Peverel / Solitaire’s MD – Lee Middleburgh
By admin | August 6th, 2009 | Category: Past Articles | 12 commentsA lot of people have complaints about Solitaire Property Management / Peverel Property Management.
We’ve heard the name ‘Lee Middleburgh’ who is the Managing Director of Peverel, but has anyone ever met him or seen him in person? Probably not, especially as he doesn’t appear to have a biography on their website.
Thanks to the power of Google, I have great pleasure in providing you all with a link to the ‘ThinkLuton – Think Success..‘ brochure that was published in February, which features Lee Middleburgh of The Peverel Group advising that ‘Luton offers a wealth of opportunities, whether for business, leisure or please’. Click the above link and scroll to page 9 to see the great man himself.
I was surprised to read that Peverel employs nearly 300 people, or does this figure include all of the other employees of CEM, Estates & Management, Solitaire, etc.
Dear Mr Middleburgh,
So far no one has contacted me. I am sure you have heard of my name by now and come to know of my problems with Peverel Om in tracing the leak in my flat.
I have not written the whole story so far, which is a tragic but true.
There is no evidence that flat was or is the source of flooding or dampness so why Peverel Om insisted on keep testing one item at time by manuel methods is unaccptable.
I would like you to take on the followings to end the saga now:
1.Ideally you or someone senior to visit my flat so it can be assessed.
2. Cure water dampness:
• It is clearly coming form flat 3 or other flats from the communal middle wall. It is visible to see where the water is penetrating into the flat, therefore, there is no need to remove anything or dig any floor which will be wasted resources. If some expert convinces me in writing how it would help then they may do so.
• To trace the source/s by hiring a specialised company, who can trace the leak in hours by using thermal cameras or gas insertion and so forth. I am quite happy to trace the source/s of the leak in the block but need access to other flats, lift shaft and Communal area.
• Finally issuing a certificate that flat is dry.
3. To issue a certificate flat is safe to live:
• Revival to disclose what John Murphy sprayed which required breathing apparatus and then gloves and mouth masks to dry the chemicals into the flat fabrics.
• All the chemical decontamination is to be neutralised.
4. Restoration of the flat:
• To carry out after the work is complete.
• Flat to be handed in a saleable seal so it can go on the market for sale
5. £40,000 to pay on account for the loss of rental income which Norwich Union policy covers if it is approved.
6. To refund of my service Charge which I have paid around £8000 since 2007 and The Company to claim back throgh insurance Cover. I am happy to pay £1600 for the services but nothing else.
7. Final claim of loss of rental income, loss of sale valve, other expenses and damages to be awarded which basically is insured by Norwich Union.
After much deliberation, I decided to give your Company a chance to prove that Company has mended its ways and human life is precious rather money.
Lokking forward to your postive reply
Nicky Vogg
I can only support Nicky’s comments and confirm that I have witnessed Peverel OM’s unnecessary testing efforts as well as Nicky’s suffering from contamination in that flat. Peverel OM is one of ARMA’s most influential members; therefore their continues bullying and their lack of efforts in Nicky’s water leak trauma will not only damage their own reputation, but also ARMA’s.
Hi Nicky Vogg
This is just to say that Lee Middleburgh has been able to read your posting of October 29th and discussed it with the operational team.
He has asked me to let you know that he has written to you earlier this week responding to the points you have made. As we had your email address he has also emailed you but don’t hesitate to get back to me via my direct email at andy.solitairepm@peverel.co.uk if his email doesn’t arrive with you.
Many thanks
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
Hi Andy,
I have received the letter, however, I am very disappointed on with certain aspect of the response. It appears nothing has changed. Same old accusations and promises and he will receive my response as soon as I am able to justify a suitable answer.
Nicky Vogg
Dear Mr. Middleburgh,
Your letter dated 30th October was received on 5th November 2009 raising 3 points. I have scanned the letter while adding Pev: in front and changing to italic in color and Nic: with my reply underneath.
Pev:“Resolution of Water Penetration Issues”
“My understanding is that two leaks have been discovered within your flat, one from your boiler and a second from a communal soil pipe which runs within your flat. It is also my understanding that the leaks are now fully repaired and the affected areas have dried out.All repair work undertaken has been signed off by an independently instructed Chartered Surveyor.”
Nic: I am totally disturbed by the allegation that one of the leaks was coming from my boiler and now has been repaired, which I dispute. I invite you to read my letter of 15 August 2007 to Peverel in response to your Company letter 6th August 2007. Please see also my attached papers for further evidence no 2 Peverel on the Universal Law of Water and no 3 Nicola Holmes of Peverel Om’ allegations vs Nicky Vogg, a leaseholder’s defence.
My central heating operates with pressure. If there is any loss of water it will shut off automatically which has never taken place. Your surveyors and plumbers should have known that. It is proving my point how incompetent they were in their conclusion!!!
