• 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 / FirstPort / Tchenguiz PR man detonates Bottomley eruption during Queen’s Speech debate

Tchenguiz PR man detonates Bottomley eruption during Queen’s Speech debate

June 5, 2014 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

  • Tchenguiz PR man named in Commons

  • ‘Apology’ by obscure website to Vincent Tchenguiz read to MPs

  • Sir Peter asks what was Tchenguiz’s role during the Peverel / Cirrus price fixing scandal?

  • Tchenguiz freehold valuations questioned

  • Why are huge loans issued against valuations ‘created from thin air’?

  • Government should put pressure on professional standards bodies to ‘terrify life’ out of those assisting questionable practices

David Leslie and PR boss David Burnside, of New Century, which is employed by Vincent Tchenguiz. Leslie's email to Sir Peter Bottomley resulted in Tchenguiz's leasehold interests coming to the attention of the Commons
David Leslie and PR boss David Burnside, of New Century Media, which is employed by Vincent Tchenguiz. Leslie’s email to Sir Peter Bottomley resulted in Tchenguiz’s leasehold interests coming to the attention of the Commons

UPDATE June 6: The Independent reports Bottomley speech, here

An initiative by Vincent Tchenguiz’s PR company New Century Media spectacularly misfired last night with junior PR man David Leslie being named in the Commons and his client’s leasehold activities coming under scrutiny.

Just after 9pm, Sir Peter Bottomley made the last intervention in the debate on the Queen’s Speech to discuss Tchenguiz’s involvement in leasehold.

He referred to leaseholders in general “who in many ways have been brutally abused, financially challenged and often intimidated”.

He questioned Tchenguiz’s involvement in retirement leasehold management, referring to the OFT finding into the collusive tendering scandal by Peverel / Cirrus.

He demanded answers to the over-valuation of freeholds acting as security to huge loans

Reading his reply to Leslie, he asked: “Has your client ever made an apology on any leasehold issue or action?”

Sir Peter left the house in no doubt that the leasehold interests of Tchenguiz would be coming under further public scrutiny.

Tchenguiz and his brother Robert are claiming £300 million off taxpayers owing to their arrest on wrong evidence by the Serious Fraud Office in February 2011. The case, scheduled for three months, begins in October.

The debate was prompted by an email from Leslie to Sir Peter yesterday afternoon including a copy of an apology to Tchenguiz by an obscure website “Over 50s Housing UK” . Link here

TchenguizapologyLeslie, aged 25, works for New Century Media, the PR company owned by former Ulster Unionist MP David Burnside, a pugnacious PR veteran who was employed by British Airways at the time of its controversies with Virgin in the 1990s.

The apology stated Tchenguiz had “no knowledge of or involvement in any collusive tendering. We also accept that we have no basis for the claim that Mr Tchenguiz subjected Peverel residents to ‘constant financial clipping.’ We apologise to Mr Tchenguiz for the distress and embarrassment caused.”

Leslie pointed out that Sebastian O’Kelly, of Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, had contacted Sir Peter last December over a Tchenguiz-owned site. He did not indicate that Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation should be considering an apology of its own.

The Over 50s Housing UK apology “underlines our view that misconceptions and factual inaccuracies regularly appear in the media about the leasehold sector in general”, Leslie wrote.

Sir Peter told the House: “I want to spell out what is happening, and if members of the Tchenguiz family say that by getting a newspaper [sic] to produce a paragraph, their hands are clean, by all means discuss that in public.”

Sir Peter fired off a series of questions to Leslie by email that were read to the House.

He asked to “see in detail any and all exchanges with Over 50s Housing UK”.

Regarding the Peverel / Cirrus scandal, established by the OFT last December, he said:

“What we know about collusive tendering is that when people complained to the economics crimes unit of the police, to the Serious Fraud Office and to the Office of Fair Trading, because Peverel declared that they had been involved in collusive tendering, when it turned out that they had obtained through their subsidiary Cirrus all the work for new calls systems, which were often not needed and almost always at prices which were unjustified, there was no penalty.

“That is relevant to what Mr David Leslie has told me about Mr Vincent Tchenguiz not being involved at all.

“If relevant, I anticipate being told who established and who controlled the body that did control and had influence on Peverel when so many bad things were done to so many.

“Who was responsible for selecting the professional advisors and others associated with the valuations of properties bought, the loans obtained, the audits of and the responses to leaseholders when presenting valid questions and challenges to the way they were treated.”

