Better Retirement Housing today reports how leaseholders in Chichester Court, a retirement site in Bexhill-on-Sea, East Sussex have told property manager Dudley Joiner to return their £27,000 sinking fund.
Mr Joiner won’t give the money back unless the directors of the Chichester Court Right To Manage Company Limited sign some form of indemnity agreement as he believes the company is illegal.
He also accuses LKP of “repeated public harassment and regurgitation” by mentioning his seven-year ban on being a company director until the year 2000.
Judge Edward Evans-Lombe described Mr Joiner as “markedly cavalier” with other people’s money in 1993.
Mr Joiner’s Team Property Management was managing the Chichester Court site after it won right to manage from the Hanover housing association.
This was facilitated by Mr Joiner’s Right To Manage Federation Limited, which is not a federation but a company of which Mr Joiner is the sole director.
It would appear that Mr Joiner’s Leaseholder Association, of which Mr Joiner was also the sole director, has now ceased trading.
The full article can be read here
Pensioners tell property manager Dudley Joiner: give back our £27,000 sinking fund – Better Retirement Housing
Please follow and like us:Leaseholders in Chichester Court, a retirement site in Bexhill-on-Sea, East Sussex have told property manager Dudley Joiner to return their £27,000 sinking fund. Mr Joiner won’t give the money back unless the directors of the Chichester Court Right To Manage Company Limited sign some form of indemnity agreement as he believes …
Mr Joiner is invited to comment on these issues here or at www.BetterRetirementHousing.com
Related posts:
Quadrangle House residents seek to regain control of their RTM
Dudley Joiner: Not relevant that I was disqualified from being a company director for 7 years
Leaseholder Association: One hat too many for Dudley Joiner?
Dudley Joiner and Barry Weir named in Commons … and Roger Southam invited to retire
Dudley Joiner’s Team Property Management made insolvent by Quadrangle House RTM
John Lewis Partnership Pensions Trust tells leaseholder it will ‘disinvest’ in doubling ground rents
Everything that Dudley attempts, (seemingly with good intentions), seems to fall flat on its face.
Is it just bad luck, an attempt to achieve the impossible or inept management.
The Leaseholders Association was in the process of challenging M&S over unfair charges. A very worthy cause, but now that Association is dissolved. The £150 subscription there was for life membership.
It would be nice, in the near future, to see some of the companies who are abusing leaseholders going the same way.
To set the record straight, The Leaseholder Association is still in operation after a corporate restructure, All memberships will be honoured and the collective claims over warden’s flat rents, guest suite income and exit fees is continuing. For the avoidance of doubt these claims are against the freeholders and not against the company currently trading under the name McCarthy & Stone.
Good to hear this action is still continuing. I assume it affects some of the old M&S Peverel managed sites and not the later complexes which M&S manage themselves.
Who owns the Freehold If not Mc Carthy and doodle pip?
Dudley, A cooperate restructure? Really? The original company has been dissolved a new one has been incorporated.. Thus they are two completely different companies.. In no way can that be described as as a cooperate restructure!
It is unfair to be critical of LKP solely for highlighting concerns over Dudley Joiner and his companies.
Similar concerns have been expressed on the About Peverel website.
LKP are right to raise the issues. Residents have to put their trust in anyone who holds service charge trust funds. If they disappear, they are gone forever!
Yes it is true that Mr Joiner’s ban was several years ago and maybe he has the right to be forgiven after such a long period of time? But equally, potential customers are entitled to this information before trusting so much of their money to a person who has been banned in the past? At least then they could then make an informed decision.
Worryingly for me and what should worry Mr Joiner’s customers is the number of failed companies Mr Joiner has been associated with, the very low asset value of his current companies and the number of times he has failed to file his accounts on time?
I agree potential customers do need to be informed and this article is spot on. But it has got a bit personal in the past.
I would be interested to know what the Leaseholders Association achieved in its short life.