Please produce a report from your experts on which date the leak was traced and by whom, furthermore, who repaired it or please take the allegation back now.
As per the lease, the communal waste pipe causing the second leak was actually embedded in the communal wall, therefore, is not my responsibility. It was flooding my flat with my neighbours’ human waste which I was sponging out day and night to keep my flat dry as much as I could. It was my water tests at my own cost that detected human waste openly flowing in my flat which lead to its repair work.
I challenge the conclusion of CA, your independent Surveyor and John Murphy of Revival, member of BDMA, who have passed my property as dry when one of the readings showed 24 degree as recorded on 15 January 2007 in the report by John Murphy himself. It is actually serious moisture reading which was witnessed by my own independent surveyor and my self. This proves my point that your experts do not even know what is classed as dry reading and what is not acceptable and is a serious health hazard which must be investigated to cure it.
Pev: “Works to ensure that any contamination into your flat via the soil pipe was decontaminated were dealt with professionally by a decontamination specialist who has now completed and signed off the work. However, despite this it seems to me that you remain concerned about the effectiveness of the repairs and possible contamination from the soil pipe”
Nic: Please see my paper attached on Decontamination which gives you evidence what really took place. On what grounds were Revival and Clean Safe paid in full and the claim was finalized, when they caused damage to my flat? Why were my complaints of health hazard elements not investigated further? Clean Safe have not even returned my keys of the flat so far. It appears your Company Contractors goes into action to cause further loss to the leaseholder and retains the problem year after year My builders are refusing to work as no certificate is forwarded confirming it is safe to work in when they themselves suffered from contamination when inspecting the property.
I strongly believe the method to remove the chemical decontamination now from the surface would be by removing the surfaces and replacing with new ones. Alternatively one can try masking it which is risky. Can that be approved as the flat will be sold? If the new leaseholder suffers similar conditions due to contamination then someone will be held liable. In my opinion no one should take chances with the wellbeing of human beings and neither should a Management Company nor should Norwich Union. What steps are you going to take to make companies accountable to the extent bringing charges against Revival?
Pev: “Accordingly if you are agreeable I will instruct a Chartered Surveyor to inspect the works carried out to ensure that they are satisfactory and that the area is dry. I will also ask that they look at the chemical specification and application requirements of the decontamination specialist in order to confirm that they meet good practice standards.Please confirm that this proposal is acceptable to you”
Nic: I have lost any faith in your company as so many contractors and surveyors have come and gone and not a single one had any knowledge of work otherwise it would have been resolved a long time ago. I lost my buyer, tenant and my rental income as the flat became a health hazard.
My ex tenant expressed his frustration by writing to me on 4 April 07,“I accept that finding the leak is not an exact science but a few simple measures would seem to make it easier. Looking at plans or having the contractors actually talking to each other would seem like a good place to start.
If I do not see evidence of some semblance of professionalism in finding this leak I am going to start to refuse entry to Circle Britannia and OM will have to obtain a court order to gain access. I would welcome an opportunity to discuss these events before a court. The alternative is that you instruct your own engineers to trace the leak.”
Nic: He wrote on 24 April 07,
“I have been thinking about the effects this whole affair has had and to be honest I believe that my right to quiet enjoyment under the lease has been breached….I am currently living in a flat that has carpets up, the cover off the base of the shower and is essentially a hazard to a man who has mobility difficulties. As you are aware I now also have been forced to end my tenancy.”
Nic: Your Company does not need another Surveyor but needs a professional leak tracer, who uses specialized cameras and modern technology to trace leaks under ground, within walls without dismantling or damaging the property. It usually takes a few hours to trace the leak. My questions remains: Does your Company initiate that now to genuinely trace the source of the leak in the building for the welfare of all leaseholders.
Pev: “Insurance Claim”
“I understand that you are dealing with the loss adjustor for Norwich Union on this matter. If we can help the loss adjustor with backup information we would of course be pleased to do so. I am however of the view that you refer any outstanding issues in regards to this matter to Norwich Union.”
Nic: Thank you for offering your help which I would like to take up. Please withdraw your allegation that my flat was the source of flooding the lift shaft pit. Only then the insurance claim can be settled in full by Norwich Union. I would appreciate that.
Pev: “Refund of Service Charges”
“I note that you are seeking to claim service charges that you have paid from your Insurer. Clearly you are responsible for the payment of your service charges and should this claim not be successful then we would suggest that any service charge claim be best dealt with through mediation. Please confirm whether this is acceptable to you.”
Nic: May I kindly request you go directly to Norwich Union and claim the loss of rental income for the service charge and refund me the money. Once again that will help tremendously.
Pev: “I hope that these matters can now be amicably resolved”
Nic: I sincerely hope too.
