-
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
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
Leslie, 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
Ex-Israeli intelligence operatives settle dispute with Tchenguiz
Martin Paine, embedded management companies, LKP … all raised in Queen’s speech debate
West India Quay’s victory against £74,560 legal onslaught … for a recognised residents’ association
Would New Century Media like to clarify if it was Vincent Tchenguiz who said” And now i’m going to butcher them?” Or was it a reprsentative of the Tchenguiz Family Trust who made this comment?
ME
Following on from the speech by Sir Peter in the Commons yesterday.
I wonder if Sir Peter was aware that not only were the 65 Developments Price Fixed so that Cirrus Communications would win the Tenders. Peverel Management Services and Cirrus then offered the work, tendered for, to the stooge companies that had lost the rigged tender?
I was finally informed last month by Chris Owens Head of Peverel Customer Relations that of course we used Glyn Jackson, as they also worked for Peverel Management Services as a Sub-Contractor.
It had taken since 2012 for this information to be given to me and in the reply from Chris Owens he stated, I had never asked him who undertook the installation at ABC? Well, Well Well?
The Area Manager was asked about this in 2012 and has only ever mentioned Cirrus Communications?
The 5 companies involved in the Price Fixing were:-
Peverel Management Services Ltd
Peverel Technologies Ltd/Cirrus Communications
O`Rourke
Owens
Glyn Jackson.
Of these companies Peverel were allowed immunity for confessing to corrupt behaviour in Price Fixing and the other 3 Companies were finned A total of £54,000?
Can you believe it Cirrus Communications still works for Peverel Retirement on our Development.
We pay them over a £1,000 for monitoring and £600 for a Door Entry Contract even though we do not have any communal Doors?
We had Glyn Jackson undertake our Warden Call System 9 months after it was supposedly damaged in a storm.
Peverel Retirement have refused to provide a copy of the report from Cirrus stating what had happened to the Warden Call System.
Cirrus won the contract, then Sub-Contracted the work to Glyn Jackson, who we were informed, wore the Cirrus name on their Tabard?
So much for Open and Transparent?
So David Burnside is back with Vincent Tchenguiz.
It seemes he had been replaced by Sean Bellow, who has now forged a parnership with Robert Tchenguiz.
I would not be surprised if it was at the behest of New Century Media, that Vincent Tchenguiz has “bought” a new Bentley and has made a return to his old nightclub haunts.
“show the flash” comes to mind..
[REDACTED …]
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” … would he like his parents to move in one of these properties?
He can write what he likes, but everyone in the industry knows it is a load of cock & bull…
If he would care for a face to face debate over his quotation I am sure there would be many people happy to discuss his views with him and put him right.
Again, a huge thank you to Sir Peter for bringing this subject to the house again…a shame more politicians can’t do the same.
Dear Mr David Leslie,
I am prepared to accept that neither Mr Vincent Tchenguiz, nor anyone connected with the Tchenguiz Family Trust ever “ate my hampster”
Apart from that possibility i would say what is put on sites such as Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation/LKP
and About Peverel is a pretty fair reflection of leasehold in general and either Tchenguiz or formerly Tchenguiz connected companies operate in particular.
I disagree that it is a fair reflection. Even through the various companies and peveral, ownership and management only involves single % figures of the total of leasehold premises. At the outset he was clear we are asset managers not property managers. From unpleasant to vile practices they may be, and they deny involvement in the criminal practices of the tender rings, the vast majority are in the hands of mediocre landlords agents and residents who, by and large, get it more or less right with sensible polices and charges. RSL’s tend to bob along and Councils, well, are another matter.
If there is a momentum for reform, readers should be prepared for the silent majority and especially those with far more influence than Bottomley and Fitzpatrick such as the landed estates, when they have they say.And Councils, who no doubt, will scream for, and get, wide exemptions to add to the existing list. After it is they who asked the LVT for, and expected, complete exemption from ever having to consult on service charges….
