Channel 4 News Broadcast
By admin | September 1st, 2009 | Category: Past Articles | 9 commentsWe watched with interest the Channel 4 News Broadcast, that was aired on the 1 September and focused on the Consensus Business Group and the retirement home side of Peverel.
It was good to see that Channel 4 brought to the public eye the ‘inter linked companies’ namely – Cirrus Communications and Kingsborough Insurance – of whom are part of the Consensus Business Group.
We particularly liked how C4 mentioned that across the country there are pockets of residents finally taking a stance against the increasing prices.
Ian Rapley of Consensus Business Group mentioned towards the end of the broadcast that “being profitable is not the same as ripping people off’ and clearly reiterated that they ‘Do Not Rip People Off’.
TheTruthAboutSolitaire would like to know if Ian Rapley has ever spoken with a satisfied customer of their ‘empire’?
If lessees didn’t feel that they were being ripped off, then why have Channel 4 broadcast this feature on their main news program. Why have the Daily Mail published articles on Peverel? Why has the BBC Watchdog program also broadcast programs related to Consensus Business Group Companies e.g. Peverel / Solitaire Property Management?
The official TruthAboutSolitaire petition already boasts over 400 unhappy customers who say the same thing, the website has received hundreds of comments from more unhappy customers who all share the same views.
This is just a small percentage of people that have internet access and as C4 mentioned, actually want to do something about the increasing prices.
The Consensus Business Group and associated companies have profited from residents that do not want to fight and are happy to pay – times are finally changing.
Obviously, this feature was mainly on the retirement area of the company and was very interesting to hear of the magic ’1%’ that we mentioned only last week. We hope that this will increase awareness amongst residents to realise that their personal opionions are very much a nationwide view – which is one of the reasons why TheTruthAboutSolitaire was created.
Finally, it was very pleasing to hear that the OFT are also finally starting to look to regulate the industry, whereby hopefully the monoply that is out there such as Consensus Business Group / Solitaire / Cirrus / Peverel / County Estates Management to name but a few – will not be able to occur in future.
If you missed the broadcast, please visit this link
The link will only be available for 7-days so make sure you view it before it expires.
We welcome your comments.
Three cheers for Channel 4( no lets make it one hundred )
Mr Ian Rapley (change the A to an I would be better)
NO SIR your profit comes directly from ripping people off !
The Peverel logo was shown on screen when they outlined the other parts of the “empire”. And whilst the C4 feature was on retirement homes, the issues raised do sound VERY familiar…!!!
Perhaps the owners of this website should talk to C4 and suggest they do a follow-up, speficially on Peverel / Solitaire etc. Although to be honest, a follow-up report would be very similar in content to that broadcast on C4 News tonight…..
In my experience and to my cost Peverel have been riping off residents of the residential developments they mismanage for years. There are other good managing agents waiting in the wings if only the residents can get enough signatures to kick arrogant and dismissive Peverel out.
I saw the broadcast last night and would pick up on the point about insurance being cheaper if you do it yourself. Have written on this site before about that point – I went to a local broker giving them copy of our existing insurance certificate etc. provided by Solitaire and asked them to get a quote on a like for like basis. This they did at 50% less than what Solitaire were charging and still with an internationally named company. I had already asked our property manager to shop around buut this reqauest was ignored. When the 50% cheaper quote came through I sent all the details through to our PM at Solitaire which included a copy of that particular companies insurance policy etc. etc. No response – why was I not surprised – this was all done before the renewal date was due to fall. So there they are not saving residents money at all. I got slightly p***** off and decided to write to Lee Middleburgh who to be fair by return had forwarded my ‘complaint/query’to Kingsborough Insurance. We were after all a very small development being owners of leashold flats.
I had raised the query about conflict of interest etc. etc. I also asked, if they were the insurance arm of Peverel etc. why did they have to go to another Insurance Broker who then provided the insurance from another company – 3 fingers in one pie so to speak.
This is the response I received ……………..
I would advise that Kingsborough Insurance Services Limited are the insurance arm of the Peverel Group of Companies. Solitaire Property Management are also a Peverel Group Company.