There is another settlement solution: My flat would need to be declared a total loss and I am paid £365,000 plus rest of claim which we can negotiate with you and the insurer.
Finally, I believe only a big Company is able to do a U turn by finally accepting they are at fault and made mistakes. They also should make their staff and contractors accountable by appropriate actions to stop any future tyranny and harassment of the weak and vulnerable.
Hoping to hear favorably
Yours Sincerely
Nicky Vogg
Attched 1.Decontamination Hell Under Peverel Management
2.Peverel on the Universal Law of Water
3.Nicola Holmes of Peverel Om’ allegations vs Nicky Vogg, a leaseholder’s defence
C C: Hard copy to Lee Middleburgh and MP Rt. Hon. Lee Scott
e-mails to others.
Mr Middleburgh,
I received your letter dated which has totally freaked me out by offering mediation.
If your company becomes my ex solicitor Management Company while he was working on my case and my contractors are interfered, so how you can you assure me that mediation company has never received funding or not a single staff member own properties or their relatives live in your care and shelter homes managed by your company? Even Royal institute of Surveyors have awarded Peverel Om so I will be putting my head on the chopping block.
I have paid service charge with admin costs and rest so I insist you to reply my letter in full after reading my attached papers and defend your allegations with evidence or offer settlement.
Please reconsider to settle otherwise we are in dead lock neither your company is backing down nor I will. My word is my commandment.
I would have expected at least a phone call from you instead you have passed the buck to the third party, who I will not entertain. They refused to help me as my security is in breech on many levels, therefore, they have lost the right to interfere and in my opinion should be held accountable.
What I gather that you have never received my letter with attachments. It is suspicious when the letter to you and my MP were actually put into the postman mail bag at the post office so what happened to it. I am resending all the correspondence by e-mail to you.
My life has been made difficult on many levels I believe your Company has Security and Telecommunication Company. Can you throw some light to unravel what is going on as it appears somehow linked to your company, surveyor or loss adjuster so forth. I will appreciate it.
My post comes open quite frequently and even my bank statements have come stapled. My internet kept infected by certain e-mails again and again.
In 2007, my land line five times got disconnected whenever there was threat from your company. I can prove that as my mobile phone went through the roof and no phone calls are made from the land line and NTL( now Virgin)were reported of the fault during that time. Later, I also had problem with answering machine with certain messages left on the machine. When someone left a message on the answering machine it would sometime have someone else phone number on the recording machine and not from the phone line the recording was actually recorded. NTL would do nothing for internet or phone calls and kept saying go to police to report and the Police would not even record my complaint.
Now the same game is played on my mobile phone. Orange, my provider does not find anything wrong. I have 2 phones from Orange. One has withheld number and other is regular phone. I usually make phone calls from the withheld number. Once I left a recording message to Norwich Union’s loss adjuster from the withheld mobile and no one knows that number. My message recording made from withheld number partly altered was returned and recorded back to my regular mobile (which I did report to the loss adjuster, who informed me knew nothing about it). The recording came from one of estate agent Company who I did not even had the number on my address list. Who ever is behind knows my regular number as well as withheld number and have the capabilities to link to any other number as it wish. Once even someone call appeared to come from A. Vogg land phone line which shows someone has ulterior motive and something is going to take place. Orange have changed my withheld number so many times and have no answer why it is happening.
Your help to unravel is utmost important.
Coming back to the point, I live for the moment so it is your decision what is going to take place, so decide – my property and my life lies in Peverel hand!!!!!!!
Nicky Vogg
Also sent by e-mail
(The posting was first inserted on 27th February 2010 (tag “Response to Andy’s Comment from Yesterday”) to give continuity to the story is reinserted here.)
27th February 2010
Stuart Court Limited ………
&
Peverel OM Limited, ( also known as OM Property Management)……….
Re: SALE NOTIFICATION of Plot No. 106 Millennium Wharf, Manchester Road as listed in the Land Registry, now known as Flat 4, 11 Millennium Drive, Isle of Dogs.
Dear Sirs,
We no longer feel safe or protected in the property or development, yet are still forced to pay the full service charge and other expenses to keep the flat so that it can be restored to achieve the maximum sale value, therefore we have put the property on the market for sale in the current state for the sum of £370,000 and will claim for any shortfall.
It is the Lessor’s, (Stuart Court Limited) responsibility to insure the building as per “The NINTH SCHEDULE” Clause 6.2, which states “The Lessor shall determine a reputable Company or office with which the insurance is to be placed and the sum insured.”
The Building is insured under the Manager’s own Insurance Policy “Peverel Residential Insurance Policy”, underwritten by Norwich Union currently known as Aviva. “SECTION 1B” (ii) (a) page 25, insures the loss of rental income due to damage and costs for only 36 months. Furthermore, “Extension” 8 page 26, insures if damages occur while the “Residence” is “awaiting sale”.