Its great to see leaseholders fighting back. Enough is Enough.
Unscrupulous managment agencies and freeholders have been getting away with far too much for far to long. People are wising up to this. It’s brilliant to see communities coming together to challenge these poor practices.
We need transparency.
LKP are doing an amazing job supporting people nationally who are victims of this abusive system. The elderly remain extremely vulnerable to these abuses and LKP have enabled them to challenge people.
.
Katie, I am in total agreement with your comment. Leaseholders are finding their voice and are no longer afraid to use it. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
The ‘WEINSTEIN ‘ moment has finally arrived for the Residential Property Industry and all its offshoots eg shady solicitors, bent surveyors et al.
We campaigners must be utterly relentless in keeping the pressure on government to ensure that LEASEHOLD IS ABOLISHED & RESIDENTIAL MANAGING AGENTS ARE STRICTLY REGULATED.
A message to Mr Joiner. If it Walks like a duck, Quacks like a duck then as far as I am concerned, It is a ????Quack Quack!
I am completely in agreement with the Leaseholders in ‘ Chichester Court’.
WELL DONE YOU. Take control and don’t be pushed around.
????????????
Hoorah for LKP who are leaseholders only salvation.
Kim, You say ” If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck than as far as I am concerned it is a Quack Quack!” Trouble is it is the leaseholders that are left with the “Bill!”
Oh Boom Boom Master Epstein!
Flats On Line Conformation Statement Overdue
Leaseholder Association Dissolved Via Compulsory Strike Off
Property Law Services Dissolved Via Compulsory strike Off
Harrison Property Management Dissolved Via Compulsory Strike Off
RTMF Services Accounts Overdue
Team Property Management Accounts Overdue
Quite a record, wouldn’t you agree Mr Joiner?
Geeze, what a record. I wouldn’t touch Mr Joiner with someone else’ bargepole.He can bleat all he likes about ‘ Harassment “‘by LKP yadda yadda- this chap requires close scrutiny at all times..
When the Leaseholder Association was set up, the idea was that for a fee of £150 people would have lifetime access to information. concerning leasehold.
And this may have seen to be a great idea?
Who knows? Thousands could have flocked to this scheme?
They would now have all lost their money as the Leaseholder Association no longer exists.
Wasn’t LKP and About Peverel right to warn people that not only was much of the information required by leaseholders was already freely available on the Leasehold Advisory Service or the LKP website? Or if you wanted to go beyond web based advice the FPRA could provide it for a few pounds on an annual basis? Was it not also correct to highlight the record of Mr Joiner and his companies financial track record?
Is it not the case, that by giving these warnings many people have not lost their money?
It would be interesting to hear from members of the Leaseholders Association as to what they got out of it..
I did like the idea of a legal challenge to M&S over unfair fees, something I am sure LEASE would never have attempted.
But did it ever get off the ground, does anyone know?
Dudley Joiner was correctly sacked from Chichester Court for several reasons of bad management but primarily for refusing to disclose the whereabouts of the estate Sinking Fund after months of repeated requests. Chichester Court ( Bexhill on sea ) RTM Co Ltd. is a legitimate company registered at Companies House and Joiner’s assertion that it is illegal is untrue and a cynical attempt to justify his refusal to return THEIR money to old people whose lives have been severely upset by his actions. LKP are absolutely correct in highlighting this man’s past record of being disbarred as Director for seven years for misappropriating client funds. This fact is just as valid today as his behaviour proves, despite his protests.
CHICHESTER COURT
I do not favour the public debate of private disputes (least of all in a blog) as it can easily enflame the situation and frustrate the prospects of a settlement. However, In order to address the allegations and insinuations made by this post I will make a brief statement of facts.
On 21st July 2017 I had a meeting with Martin Easton, director Chichester Court RTM Company Limited. On 22nd July Mr Easton wrote an email to me stating “Thank you for your time at our meeting yesterday, I feel that we have reached an amicable solution to complete the termination of our agreement. I have outlined to Gill the outcome of our verbal agreement, subject to the other Directors and residents agreeing to our proposals below”.
