?

    (x) We are currently working with AM Alun Davies of Redrow to redress the Estate Freehold properties, which are now unsellable due to the TP1 covenant potential purchasers withdrawing from completion as soon as their solicitors receive management buyers packs. Even offering £30,000-£50,000 below market value.

    (xi) The legislation urgently needs to redress a Fleecehold Scam that greedy developers have enforced upon the whole nation. The developers blame conveyance solicitors of not advising clients of the covenants within title deeds. Developers are aware that they have not been transparent in the information provided to buyers and conveyance solicitors otherwise the issue we are facing would not be a nationwide dispute, not all solicitors could be negligent in their advice given.

    (xii) I honestly don’t know how much more fighting for justice we can all cope with, it is causing so much misery and pain, constantly thinking about it, not being able to switch off. There are so many People nationwide in need of legislation to change not just for future newbuilds but for all of those who have found themselves involved with their properties not in the true sense as an owner of a Freehold property.

    (xiii) We will win when the government undertakes a proper investigation into this matter regarding Leasehold and Freehold Exploitation.

    Name Withheld

  2. Trinity House RTM says

    Aside of Chas, who must be tragically short on company and long on time, and Michael who is clearly devout if not particularly well informed…does anybody read these articles? I appreciate it’s a big issue and the moderators are giving up almost all of their spare time but it often feels like these articles go unseen. I’ve tried to sympathise with NLC although, as an educated informed RTM Director, I find most of their content blatantly spurious. Are there any other options out there with real followings and active debates? Look forward to (hopefully) hearing

    • chas Willis says

      An anonymous Director from Trinity House RTM has decided to be rude regarding Michael and myself.

      Many friends have been in touch to say for an individual to be so rude, and hide behind a RTM Company is very concerning since we should both be on the same page.

      Some of my friends know this RTM company and have given me the names of the directors which I will not publish today.

      If the director wishes to post further and explain why his views have merit, it, would show courage to use their full name and not just hide behind Trinity House RTM.

      The posting had been sent to Lord Richard Best and a much longer version posted on LKP,

      Lord Best is investigating Property Management, Leasehold and Fleecehold, in a very broad inquiry which includes Letting Agents.

      The letter highlighted Leasehold and Fleecehold Exploitation, did Trinity House RTM see this as an attack on them?

      At least Trevor who can see where you are coming from regarding Michael and me does so using his proper name.

  3. Trevor Bradley says

    Trinity RTM, I can see and understand where you are coming from but, on the other hand. I am quite shocked re your comments regarding the NLCs content being spurious (false or fake)
    However, as I don’t do any crud like Instagram, Twitter or even Facebook I guess I am not picking up everything that is said.

    • Trevor Bradley says

      To clarify – when I say I can see where TH RTM is coming from I refer to their suggestion that “articles go unseen”.

      I have no knowledge of TH. As TH is a company,, if it was my post, I would most certainly have quoted a director(s) real name.

      I am certainly expecting a response, especially re the negative comments towards the NLC

  4. Michael Epstein says

    Well, Well Well!
    Trinity House RTM, It has been a long time since we crossed swords?
    I believe I and LKP upset you by publishing the number of failed companies you have been associated with as well as mentioning the time you were banned
    from acting as a director?
    Welcome back, if it is you Mr Dudley Joiner.
    PS, Your accounts are late again!

  5. chas Willis says

    Michael,

    It seems the poster on June 7th 2019 “Trinity House RTM”, claimed he was a RTM Director, not that he was a Director of Trinty House RTM as I believed having read the post, so I apologise to the directors. who may be unaware of the posting.

    Checking with Companies House there was a Termination of Secretary named as RTMF Services Ltd., which is I believe to have been Right to Manage Federation Services Ltd with one director that being Dudley Arnold Joiner.

    If it was you, Mr Joiner then please will you explain your rant, and what was posted on this brilliant website that offended you

    The poster claims to have tried to sympathise with the National Leasehold Campagne (NLC) although, as an educated informed RTM Director, he finds most of the content blatantly spurious, and wonders if there are any other options out there with real followings and active debates?

    He looks forward to (hopefully) hearing from members of the NLC.

  6. Mr T C Astill says

    I have not read all of Lord Best’s 22,000 words, but over the last two years and more, I have read, re-read, helped check for accuracy and edited 18,500 plus notes and requests and complaints prepared by a Nottingham City Council leaseholder on the subject of their Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO), Nottingham City Holes Ltd. Other leaseholders may have done the same. The leaseholder whose writing I am checking also has several hundred securely archived documents and photographs to support these notes.
    I am not a leaseholder myself, but have become very aware of the dire lifestyle and financial effects on both renting and leasehold tenants.of the current ongoing Major Works in Nottingham. There appears to me to be an urgent need for the Nottingham City Council ALMO’s delegated powers and obligations to be independently and continuously monitored to produce regularly reviewed and transparent public reports at brief intervals.