It is the Manager’s, Peverel OM Limited (listed in the lease as OM Limited)) responsibility to obtain the workmen to “Maintained Property” as per the lease. The appointed manager has failed to hand over the property dry on 15th January 2008. We have witnesses on the day that the kitchen reading was showing dampness, which is also recorded in the report by Revival, the contractor (wrongly listed Block 10, which was reported to the Company) as damp reading. On 17th December 2009, the dampness was also traced in shower room and bedroom as witnessed by Loss Assessor Cunningham Lindsey and others. Furthermore, there was no certificate issued confirming that the flat is free from contamination. Our building contractor has refused to work unless such a certificate is issued in order for his workers to commence restoration.
The company has failed to provide any evidence the source of the lift shaft flooding was located in our property. However, we are in a position to prove the property could not be a source of flooding the building.
Our flat was on sale through a local estate agent in 2006 and viewing was taking place. Access for viewing was often given by our ex-tenant Gareth Davies. We received a private offer of £365,000 in 2007. Mr Davies met the prospective buyer in person and was involved in the negotiation so that he could remain as a sitting tenant. The sale fell through due to the on-going problems.
To maximise the sale value we are going to implement 3 methods:
A. By Internet marketing
B. Through a local estate agent
C. By tendering in the newspaper
For tendering purposes three open days for viewing the property will be offered from first week of April. After the closing date the best price offered by the best placed prospective buyer (whose finances are in order to proceed) will be accepted.
We hereby request that the Manager and the Lessor provide the necessary information for the purpose of the sale. They will be held responsible for any delay that prevents the sale process, due to lack of information requested by the prospective buyer’s representative and for our tendering pack. Any loss will be claimed further from the appropriate party if not insured.
We hope to sell the property by May 2010 and then we reserve the right to review our claim further.
We hereby give you 14 days notice from the date of this letter to restore the flat and issue us with a certificate confirming it is safe for habitation. If the full value of the property is not achieved, any shortfall will be claimed plus interest from 2007.
It will be in the best interest of all parties concerned to assist in achieving the maximum value, to minimise the settlement claimed through the insurance policy or any other claim arising out of the sale process. We are attaching our information list for the Lessor and The Manager to provide us with the necessary information directly, in order to accelerate the sale process.
We hope we can all work together
Yours Sincerely
A.Vogg & B.N. Vogg
By e-mail to Aviva, Cunningham Lindsey, OM Customer Service and Andy, Ian Shearer ===++++++++++++++++===
Re: Info for prospective buyers
Could you be kind enough to provide the information so we can all move forward? Your assistance will be much appreciated. Thank you.
1. On whom the buyer serves Notice of Transfer. How much are the fees if any to be paid and whom?
2. Please advice when the current year of accounts comes to close.
3. Please advice as to whether any shortfall is anticipated during the current year of accounts.
4. Please advise if any large item expenditure have recently been occurred or to be incurred, if so, likely amount to be added to the service charge.
5. Is there any accumulated reserve for future expenditure?
6. How much is there in the sinking fund?
7. How much is the service charge? Is it paid in advance and on what dates? If there any outstanding amount. (A cheque is about to be sent to clear the balance so do check the accounts before making the statement)
8. How much is the ground rent and on what date is paid and whom to.
9. Please supply a copy of the Insurance Schedule.
10. Please confirm if there has been any breach of covenant by the current lessee such as might cause an action for forfeiture for breach of covenant.
11. Have any regulations been made since the date of the lease? If so, please provide with the copy.
12. Please provide The Fire Safety Risk Assessment under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for common parts of the buildings.
13. Please provide The Asbestos Risk Assessment under the control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002, if applicable
(Peverel’s solicitor response to our sale notification dated 27th February 2010 listed above and our responses.)
(There is a reference to Lee Middleburgh letter dated 30th October 2009 below which is recorded in response dated 18th November Response to him by me, if one cares to trace the truth between the lines.)
11 March 2010
C. B-Sp Company Solicitor- Head of Legal,
Peverel Property Management, Peverel Limited,
Dear Ms B-Sp,
Your letter dated 5th March 2010 on behalf of the “Manager”, Peverel OM LTD trading as OM Property Management has been copied in italics and the word Pev: added in front and Our response on: underneath.
Pev: “We write further to your letter of 27th February 2010 and note the contents of the same. As you will recall Lee Middleburgh wrote to you in regards to the resolution of your water penetration issues on 30th October 2009. We enclose a copy of that letter for your information.”
Our response on: Lee Middleburgh letter
Nicky Vogg’s response dated 18th November 2009 to Lee Middleburgh’s letter dated 30th October 2009 is attached. We are still waiting for a full response even now after almost 4 months.
Pev: “Our position in respect of those issues remains unchanged.”
Our response on: Peverel Fixed Position and Denial
That is unfortunate as you have been unable to substantiate your own allegations.