On 24th July Mr Easton wrote a further email stating “We had a directors meeting this morning and we are all pleased we can take this forward as per our agreement on Friday 21st”.
The key points of this agreement were as follows: –
1. The date of termination of the Management Agreement between CCRTM and Team Property Management (TPM) shall be 28th November 2016.
2. Wendy Bryan (scheme manager) will send a letter to TPM withdrawing her claim for unfair dismissal and will advise ACAS the claim is withdrawn. (Notwithstanding the termination and the fact that TPM was not paid service charges TPM had kept WB on the payroll).
3. ME to confirm to DJ the date of inspection of the flat by the valuation officer. TPM to continue to deal with the appeal of the Council Tax valuation on the scheme manager’s flat.
4. CCRTM to pay all service charge bills between 28th November 2016 and 1st April 2017 (the date of appointment of new managing agent).
5. In light of the Court of Appeal decision in Triplerose TPM will contact the landlord (Hanover) and seek a letter of agreement by which:-
(a) The Landlord will approve the appointment of TPM to manage the property from 28th November 2014 to 28th November 2016.
(b) The Landlord will receive and hold CC reserve funds (£27,000) as an interim measure.
(c) The Landlord will appoint CCRTM to manage the property from 28th November 2017 to 1st April 2017.
(d) The Landlord will approve and appoint a managing agent democratically selected by leaseholders to manage from 1st April 2017.
6. ME will call a meeting of the directors of CCRTM to approve the above after which the directors will hold a meeting with Pepper Fox to advise of the agreement.
On 21st August I emailed ME requesting clarification of the transfer of Wendy Bryan to CCRTM under TUPE and confirmation the claim for unfair dismissal was withdrawn and ACAS advised. I also requested the date the valuation officer visited the property to assess the amount of council tax payable on the managers flat. ME replied “Thanks Dudley, moving forward! Will get info asap, hopefully back to you next few days”.
Contrary to our agreement of 21st July 2017, on 29th August I received a letter from the directors of CCRTM demanding the transfer of £27,000 directly to Pepper Fox and accusing me of delaying tactics, claiming, inter alia, that “TUPE has no bearing on Wendy’s employment”, and that “Wendy’s claim against ACAS is her own personal decision”. The letter stated that “As far as Council Tax is concerned we have taken this in hand and it is no longer a problem”.
Contrary to the directors’ statements enforcement Agents on behalf of Other Council are continuing to press TPM for council tax payments and Wendy Bryan’s unfair dismissal claim remains live at ACAS.
DUDLEY JOINER
Team Property Management Limited
17th October 2017
Mr Joiner,
Verbose statement and rather confusing ( perhaps that is deliberate)
1. Why the bejesus are ‘ wendy’s’ troubles those of the Chichester Court Residents?
2. Seems to me that Mr Easton believed he was dealing with a man of Integrity regarding the termination of your outfit but soon realised smoke and mirrors were starting to appear.and in addition you refused to disclose the whereabouts of residents monies in a sinking fund.
3. Mr Joiner, It is a matter of record that you have got more FORM than ‘Desert Orchid’ and as I stated before- “I would not touch you with someone else ‘s bargepole.Unfortunately, folks like you are commonplace in Residential Property but hopefully that will all change when STRICT REGULATION OF MANAGING AGENTS is introduced.
4. I believe you deserve all the opprobrium currently levelled at you.
THE LEASEHOLDER ASSOCIATION
The Leaseholder Association has not ceased. It has restructured and is continuing its operations. All memberships remain valid and collective claims will continue to be prosecuted.
LKP undertook a similar restructuring in 2014. The current company ‘Leasehold Knowledge Partnership’ Limited, is not the same company that commenced operations under the same name in 2011.