I reflect in horror at some of these practices but we need to concentrate on that not throwing out babies with the bathwater. Sir Peter’s list is a fair start, but its going to fail as it touches on many many other silent landlord’s business models.
Simply the Residential Leasehold section should be separated completely from a “Business Models”.
As a long suffering ripped off Leaseholder I don’t consider to be a business object to the Companies
such as Peverel Group and others.
I have been treated with pretty poorly even when trying to get the Lease Extension, which should be a simple straightforward procedure.
There seems to be no rights or nobody to turn to for help if and when needed.
Over five million Leaseholders majority suffer in silence not knowing that yes there is a better system such like everywhere else in the world. The antiquated Leasehold System is only in this country. What a scandal and disgrace!
Mystified,
You say you are a long suffering Ripped of Leaseholder like so many of us?
I will begin to list and explain ways that Peverel Retirement have in the past found ways of extracting monies from us pensioners because we are a soft touch?
I informed some of the new residents over the past 6 months of the scams that we are paying for or paid for, all of them deny, that it has any thing to do with them, and state they do not want to hear?
Another good idea is to use you own Insurance Company Kingsborough Insurance, to invite another Insurance Company Oval Brokers, and then allow all Peverel Retirement Developments Building Cover?
This way Peverel Management Services Ltd and the 2 other Insurance Companies can receive Commissions totalling over 40%?
Janet Entwistle is aware of this but refuses to repay the Commissions which at ABC is now over £8500?
This has been the norm for Peverel Retirement since 1999/2000, not a new-rip off but a continuing rip-off.
As Peverel Group have 1500 developments then at an average of over £1000 Commission, this means £1.5 million per year for as the LVT have stated in the past, that Kingsborough do nothing other than to bring in another Insurance Company, i.e. Oval Brokering, who then does all the works, including the sorting out the claims.
Posted by chas on 11 June 2014
Another brilliant idea that I learned from our Area Manager was to inform us that the broken damaged WC that leaked and damaged three rooms of floor covering, was not insured?
Then inform after being challenged that they were Insured but because each claim has an excess of £500 the claims are refused?
The excess set at £500 would be for a Structural Failure costing £10,000 not a replacement WC or for replacing Carpets?
Peverel Retirement Area Manager refused to accept that the leak in the WC was a causation for the damaged Carpets?
Two claims needed to be made and each claim had a £500 excess so neither claim was excepted?
Then when challenged by the residents refuse to provide the paper trail, say for two years and then only release bits of information each time?
Then four years down the line when a few of them will have passed away explain that no written paper trail exists?
I hope I have not given new Peverel Retirement Managers Ideas?
Posted by chas on 12 June 2014
Another Rip-Off that I learned from Peverel Retirement was in 2009/10 when Keith Edgar made 250 employees redundant, as they realised that they could save millions of pounds in not employing the same number of staff.
Then when contacts that require a S20 Notice Peverel Retirement brought in external supervision and we paid 10% of the Contract Fee for Supervision Costs?
Peverel Retirement not only saved money not employing the technical staff they would also claim commission from the company brought in to supervise?
We paid out nearly £3,000 for two contacts, that previously would have been included in the Service Charges???
Clever,YES/NO
Posted by chas on 12 June 2014
Buy the electric/water at cost from the utilities direct, then charge costs plus commission for the services we can not do with out.
My friend in London has been refused a Water Meter as this would allow the residents to query the past charges which could be as much as 50% above the rate?
The same development has replaced an Area Manager due to their poor performance and positioned them in another Peverel Retirement Development Area??
The Peverel Machine is singling my friend out as a trouble makers ,because they have had the audacity to question why decisions are made with out consultation?
They were informed that they are not allowed to put forward cheaper contractors to tender for contracts as the LTA does not apply to them?
This would of course prevent Peverel Retirement from claiming commissions from the contractors who after winning the contract then Sub- Contract out the works and claim a discount for early payment which they refuse to pass on to the residents?