OM Website boasts, “We look to set the standards in the industry for property care, administration and financial control and by utilising the latest technology, to ensure our customer communication is second to none.”
Andy Online Feedback Manager entry on 11 December 2009 defends on,
http://www.thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk
“If even one person complains about something that we do then that is enough for us to want to listen and do something about it so perhaps we are not very good about doing the listening.”
David Edwards, the head of the Legal Department and Company Secretary wrote to Nicky Vogg on 11th May 2007, “In order to succeed any claim you will need to demonstrate that Peverel have been at fault in someway. We would deny any fault on our Part”
As one can see the above Company statements are contradictory and is focused on denial rather then providing “listening” service.
We attach Nicky Vogg’s Evidence Paper giving details of the painstaking and horrific lengths she has gone through. The water pipes were cut from Flat 4, eliminating the water supply, therefore we had no hot or cold water or toilet facilities while the faeces, urine and water from our neighbors was sponged out almost each day by Nicky Vogg’s own hands. If your contractors and staff cannot accept that, then the company’s “professionalism” is under question. The water penetration on the ground floor that has been going on for years can damage the foundations of the building, which is the responsibility of the “Manager” to take care of on behalf of the “Lessor”, Stuart Court Limited and the “lessee”.
Our witness verdict on your Company performance, “I always got the impression that they didn’t know what they were doing. To be fair finding a leak is not an exact science and requires a lot of guess educated guess work. There wasn’t much sign of ‘educated’ in the approach taken. It was as if they knew the answer to the question before they came…even if that answer was incorrect. They wanted to find the leak in Nicky’s flat and would not listen to other views.”
The lease does not give the “Manager” the right to maintain the same “position” and to blatantly deny the 100% truth that the flat is not the source of the flooding/dampness. Forcing the leaseholder to lose money, to live in a contaminated property or remain empty and to prevent the insurance claim going through, exceeds the remit of the “Manager” rights as granted in the lease. It appears there is clearly a conflict of interest by implementing the Management Company’s own insurance policy, which gives total control whether claims goes through or not.
Pev: “In the circumstances, please confirm whether you are willing for us to instruct a Chartered Surveyor as suggested within that letter.”
Our response on: the Appointment of a Surveyor
By all means do appoint a water leak specialist as previously requested in our letter dated 18th November 2009 and if the “ Manager” still insist on a surveyor to trace the leak/dampness in our neighbor’s flats that does not require our permission. It will help to achieve the maximum price if a certificate can be provided proving that our flat is free of any contamination and is now dry or drying, which will certainly reduce any liability.
We also fail to understand why CA, the Manager’s last appointed surveyor, was not allowed to finish tracing the leak, even though our flat and the lift shaft was not dried on 15 January 2008 as witnessed by others and is confirmed in Revival’s own Report reading.
The Manager” has failed to employ “…….all reasonable endeavours to obtain” the appropriate workmen in the market. This indicates a breach of the lease as per “THE TENTH SCHEDULE” CLAUSE” 1. 1.3 which states, “liable for any failure to provide employees and workmen necessary in connection with the Maintained Property if it shall have used all reasonable endeavours to obtain them.”
The leak in the waste pipe of Flat 3 has already been traced, which was flooding our flat as witnessed by Mr Marshall, Loss Adjuster and others in December 2009. If or when it is resolved, we hope it will clear any dampness in our flat as well. Please disclose if any other work has been carried out.
Pev: “It is however our stance that the work carried out to your flat was dealt “with professionally by decontamination specialists” who have now completed and signed off the work and that your flat was dry at the time that this work was completed.”
Our res. on: Contractors work signed off without the leaseholder’s knowledge or approval
The “Manager” has signed off the work of Revival without our knowledge or approval. The “Manager” failed to inspect the property or work carried out since 15 January 2008. Furthermore the damage caused by them was not recorded, nor were Nicky Vogg’s complaints against the Company. The “Manager” need to explain who signed the work off, why 2 reports were created, Nicky Vogg’s signed dampness readings were changed and finally passed as a completed, but still contained a damp reading. There has been no investigation, therefore we hold The “Manager” responsible for not providing reasonable maintance care.
Furthermore, we require an explanation why Clean Safe’s work was also signed off without our knowledge or approval, when our keys of the flat have not even been handed over nor missing items returned. Mr Marshall, the loss adjuster refused to check for damages caused to the property at his visit.
Pev:“In the circumstances we do not accept liability for the loss of the alleged capital value of the above property.”
Our response on: Peverel not accepting Liability
We disagree and would like the “Manager” to “accept liability for the loss” and approve the insurance claim to go ahead. On 17 December 2009 Mr Marshall, Loss Adjuster, promised that a part of the cash will be released soon, but now he is no longer replying to Nicky Vogg’s email. We dispute on the following grounds:
1. Flat 4 was never handed over in a dry condition, which we can prove.
2. No certificate has been provided the flat is habitable. Without such a document it cannot be renovated to its original and habitable condition.