“My intention is to lay out in Parliament the details of problems of the past, of the present and how life can be better in the future.”

Sir Peter then turned his attention to the questionable values of freeholds, against which are secured huge loans.

“One thing that the Government should think of doing is asking the professional standards bodies whether they believe they should be disciplining their members—chartered surveyors, valuers, accountants or bankers—when they go along with valuations created apparently out of thin air by the owners of freehold blocks

“For example, at Charter Quay in Kingston, a trust bought a freehold for about £700,000. It revalued it at over £3 million and borrowed £2 million against it, and when eventually the leaseholders managed to get the prospect of having a court decide what the value was, it turned out to be £900,000.

“A company cannot have a valuation trebled or quadrupled in its company accounts without a valuer putting their name to it, an accountant doing the accounts, and auditors and bankers getting involved.”

He urged the government to make professional standards bodies “terrify the life out of others who go along with clients who say, ‘I can arbitrarily increase the value.’”

“The only way a freeholder can put up the value is to have an income stream that goes way beyond the ground rents in the original leases.

“If, for example, they get insurance commissions of 40 per cent or 60 per cent, and if they can take exit fees that have been decided by the OFT and Peverel to be unjustified …”

Sir Peter claimed virtually every MP – including the prime minister and the chancellor – had constituencies where leasehold issues exist.

“I warn that this is an issue that does not just affect my constituents; each individual constituent may be old, elderly, vulnerable or poor, and without good advice cannot stand up against the big people.”

Sir Peter apologised to the House that he not attended the full debate. In part, this was because he was discussing leasehold issues with Lord Best and LKP / Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, whose work he praised.

Lord Best hosts an all-party Lords group on leasehold, which includes Baroness Gardner of Parkes.

Stephen Pound, Labour MP for Ealing North, asked Bottomley: “Does he feel that the House should be made aware of the gigantic sums of money that the Tchenguiz family give to the Conservative party?”

Sir Peter replied: “That is true. Certainly it should be known. I am a great believer in transparency.

“I believe that if things can be said in the open and justified or criticised, we are much better off.”

The full Hansard debate can be read here and is reproduced below

 

Full Hansard account

9.6 pm

Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con): I apologise to Members of the House for not being present for the whole debate. I enjoyed the important speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), but I think that he will forgive me for saying that the best speech today was by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt). By keeping a straight face, she was able to make some serious remarks and some very entertaining remarks. She just about matched the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who has been known to keep the House entertained on occasion.

One reason I have not been here for the whole debate is that I have been considering issues of leasehold. If I may, I will read out a paragraph from “UK Over 50s Housing” entitled “Vincent Tchenguiz – Apology” from 19 May 2014. It states:

“On 1 May 2014, we published an article entitled ‘Peverel to be pursued in compensation claim.’ We suggested that Vincent Tchenguiz owned, controlled and was involved in the day to day affairs of property company Peverel. We now accept that there is no truth whatsoever to this suggestion. Prior to going into administration, Peverel was owned by the Tchenguiz Family Trust of which Vincent Tchenguiz is a beneficiary. Peverel always had an independent board of directors. Vincent Tchenguiz never had any day to day involvement in the management of Peverel. In particular, he had no knowledge of or involvement in any collusive tendering. We also accept that we have no basis for the claim that Mr Tchenguiz subjected Peverel residents to ‘constant financial clipping.’ We apologise to Mr Tchenguiz for the distress and embarrassment caused.”

I received that quotation from a man called David Leslie of New Century Media. I responded to him, saying:

“I have read the attached piece. A copy of this response goes to the magazine editor. Has your client ever made an apology on any leasehold issue or action?

Can you kindly help on some issues?

May I see in detail any and all exchanges with UK Over 50s Housing Weekly? As you mention them, I copy this to them and I can make it available to others interested.

Please let me know when you or your firm were first engaged to represent or to advise your client.

May I be sent a chronology of Tchenguiz links, including of influence, control, ownership and benefit in by and from Peverel and anything associated with it?”—[Interruption.]

If the hon. Member for Ealing North is asking why this matter is relevant, it is because the Queen’s Speech refers to Bills that are carried over, including the Consumer Rights Bill, which has to finish its Report stage in the
4 Jun 2014 : Column 108

Commons and has to go on to the House of Lords. In my meeting, I discussed the matter with Lord Best. If we cannot do so, I hope that he, probably with Baroness Gardner, will have the opportunity to add to that Bill provisions for the protection of leaseholders, who in many ways have been brutally abused, financially challenged and often intimidated.