I have other Rip-Offs but it is late and I really am bored???
Posted by chas on 12 June 2014
Chas,
I am not sure i would want a paper trail from a toilet!
Around the time of the claims you mention, the method of calculating commissions/rebates were calculated was changed.
From an agreed fixed figure, the amount of commission/rebates became dependent on the quantity and value of claims.
When this happened, staff were “encouraged” to find ways to frustrate claims.
Residents would be told by a property manager that damage was not covered by insurance, or that the claim was below the excess, or even if the claim was above the excess, because there were various parts to the claim, each had to be claimed separately(which brought the individual parts below the excess)
Posted by m epstein on 12 June 2014
Old/New Rip off?
How right you are, our Area Manager had spent 5 years, since 2009/10 deflecting the single Insurance Claims.
Even when other residents had complained about the same claim, the Area Manager stated firstly that the items were not insured.
It took 13 months from when the WC and Carpets were replaced before we were informed that the cost to replace was £702.
It was hidden in the third page of the Budget Statement, no mention had been sent out to us residents, it was kept hidden under the carpet.
Finally this year, The Area Manager finally admitted that they did not keep records of the claims made.
The Area Manager finally admitted that all claims are undertaken by phone and no records are kept.
There was a note made by the House Manager in a diary that was kept, I asked to see this diary, only to be informed that it was Private & Confidential!
Open and transparent????
Posted by chas on 12 June 2014
ME
I believe that a paper trail from toilet may not be a good idea in fact it could be CR*P.
I have spoken to other residents who made a claim only for the sacked House Manager to refuse to inform the Area manager for 6 months after a water pipe leaked from under the solid ground floor
The Area Manager stated eventually that the cost of looking for the leak would be paid as a claim but it was less than the excess, foiled again???
Posted by chas on 12 June 2014
Chas,
Kingsbrough keep a record of claims made. If you ask them nicely I am sure they will provide you with the details.
Posted by Biggles on 14 June 2014
Not that simple Biggles!
You will only be provided with details for communial claims. All others are treated as “confidential”
You will not be supplied with any details for claims that the property manager was encouraged not to pass on.
Often a property manager would telephone Kingsborough to avoid any paper trail.
Posted by michael epstein on 14 June 2014
Chas,
There are lots of retired Leaseholders not living in the Retirement Developments and are treated as badly if not worse then in the Retirement Developments Leaseholders.
Some developments received an Application for payment estimate prepared by the Property Manager
who have lied in the past i.e “get this done straight away” after years nothing done.
And an other repair job after a number of requests, telephone calls to OM Management (Peverel OM) a Leaseholder was told it has been done and paid. That was the first lie in this instance. OM’s response “will be done” when contacting their customer Service “it has been done according to the PM” yet it was still not done. It took two more attempts before finally the job was done and properly.
There was a Contractor a few years ago attempting to read the electricity meters, he couldn’t find at least some of them, nor could he find the meter numbers. Makes you wonder how can they give a reading without accurate information. Or did the Leaseholders pay for some other Peverel Developments Electricity.
There is an item on the application “Fire Systems Maintenance” yet there isn’t any Fire Systems. Could it be a few stickers put on the internal doors.
Insurance-Terrorism & Insurance Buildings over £20K. The Leaseholders don’t know what they are paying for. A very few Leaseholders queries or if some do the figures stay the same only the heading changed. That happened a few years ago.
Now that there is an attempt to regulate the Banks FX isn’t it time to abolish the Hundred years old antiquated Leasehold System. In my opinion it is criminal to let it carry on as it is. It is corrupt to the core. The Leaseholders are treated like second class Citizens.
In that case use your rights here to notify the insurer of a claim and pursue it that way.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/31/schedule/3
AM,
Thank you it has been useful.
Lets just get rid of leasehold tenure and then nobody has to spend their life fighting to manage their own affairs is the answer….