3. No inspection was carried out and the work was signed off without our knowledge or approval.
Pev: “As far as your request for information for the prospective buyers of your property is concerned, such requests are normally made to our Property Transfer Department when a sale has been” agreed. Whilst we are happy to provide you with the information you have requested, we would suggest that such a request is made once a purchaser has been found for your property, to ensure that the information provided is up to date at the time of sale”.
Our response on: Prospective Buyers Info Pack
Please see our e-mail response 7th March 2010 (hard copy attached). We are still waiting for the information so the tendering can go ahead.
Defamation of the Character and Breach of Data Protection Act
Finally, ……This is proof that …. has been spreading gossip without any foundation, which is not the first time. She has been warned not to do so, but continues, which is defamation of Nicky Vogg’s character. Lee Middleburgh also wrote to Admin “The Truth About Solitaire” without my knowledge or approval while making allegations. Your Company has been warned of breach of the Data Protection Act and now, defamation of character, which has affected our lives and caused immense stress and we no longer feel safe.
We are willing to negotiate if your Company is ready to change its “position” now and allow the insurance claim to go through. We sincerely hope a legal battle can be avoided to minimise any further costs and damage to all parties concerned.
OM Management Service (Peverel OM) are alleging my central heating boiler was one of the sources causing flooding in the lift shaft and are refusing to accept otherwise. The second leak is the communal waste pipe which is responsibility of OM, therefore, I am refusing to accept the blame.
Over 3 years have gone and my painstaking efforts to prove my flat did not contain the source of the lift shaft leak are still being dismissed. No evidence to back up their allegation has been forwarded so far.
I lived mainly in my flat with health hazard conditions from May 2007 to November 2007 enduring many hardships. I took unconventional measures and ended up with no toilet facilities nor running hot or cold water. All that was to prove to OM that my flat was being flooded from outside and so was the lift shaft.
Here is the next chapter of my “hellish” story:-
29 June 2007 the Central Heating was disconnected
The water was drained from the system and the tank removed, therefore, no water remained in the system to leak.
On 6th August 2007, OM ordered me to re-connect the above water tank linking to the boiler (drained over 2 months ago), so they could test it as in their opinion it was the likely source flooding the lift shaft. To know the full story of their demanding letter and my response you may search under “The Times Newspaper Coverage” and find my posting October 8th, 2009 at 6.10pm.
2. 31 August 2007 water meter fitted to check for any water loss and found no loss of water.
Two witnesses’ reports compiled confirming the constant water meter reading and at the same time recorded a rise of water flooding in the lift shaft.
Access to the lift shaft was denied to me again and again, which is a breach of lease conditions. This made it virtually impossible to monitor the water flooding. I invented an innovative method to check the water level in the lift shaft by dropping a metal tape measure end attached to absorbent cardboard through the lift gap that used to soak the water giving us the reading of water level in the lift shaft.
Various people witnessed and recorded the water level reading from lift shaft pit and the constant water meter in my flat, which was signed and dated (even the OM relief concierge signed the constant water reading twice).
The record of the date’s witnesses signed the test reports:-
1.15 August 2007-21 August 2007, Water Meter remained constant at 17771 while the lift shaft water level rose from 0.05 cm to 1.4 cm.
2.6 September 2007-10 October 2007 Water Meter remained constant at 31612 while the lift shaft water level rose from 1.2 cm to 3.4 cm.
12 September 2007 the Mains Water pipes were cut feeding my flat.
No water supply was running in my flat anymore, therefore, could not have flooded the lift shaft or my flat, but OM kept threatening to test my flat to find the source. Even now are blaming my boiler as one of the sources of flooding the lift shaft.
N H AIRPM wrote to IBB Solicitors,
“…..there were 2 water leaks found to be coming from her flat property. One from her boiler system…..”
Lee Middleburgh BSC MRICS MIRPM writes on 30 October 2009
“My understanding is that two leaks have been discovered within your flat, one from your boiler…..”
OM must back up their statement with evidence that my boiler flooded the lift shaft and also flooding my flat too at the same time.
I have endured immense discomforts, denied myself the use of essential facilities, stress, lost three stone in weight ( suffered lose motions which probably was due to fickle matter contamination coming from the waste pipe) during the period to make the management company aware that they must trace the leak outside my flat. I was insisting they must employ professionals (in breach of lease conditions) but there has been no co-operation. My flat is still partially damp which was cut off from water supply for a very long time, therefore, the source have to be outside, probably in my neighbors’ flat . I am not permitted to test my neighbors flat as per OM instructions which can be only done through the Management Company.