Very true, Dudley Joiner. LKP did restructure but then LKP does not hold client funds or ask for £150 up front do they? And as far as I am aware no one at LKP has been involved with a trail of failed companies or has had so many strike off notices for failing to produce accounts on time as you have? And if you are not capable of producing your own accounts within the legal framework, what confidence can anyone have in your ability to handle service charge trust funds?
This Joiner chap need investigation.
I say welcome Dudley old boy, we need a contrary, and questionable voice, to replace Stephen – who has strangely fallen silent.
Note: This is not an endorsement of Mr Joiner but at least he is fronting up and presenting himself to be knocked down. If only William Waldorf Astor, James Tuttiett, and others would present themselves in this forum. (to be knocked down)..
If you are interested in a good dispute see the comments on this subject on the Better Retirement Housing. website.
Michael have you shared the petition with ‘ Better Retirement Housing’website and urged everyone to sign?
Sooner the better. It will not happen quick enough for us.
From the “I” newspaper today, “Mr (Sajid) Javid will consider changing the law so that all managing agents in leasehold sector must be qualified and regulated to practise”. Progress it seems, and managing agents will still exist even if leasehold is abolished and replaced by commonhold, but I am uncomfortable with the implied suggestion that leasehold itself is, and will remain, the norm.
David, I am not comfortable with the word ‘ Consider’ . What the hell is there to “Consider”. The law must be changed. It will be as easy as falling off a log to regulate the spivs working in the racket that is “Residential Property Management”. Might be a bit more complicated to abolish leasehold but it’s coming.
Keep circulating the Petition and urging all to sign the blooming thing!
The Guardian has the same story in greater detail – https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/oct/18/government-property-service-charges-leaseholders-tenants.
And there is a forum on this story, a very useful place to promote the petition.
I have to make an observation with regards to regulation of managing agents – regulation is not a cure all, energy is regulated but ofgem is useless (by design?), as are all regulators and ombudsmen. When issues arise, even when regulation is in place, it will still be necessary to go to property tribunal for rulings? If I have it right, and I do believe I have it right, individuals going to property tribunals have been appalled at very apparent bias against them, and favouring freeholders/landlords/managing agents? New regulation/laws being in place is however is helpful.
Exactly. Agents who commit fraud. Other forms of theft , harassment . Explotation of clients and Intmidation must feel the full force of the law.
Re Tribunal:
I hear you David but there are also victories for beleaguered tenants although one has to splash the cash in most cases.
I shall ask Katie to share the petition with G
David I have read the Guardian piece- I was startled to read that Mr Javid believes that rogue agents are in “a minority’”?? Is he avin a larf??? Hahaha
Kim, that is precisely what we are up against. The entire establishment (government, the judiciary, business, the professions) have allowed leasehold a life beyond its sell by date (like the 12th or 13th centuries). Leasehold itself, and all those who live off leasehold, are to be defended – just a few bad boys chastised, nothing wrong with leasehold or managing agents themselves old boy, every barrel has a few rotten apples.. Inadequate reform and inadequate regulation is the answer, until it isn’t. Not to worry, we will have more inadequate reform and more inadequate regulation until we get it right – or not get it right. I will say it yet again, there are understandings and common interests, and there is collusion to defend the status quo and all those with a vested interest therein – a conspiracy against the common man.
I’m with you on this one David. Let’s see what the jolly old ARMA conference brings up today. Not a lot I guarantee seeing they can’t even get the countdown on the clock right on their website!!
“Dear Mr Joiner, Give the trust money back, there’s a good chap. Did you resign as agent because you thought your client was illegal? If no, get over it and move on. Are you in the right line of work?”
Meanwhile, yet another six week consultation?
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/protecting-consumers-in-the-letting-and-managing-agent-market-call-for-evidence
“This consultation closes at 11:45pm on 29 November 2017”
Email to
LEASEHOLD.Reform@communities.gsi.gov.uk
or respond online.