What is Chas to do?
Contact the insurance company who will run him around in circles getting paperwork
Then when he has got that the insurers will ask him to get the elderly ownersinvolved in hassle which they won’t want or even understand.?
Once he has got all that the insurers will ask him to get an independent survey done to back up his claim and to get that far he will have to get money of the elderly leaseholders to pay for the survey..
and all this is just for starters
Get real.. if it was only so simple and that is why there is a multi billion pound industry built around leasehold tenure…
I shall wait for your next objection………….
Karen thank you for the support.
I have used the information provided by AM to request the Summary of Cover for the period of the refused claim?
Karen,
Chas would not have to run around in circles as you suggest.
The Insurance Company would simply say as Chas is not the insured policy holder, any details requested are confidential. Therefore, he would be stopped before he even jogged!
Which just shows how little you understand it. Just get rid of nasty freeholders is easier. After all residents committees never deny claims or try and manage the process to keep the policy down. Oh wait hang on….
The point being that commknhold requires that the block be insured by the association owners cannot insure their flats
The point being that commonhold requires that the block be insured by the association , owners cannot insure their flats
It is easy to see how the antiquated Leasehold has survived for hundreds years if it’s anything to go
by some comments here. It looks like it is the one and only way for some regardless that we are now in the 21st Century it is the time to move on and face the reality.
The antiquated Leasehold is not relevant anymore.
Perhaps it would help greatly to widen one’s horizon by looking and finding out how the property ownership is managed in other civilized countries where the residential Leasehold has never been heard of. It works perfectly well. Honestly! Even the insurance, no worries!
The right allows him to lodge a claim direct and pursue it directly. As to the other aspects of why this has come about is not unique to a freeholder. Many times i have dealt with rmc rte groups paranoid over their no claims bonus, as they put it, refusal to revalye buildings, and to the other extent the instance that insurance is a maintenance contract and thereby losing water damage cover . Sadly it is impossible to legislate for best behaviour, only provide remedies. And as for the old people having to deal with this they in a CH assoc will have to deal with it either way. That’s why i have suggested laws for trustee appointment to boards or by ftt appointment.
But mystified these problems are not a symptom of leasehold, but rather nasty owners. The alternatives are far less workable than simply ensuring control and /or the freeholds are turned over to the residents.
AM
ALL of your comments above just prove the point that you and businesses like yours are trying your hardest to keep your little empires going…
We leaseholders are not ‘nasty owners’ as you so eloquently put it… just trying to live a nice quite life and get on with running our owe affairs.
I have had first hand experience of trying to make a claim on buildings insurance and know what hoops have to be navigated and it is not easy. Commercial policies are written to protect the landlords who own the buildings and those landlords prefer that no claims can be made and that all works have to be carried out via the service charge fund, that way landlords can ‘appoint’ their own contractors and fiddle the ‘estimated costs’.. who are you kidding?
Take off your rose tinted glasses and get real you are fooling no one…
Further claims made against Peverel Retirement, when we paid out £,20,000 for an updated Warden Call System and the time and effort taken over 4 years to get close to the truth.
We are 80% there now and just waiting for the last part of the JIG-Saw to fall in place, I sent this email to Janet Entwistle today;
Dear Janet,
Sorry that I have not contacted you recently, I have been busy. Regarding the latest email from Chris Owens, (CO) dated the 22/05/14, CO stated that I ask too many questions and that neither of you are prepared to continue answering pertinent questions, and will no longer correspond directly with me?
As for you Janet, who has never answered any of my emails?
I find this very strange and very unprofessional?
It has to be said that CO, when answering an email, only ever partially answers questions. He has a habit of choosing which question to answer and then provides a one sided, misleading, incomplete answer? Having met with Area Manager RC and Regional Manager PW, it is no surprise that misinformation has been provided by both managers to CO, who then regurgitates the information provided.