What we know about collusive tendering is that when people complained to the economics crimes unit of the police, to the Serious Fraud Office and to the Office of Fair Trading, because Peverel declared that they had been involved in collusive tendering, when it turned out that they had obtained through their subsidiary Cirrus all the work for new calls systems, which were often not needed and almost always at prices which were unjustified, there was no penalty. That is relevant to what Mr David Leslie has told me about Mr Vincent Tchenguiz not being involved at all.

I have asked for a chronology of the Tchenguiz links of influence, control, ownership and benefit in and from Peverel and anything associated with it. I continued:

“If relevant, I anticipate being told who established and who controlled the body that did control and had influence on Peverel when so many bad things were done to so many.

Who was responsible for selecting the professional advisors and others associated with the valuations of properties bought, the loans obtained, the audits of and the responses to leaseholders when presenting valid questions and challenges to the way they were treated.”

I offered to meet these people. I went on to say:

“My intention is to lay out in Parliament the details of problems of the past, of the present and how life can be better in the future.”

I added that I have an interest in a leasehold flat in Worthing, where our managing agent was good, our freeholder was good, and I have had no problems whatsoever.

One thing that the Government should think of doing is asking the professional standards bodies whether they believe they should be disciplining their members—chartered surveyors, valuers, accountants or bankers—when they go along with valuations created apparently out of thin air by the owners of freehold blocks. For example, at Charter quay in Kingston a trust bought a freehold for about £700,000. It revalued it at over £3 million and borrowed £2 million against it, and when eventually the leaseholders managed to get the prospect of having a court decide what the value was, it turned out to be £900,000.

A company cannot have a valuation trebled or quadrupled in its company accounts without a valuer putting their name to it, an accountant doing the accounts, and auditors and bankers getting involved. I believe that all the professional standards bodies should be saying, “We’re going to find an example that we can make a decision on which will terrify the life out of others who go along with clients who say, ‘I can arbitrarily increase the value.’”

The only way a freeholder can put up the value is to have an income stream that goes way beyond the ground rents in the original leases. If, for example, they get insurance commissions of 40% or 60%, and if they can take exit fees that have been decided by the OFT and Peverel to be unjustified, we have an opportunity of saying that unfair contracts terms law can be imposed by the Competition and Markets Authority or the OFT saying that these things will not happen.

4 Jun 2014 : Column 109

As it happens, virtually every Member of Parliament in England has some of these blocks of leasehold properties in their constituencies. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has them in Witney. I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has in them his constituency. I could probably go through each Member present from an English constituency, but I will not do that as that would be extending the courtesy of the House in listening to me, but I declare, and if necessary, I warn that this is an issue that does not just affect my constituents; each individual constituent may be old, elderly, vulnerable or poor, and without good advice cannot stand up against the big people.

I am glad that the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership is going to turn itself into a charity. Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, the campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, is doing well. I ask the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Ministry of Justice, if necessary, together with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to get together an interdepartmental group, to ask what are the simplest things we can do to make the lives of leaseholders simpler.

Stephen Pound: The hon. Gentleman has quite rightly and properly mentioned his own possible interest in this matter. Does he feel that the House should be made aware of the gigantic sums of money that the Tchenguiz family give to the Conservative party?

Sir Peter Bottomley: That is true. Certainly it should be known. I am a great believer in transparency. I believe that if things can be said in the open and justified or criticised, we are much better off.

I had not intended to make this speech against the Tchenguiz family. I want to spell out what is happening, and if members of the Tchenguiz family say that by getting a newspaper to produce a paragraph, their hands are clean, by all means discuss that in public. All I am trying to say is that leaseholders deserve protection, I am here to help to protect them, and I am glad that other Members are interested as well.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Mr Gyimah.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Related posts:

Bottomley questions Tchenguiz leasehold interests in the Commons A gift from Tchenguiz is one to decline Tchenguiz ‘skulduggery’, Peverel / Cirrus bid-rigging scam and Charter Quay: all get another outing Default ThumbnailEx-Israeli intelligence operatives settle dispute with Tchenguiz Martin Paine, embedded management companies, LKP … all raised in Queen’s speech debate

Category: FirstPort, News, Peverel Cirrus story so far, Sir Peter Bottomley, TchenguizTag: Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, Charter Quay, David Burnside, David Leslie, New Century Media, Sean Bellew, Sir Peter Bottomley, Vincent Tchenguiz

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 (56) 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: « West India Quay’s victory against £74,560 legal onslaught … for a recognised residents’ association
Next Post: Independent reports Bottomley’s questions to Tchenguiz »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. m. epstein

    June 23, 2014 at 9:11 pm

    AM,
    You say it is in the interest of landlords to have claims as the premiums are paid in full by leaseholders, what about the leaseholders who do pay their premiums in full, only to have claims denied soley because the freeholder/managing agent has negotiated discounts (which they keep) depending on the reduction of claims?