The Case for Change
Q1.1 Do you agree with analysis of the problems in the market set out in this chapter? What regulatory measures could better empower leaseholders to manage the quality and cost of the services they receive?
Q1.2 Is a new regulatory approach required for property management agents? If not, why not?
Q1.3 Aside from regulation, are there any alternative means the Government should consider for driving up standards and professionalism in the sector?
Q1.4 What should be the scope and objectives of any regulation? In particular:
i. Which agents and individuals working within managing agents should be covered? Should individuals, companies and officers be treated differently?
ii. What types of services should be included? And should any types of companies or services be excluded?
iii. Should any other classes of people or property professionals be covered by any regulator?
Entry Requirements
Q2.1 Is there a need for minimum entry requirements for managing agents, similarly to the commitment to introduce such requirements for letting agents?
If so, what should these requirements include – a fit and proper person test and/ or qualifications or training? Are there any risks, for example that this might stifle innovation?
Q2.2 If qualifications or training are required, what should they cover? What qualifications or courses already exist and are they necessary and sufficient?
Q2.3 Should any qualifications and training requirements differ depending on role and service offered? (E.g. different requirements for company officers, or differing requirements for repairs compared to contract negotiations?)
Q2.4 What are the core elements that should be covered in setting appropriate standards for letting agents and for property managing agents?
Q2.5 Do Codes of Practice have a role in any future regulatory approach?
Q2.6 Could Codes of Practice (or any other reforms) have a role in addressing service charge abuses? Could and should they be used to tackle conflicts of interest which might arise, perhaps from connected companies?
Q2.7 How should a future system build on the existing codes? What elements of existing codes would be useful to retain? Are there elements that could go further?
Approaches to enforcement and regulation
Q3.1. Which of the following options do you believe would have the greatestimpact in driving up standards and increasing consumer confidence in the sector:
a. Requiring all letting agents and managing agents to be members of a relevant professional body. This would require professional bodies or organisations to be approved by Government, possibly operating to one Code of Conduct.
b. As above, but with oversight from a regulatory body, established or approved by Government.
c. Government establishing or approving a new regulatory body, which agents are required to sign up to, with membership of a professional body optional?
Q3.2 What implementation issues would need to be considered e.g. cost, corporate governance requirements, timescales for introduction?
Q3.3 Are there other regulatory models that the Government should be exploring? Please give details.
Q3.4 What powers would any new regulatory body require to enforce its
standards?
Q3.5 How could the requirement to be a member of an approved or regulatory body be effectively enforced? Should enforcement responsibility sit with any new regulatory body? What would be an appropriate penalty for noncompliance?
Q3.6 Should the Government establish a new regulatory body to cover all the issues within leasehold and private rented management, lettings and, potentially, estate agency? Or should separate bodies be established?
Please explain your answer.
Rights to switch agents and challenge charges
Q4.1 What changes could be made to ensure that consumers are protected from unfair fees and charges, including major works?
Q4.2 How can we support consumers to challenge unfair fees and ensure that they have a route to redress?
Q4.3 How can we make it easier for leaseholders to access their right to manage? What further measures are required to make it easier for consumers to choose or switch agent? Should we introduce a power of veto for leaseholders over a landlord’s choice of managing agent?
Q4.4 Could and should a regulator act as a consumer champion? What powers might they need to support this?
Q4.5 Should regulatory bodies have a role in providing information to consumers about the qualifications or performance of property agents? If so how could information be of the greatest benefit for consumers? What information should be provided? Should it be public?
Q4.6 Are there other issues relating to the regulation of letting and managing agents that we should consider? Please explain.
I’m orf writing…
I hear you ‘Comrade’! I feel that’ rambling ‘ verse from the ‘Masque of Anarchy’ in the background.
Ollie had better run for cover!
I have been reading the latest “Call for evidence” about managing agents. Dare not link to it as I’ll possibly end up in moderation again today, and me such a reasonable commentator.