It is high time OM accept their treatment of Nicky Vogg has been unfair and unjust. In my opinion, The Company has shown staggering incompetence and negligence, which they must make mends now.
( Admin if you can you may put this as a tag with photoes)
Now you all know butterfly identity. I hope you forgive me for that. Above entry is Nicky Vogg.
Andy I feel you are not real and someone else is writing your postings. We wont mind if you tell the truth.
Once again I am having problem sending you e-mail. When the same e-mail to others goes. Today I have sent just for you and the solicitor to see if it goes through otherwise I will try again tomorrow by sending one attachment at a time.
Nicky Vogg
Dear Mr Lee Middleburgh,
I like to bring to your notice that your company actions are not of a “professional” Company by keeping the “position” “unchanged”. I like to draw your attention on the following issues:
1. You have contacted the Admin directly with allegations without my knowledge or approval and even after that no direct contact was made to justify your action.
My phone calls to you have ignored. Your Company is refusing to accept that to apply for mediation is not resolving my immediate problem of selling my flat to minimise lose. I have waited 3 years for your company to make mends and will wait no longer.
2. Andy, Online Manager, has written 2 postings, (Tag February 2010 “Response to Andy’s Comment from Yesterday”) on 5thMarch 2010 to “everyone” with liable statements instead of writing to me directly to answer my questions. Please see my reply on 4th March 2010 to challenge him.
3. I have written evidence from one of the neighbours that your Company concierge has been also spreading rumours to discredit me.
4. I also have evidence that your Company interfered with my contractors which may be termed as in breach of data protection act.
5. From time to time currently my e-mails are being rejected that includes your Company solicitor and Andy. One of them appears to be copy and paste reply as it does not follow the normal rejection notice. It has been reported to your Company solicitor and hope the problems are resolve so free communication is available for me.
Andy often states that your company is reforming, however, I see no evidence when the Company’s solicitor states, “Our position in respect of those issues remains unchanged.”
Our evidence that flat can not be held responsible for flooding,
1. 29 June 2007 the Central Heating was disconnected
The water was drained from the system and the tank removed, therefore, no water remained in the system to leak.
On 6th August 2007, OM ordered me to re-connect the above water tank linking to the boiler (drained over 2 months ago), so they could test it as in their opinion it was the likely source flooding the lift shaft. To know the full story of their demanding letter and my response you may search under “The Times Newspaper Coverage” ( September 2009 tag)and find my posting October 8th, 2009 at 6.10pm.
2. 31 August 2007 water meter fitted to check for any water loss and found no loss of water.
Two witnesses’ reports compiled confirming the constant water meter reading and at the same time recorded a rise of water flooding in the lift shaft.
Access to the lift shaft was denied to me again and again, which is a breach of lease conditions. This made it virtually impossible to monitor the water flooding. I invented an innovative method to check the water level in the lift shaft by dropping a metal tape measure end attached to absorbent cardboard through the lift gap that used to soak the water giving us the reading of water level in the lift shaft.
Various people witnessed and recorded the water level reading from lift shaft pit and the constant water meter in my flat, which was signed and dated (even the OM relief concierge signed the constant water reading twice).
The record of the date’s witnesses signed the test reports:-
1.15 August 2007-21 August 2007, Water Meter remained constant at 17771 while the lift shaft water level rose from 0.05 cm to 1.4 cm.
2.6 September 2007-10 October 2007 Water Meter remained constant at 31612 while the lift shaft water level rose from 1.2 cm to 3.4 cm.
12 September 2007 the Mains Water pipes were cut feeding my flat.
No water supply was running in my flat anymore, therefore, could not have flooded the lift shaft or my flat, but OM kept threatening to test my flat to find the source. Even now are blaming my boiler as one of the sources of flooding the lift shaft.
N H AIRPM wrote to IBB Solicitors,
“…..there were 2 water leaks found to be coming from her flat property. One from her boiler system…..”
You wrote on 30 October 2009,
“My understanding is that two leaks have been discovered within your flat, one from your boiler…..”
OM must back up their statement with evidence that my boiler flooded the lift shaft and also flooding my flat too at the same time or take their allegation back.
Vogg’s flat is going to be sold and hope your Company after reading this posting change its “position” otherwise I will see what is the best for me – meditation or not later.
Nicky Vogg
Dear Mr Middleburgh,
There is the possibility that you are not in touch with the whole story, therefore, I am going to summarise briefly. I hope the Company, the “Manager” may decide to change its intransigent “position” now and eliminate any further loss and reday to settle.
1. In early 2007 I lost my buyer and became trapped to pay service charges or face legal action. I have been paying running expenses even though my originally dry flat had become an open sewer. It still needs to be restored to a habitable condition.
2. On 6th May 2007, I lost my rental income and ever since I have been funding it from my own resources while being forced to live at a lower standard of living.