    • AM

      June 24, 2014 at 9:09 am

      That was an explanation in response to the fallacious claim that it is in the interests of the landlord not to place claims. As said it very much is in their interest based on Karen’s criteria..

      In response to your post I answered that earlier, as does the original article. Clearly the amount of commission that is taken is , as they argue, to pay for the number of claims handled. That impacts how much can be handed over as commission year on year if the profit is being eroded by the cost of claims handling, and the underlying premium is going up.

      It is therefore not an issue as posted earlier, but the landlords protecting their commissions.

      As agents contracts will often include claims handling, it is in effect a double payment or fallcious argument when the agent is paid to do it, and the landlords maintains that his commission is to handle claims. When external brokers are being paid to handle claims, then the agents fee is higher than it should be.. Thats why I have argued that the section 22 rights should extend to underlying contracts so that owners can argue that ( rather than have to scrape together a majorty for an 87 audit appointment).

  2. Martin

    June 24, 2014 at 7:57 am

    A note to everyone just to let you know we have been a little busy over the last few weeks organising an all party round table meeting on Commonhold.. :Lots to read soon!

    Meetings also being planned with the insurance sector to look at the “commission” issue. While some of our friends in the sector want to suggest this is mostly a historic issue, or did not exist at all, you are all aware there is – room for improvement

    Met with DCLG MoJ HMCTS CMA and the Tribunal President last week to look at how the new Tribunal rules are working and where there are still issues. Am waiting for agreement on how much we can publish from the meeting.

    Saw DEFRA Minister Dan Rogerson yesterday with a whole set of other groups looking at the changes proposed for flood insurance. For once we the leasehold sector is working together to try and make sure the insurance industry does not make a mess of things.

    .

  3. chas

    June 27, 2014 at 11:34 pm

    Thought those that supply comments to LKP/Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation/About Peverel may be interested in the email from Chris Owens to me:-
    Dear **** – Janet had invited customers to email her at ‘Ask Janet’ with any feedback following the publication of our Group Customer Charter in July 2012. Having helped to identify many key service improvements and with both contact and complaint volumes greatly reduced now, the facility to get in touch directly with Janet this way ended some months ago.

    There are of course many other methods of providing feedback to her and the wider organisation too, such as our periodic customer forums and office open days plus a pending new customer satisfaction research programme, to which thousands of randomly selected customers will be invited to partake. Janet retains a very keen interest in complaints too, which are also reviewed at board level monthly, and she is very well acquainted with your own.

    Group Customer Relations are responsible for coordinating and managing feedback on Janet’s behalf and have been since autumn 2012. Although ‘Ask Janet’ is no longer active, we decided to retain the ability for the handful of customers (such as yourself) who still use this email address to get through to us, then being signposted / redirected to the relevant Group business as needed. We have full visibility of all complaints recorded across the different businesses in our Group, including of course Peverel Retirement.

    As I have mentioned many times before, Peverel Retirement are the right people to be dealing with your various queries and concerns, rather than the Group’s Chief Executive, as they are the managing agents for your development. This is why I keep asking that you please contact them directly and why I have also alerted you to their new complaints procedure. This has been designed to efficiently resolve the vast majority of issues for our customers, with only a very small proportion ever then needing to be referred by them onto the Ombudsman or a tribunal.

    I hope that this reply helps to remove any remaining confusion for you.
    Kind regard

    Chris Owens
    Head of Customer Relations
    Peverel Group
    Queensway House
    11 Queensway
    New Milton
    Hampshire BH25 5NR
    Main Switchboard
    Tel: 01425 638863
    Fax: 01425 625289
    Web: http://www.peverel.co.uk
    Any comments folks

    • AM

      June 28, 2014 at 9:13 am

      It is always worrying when the owners, or their appointed managers, make themselves more than one step removed from the customer or user. It says that you are neither valued nor important to the business.

« Older Comments

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