CO also has a habit, when answering the few questions that he chooses too, of over stating his responses, as seen below:-
CO stated “we have already answered the vast majority reasonably and satisfactory to you in a serious of detailed responses”
No, CO did not answer the majority, reasonably or satisfactory as he only answered, 7 out of 28 questions???
CO also stated, “I did provide you a comprehensive factual response on 16 April”
No CO did not provide a comprehensive factual response, he was not on ABC on the day in question and relied on second hand information from people, who work for the Peverel Group???
We know that CO uses over stated language as above, to show Janet and others at Peverel Retirement that he is on top of everything???
A. The questions below were asked regarding the Warden Call System Replacement, at ABC and the first reply, CO failed to answer 21 out of 28 questions asked?
A further email in May 2014 was sent, regarding the other 21 questions, which CO still failed to provide a reply???
B. CO failed to answer 21 of the questions that have a greater bearing on the validity of the contract, which are of greater importance to us residents, who believe we were Price Fixed, not correctly consulted regarding Option 1 or Option 2 and then purposely kept in the dark regarding, who undertook the works at ABC, and even that the works were required?
C. As the WCS was supposedly damaged on 26/07/2007, why did it take 9 months for the new system to be replaced? The Technical Officer GR, stated it was an emergency and the usual consultation process will not be possible?
D. GR also sent out a Notice to all residents, on the 20/02/2008, where he stated that Peverel Management Services Ltd were entering into a formal contract with Cirrus Communications to undertake the works? No mention of the work being Sub-Contracted to Glyn Jackson who was later fined for Price Fixing???
Schedule 3 to the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003/1987, states that Stage 1 must describe the works; and
Stage 2 must inform the lessee of the amount that the works are likely to cost;
E. As no consultation regarding Option 1 for £15,132.00 or Option 2 a further £5,500.00 had been undertaken the likely cost of £21,446.10 was given by GR with out any proper consultation, with us the residents?.
Karen
I have to laugh when I read your comment but I mean no insult or offense when I do so.
As I hope that you will see
A it was about helping Chas in his current predicament- wishing leaseholds aren’t., doesnt help him.
B Far from keeping our empires going as you will soon see under commonhold, it’s a brand new income stream for everyone, esp the lawyers.
C Under commonhold if, as an insured residents group can and actually do, wish to manage its claims fearing their “no claims bonus” i.e. premiums will go up, no rights such as this exist for Chas.
It is sad that you have had that experience however I can recount many many more examples of where this does not and did not happen.
Besides, what you know absolutely nothing about is the fiddles behind the scences in the insurance and reinsurance sector before it even gets to the insurer sales team or broker to even talk to a landlord. Some of those margins reach 80 or 90 % profit.
Your post omits that it is actually in the landlords interest to have claims as his premium is paid in full by leaseholders. They pay the lot and he gets to fiddle the costs and contractor appointment and “commercial arrangements” and charge agents fees for managing the process. Lovely jubbly.
The problem above is a symptom of the inter group squabbling of this particular group and not the sector as a whole.
That is why your understanding is rather narrow and the argument, no matter how bad your experiences have been, lose impact when looked at in the sector’s overall context.
You seem to think that I am basing my experiences on my site alone, you are incorrect, I have a stack of proof ofcases of corruption that is going on throughout the leasehold industry – North & South.
You are also implying that residents that manage their own sites would automotically do it via a residents/owners committee to manage the day to day running of their sites.
What they would have is the option to employ a professional managing agent and then if that MA does not do what they are contracted and paid to do, their contract can be terminated. Which is where we all started off from but you seem to keep wanting to stand on your pedestal shouting the praises of the vast majority of managing agents….
I know of many small well run managing agents that do a good job but they are disappearing fast by the week……swallowed up by big nationals who are only in it for the oney.. Fact.
It is the lawyers who are manufacturing work for them selves you are correct and that is the very reason we need to get rid of leasehold tenure on which they strive..we get rid of leasehold and we get rid of corrupt lawyers.