3. The Story of Nicky Vogg Story – Part II (Tag February 2010) lists the tests carried out in my flat whilst the Company maintained its intransigent “position” that only flat 4 could be the source responsible for flooding the lift shaft totally dismissing the flooding taking place there.
My last entry above to you dated 28th March 2010 lists how the water supplies were cut and hardship experienced (videos and photographs can be submitted with visible “poo”) to prove that the flat could not be the source of flooding, which was simply ignored by your hired professionals aw well as Company staff.
4. The Times Newspaper Coverage (2009, September Tag) my posting dated 8th October 2009 prints the “manager’s” letter dated 6th August 2007 and my response on 15th August 2007 that illustrates how unfair and unnecessary tests were demanded.
5. On 25th September 2007 the waste water leak was traced when I invited Environmental Health Officers, your Company, the Lessor and so forth. The meeting was attended by 9 people and facts were presented with the verbal water test report confirming the flat was flooded with health hazard faeces.
6. The “Manager’s” letter dated 6th October 2007 and my response on 10th October 2007 and various other letters and threats can be printed here too. The “Manager” even declared that my flat is not health hazard as it is empty which was a lie. I was staying in the property at that time to remove the waste water of my neighbour several times a day by gallons to keep it smell free and germ free as much as I could while getting sick myself.
7. On 25th October 2007 the waste pipe was repaired stopping major flooding.
8. In Nov 2007, the property become totally inhabitable, while your Company was ignoring the true facts and maintaining its intransigent “position”. Revival firstly decontaminated the flat, (The Story of Nicky Vogg Story, 2009, December Tag) then dried the flat for 4 week at high temperature around 30 degrees so it became impossible for me to stay in the flat. Since then my flat has been inhabitable and I have been unable to enjoy its prestigious location at the River Thames overlooking the O2. Instead I had to sustain more and more losses, caused stress and suffer sideaffects merely because the “ Manager’s” inaction showed no compassion for my position.
9. On 15th January 2007 the last inspection took place by your Company surveyor and NH, Estate Manager. That day neither the flat nor lift shaft were totally dried. The next inspection was arranged to take place four weeks later for further testing of the block, however, that was never approved and my flat was passed as dry in spite of damp readings recorded by Revival themselves.
10. On 23 January 2008, read my further “The Story of Nicky Vogg” ( 2009, December Tag) what took place during and after decontamination and they got signed off and paid while I am losing on many levels.
11. In May 2008 decontamination was carried out by Clean Safe appointed by the loss adjuster. Further loss occurred, no certificate was provided confirming the flat is free of contamination and the keys of the flat were never returned, yet the work was signed off and they got paid while I am made to suffer further losses.
Your Company position is still totally intransigent and now you are trying to disassociate yourselves, yet at the same time refusing to substantiate allegations that my flat was the source of flooding the lift shaft. Offering LVT mediation is just another way to keep me tied to my flat and losing further. It is not acceptable as all as I wanted to sell my flat since 2006 so I can enjoy my retirement in some warm part of the world.
Brief history of my costs for experts, tests, rental income and so forth:
1. From December 06 – July 07 – threats and continuous demands for inappropriate testing caused havoc in my life and to my tenant to the extent that he left.
Total cost £ 3000
2. From August 07 –October 07: open sewage flooding in the property (which I was clearing day and night and lost nearly 3 stone in weight)
Total expenses: £7000
3. Jan 08- March 10 – The flat was still damp and no certificate is provided confirming it is free of contamination and dry hence cannot be restored.
Total cost: £7600
4. Electricity used for decontamination/drying by Peverel/Norwich contractors: £409
5. Loss of rental income : from May 2007 to March 2010 (and counting): £44,000
6. Service charge: £9600 ( when the property is empty and contaminated due to Peverel/ Norwich Union’s own incompetence)
7. Council tax paid on inhabitable flat: £5000
Revival and Clean Safe loss and damage: Items are missing or removed
1.Hallway and master bedroom carpets and grippers,
2 Bed mattresses (only has base)
3. 1970 brown and beige floor standing table lamp.
4 Six cushions ,
5. Two sauce pans,
6. Three baskets which were a part evidence.
7. Double glazing high security 3 windows, 2 double French doors and one main door key.
8. My old oak dresser screwed on handle ( to have it made to match will be costly)
Damage: 1.Main bedroom vertical blinds
2. Some of the light do not work.
3. My audio, hand tap recorder and table recorder no longer works.
Cost would be above £2,500
Total expenses occurred is above : £80,000 plus loss of equity
PLUS
I lost my buyer, who was offering £365,000 and loss of interest so far which has not been taken into account.
MY FINAL SEVEN DAY NOTICE has already been sent by registered mail to your Company.
My flat will be sold to the highest bidder to be free from obligations and my continual loss. I hope the Company is changing its intransigent “position” as it will be held responsible for any adverse consequences.