There is a lot to quicken even a jaded pulse…
“At the heart of the problem, is the lack of power that leaseholders and tenants have to challenge poor services. [..] leaseholders may have limited influence or effective control over the quality, price or service of a property management company appointed by the landlord, despite paying for the services provided by them. (28)
The tribunal system can be an expensive, uncertain, and intimidating process for leaseholders and tenants. (33)
Anyone can set up as a letting or managing agent. (34)”
As I read I think of the six (SIX) managing agents that I have experienced directly (three after RTM) and all those I have read about on a leasehold forum day after day.
The common reality is that it does not matter what self regulatory trade body they belong to. The last agent we had to sack was a RICS/ARMA member who promised us the earth until we appointed them. The individual we dealt with had letters after their name. Dripping with industry qualifications and attended all the best seminars.
Yet our little RTM company was shafted by that qualified agent as if there was no contract, no law, no RICS code.
In the end they seemed to give up pretending they were working as our agent and just ignored the RTMC directors.
Now, it may be that after ten years of new statutory regulations with real teeth and consequences, such cowboy-qualified ‘professionals’ will feel less free to act like that?
At present there is no down side I can see? Agents are never penalised in their pocket. The law refers to landlords and tenants, and usually the ‘tenants’ pay for everything, including and especially an agents’ poor management. Courts do not award costs against the agent, do they?
We had to overrule our RICS/ARMA agent with trigger happy plans to go to court. We had to give them our legal research as to why their plan was foolish.
The whole sector is a disaster compared to the real world of management.
Yet Sajid Javid states today that only a minority are a problem? He states this before publishing the recent consultation findings. The leasehold scandal is bigger than any one government minister, obviously?
If you can believe it, Mr Justin Bates attended Javid’s speech and tweeted some quotes, including one in which Mr Bates appeared to associate himself with a “You’re the good guys” bit of pandering.
We’ve seen this so often. It starts in school when a teacher is out of the classroom and chaos ensues. Someone steps in and everyone pretends it wasn’t happening and butter wouldn’t melt in anybody’s mouth.
I thought of Bernie Madoff sitting there in the front row of meetings of important people, being taken seriously by everybody, though more than a few had strong enough suspicions about him to steer clear of business dealings with him (not Mr Tchenquiz though, who gave him many millions he will never see again). I thought of LIBOR riggers in their bow ties listening to Gordon Brown about the advantages of light tough regulation and how wonderful the City was. And I thought of many similar occasions when politicians enter a room and proceed to declare to crooks, their enablers, and to the innocent alike, “I am on your side because you are good guys and are very important”.
Very often this is what one might call purchased speech. It’s a signal that appearances will be kept up and that the game may continue, with a few adjustments if needed to maintain the facade, and that everything is going to be fine (including the flow of funds to the speaker’s party). Sometimes, of course, it’s delusional and the crooks and their enablers exchange knowing looks.
We are surrounded by it and things will not get better until party funding rules are changed and corruption and conflict of interest taken seriously.
Javid came to announce that some new wallpaper would do nicely. He came to deny that there was anything fundamentally wrong (it’s always a few bad eggs, never a culture, never anything systemic).
The truth is that there are deep connections between the death of a journalist in Malta, the Panama papers, money laundering via British banks and tax havens, concealed ownership of property in London, inflated property prices, corruption and chicanery around leasehold tenure, and the ever increasing enrichment and obscene political influence of the 0.01% — and the growing impoverishment and disenfranchisement of everyone else. And the connections we can see are the tip of the iceberg.
Peak denial, and sometimes peak complacency (of the deluded), happens usually right before things collapse. It was true of every bank collapse we’ve ever seen and every political collapse too. I doubt that this Conservative govt will be around for very long (which means a new housing minister, once again).
Some day a future history book with a chapter on housing and the effects of corruption in the UK property market should feature a photo of Mr Javid addressing this crowd with the caption “You’re the good guys”.
The dustbin of history awaits, Mr Javid.