Kingsborough do not provide the buildings insurance, the cover is provided by an insurance company, ****. Our job, which we have been doing for over 10 years on behalf of the Group is to administer their insurance arrangements, provide information and guidance to Group staff, residents, solicitors and the like on insurance matters, to issue relevant documentation as and when required and to work with our independent intermediary, Oval Insurance Broking to renew the risks on cover. You will no doubt appreciate that general insurance is regulated by the Financial Services Authority and under their rules anyone dealing with insurance must be competent to do so, proven to be competent and must maintain such competence and prove that this is happening. Clearly property managers are not trained in insurance and as such they are not allowed to deal with insurance matters under the FSA rules.
I can see no conflict of interest as the services of Kingsborough are provided free of charge to your site and indeed you can be assured that you are dealing with correctly trained staff who meet the requirements of the industry governing body.
We choose to use the services of an independent intermediary as they have insurance agencies with the relevant insurance companies who wish to deal with this type of cover which enables them to approach each insurer for quotations as and when required and also to provide extensive management information to us to ensure that the portfolio is running as it should.
The market is approached approximately every three years with this type of portfolio as it would not be prudent to go to the market every year as insurers would merely view this as a ‘tick box’ exercise rather than as a valuable opportunity to offer a differentiated proposition. This type of insurance is in no way the same as car insurance for which there are literally thousands of insurers who offer cover, with this type of cover there are a limited number of insurers seeking to write this business with the right cover and terms and offering the correct standard of claims service.
Not being ripped off according to Mr Rapley – I think so.
Bearing in mind that the Channel 4 News report shown on 1st September was reportedly due to have been originally shown last week – until the lawyers got their hands on it – then it makes you wonder what the original un-vetted film included, that then got left on the Cutting Room floor…???
A follow-up is needed to look at the similar issues with Peverel. The BBC missed the target on Watchdog earlier in the year – C4 News has named names, but only (so far) highlighted issues within the retirement sector, not the mainstream leasehold sector.
Hopefully somebody will eventually put all of the pieces of the jigsaw together….. Perhaps it will be the OFT…??? Fingers crossed…!!!
If you want to see the Channel 4 News broadcast at your leisure go to http://www.carlex.org.uk We will keep it there for some time, certainly longer than a week. Yes, it was cut down because Channel 4′s lawyers expect absolute proof for every statement made. Likewise BBC Radio 4′s ‘You and Yours’ programme at 12 noon today (3rd September 2009) cut some parts of their interview (Peverel’s name for starters) for the same reason. You can get that from the BBC Web site now.
To tack the insurance issue you need proper answers to a letter asking questions out of which they cannot wriggle. All Effie has is waffle. Anyone who would like a wriggleless wording can contact me at [E-MAIL ADDRESS REMOVED - SEE ABOVE COMMENT]
To TACKLE the insurance issue you need proper answers to a letter asking questions out of which they cannot wriggle. All Effie has is waffle. Anyone who would like a wriggleless wording can contact me at [E-MAIL ADDRESS REMOVED]
Sorry about the typo.
[ADMIN EDIT]
DE Heady – if you can provide me with the ‘wriggleless wording’ I will produce a document that users can download. Sorry for removing your e-mail address.
E-Mail it to: admin[at]thetruthaboutsolitaire[dot]co[dot]uk
Replace the words for the symbols e.g. [at] = @
We would like to advise you of a recent situation where we were approached as a management company to try & help a group of leaseholders in a retirement block gain control of there building as they were paying what they felt were higher charges, we moved forward with them & arranged a meeting in a local church hall to advise them of how we could help & what there rights were with in there block, unfortunately this meeting was held in December & due to the bad weather not everyone was able to attend.
It was subsequently after this meeting that we mysteriosly received a petition & were advised by a local paper The Hasting & Bexhill Observer, that they had been approached by an anonymous resident acting as a spokes person for the block & Peveral,saying that they would like an article printed in the local paper against us taking over the block, it was also suggested in the article, that because our costs are so reasonable & our service’s are so transparent that we could not possibly offer a professional service, I can assure you this is clearly not the case as we have a large number of blocks that are very happy with our service which is very rare in block management.
We have now been recently been advised by the leaseholders that approached us in the first instance, that the annonymous resident apparently went round to each flat & got them to sign the petition, as we have only been advised of this recent evidence from the original situation by the leaseholders, we of course can not comment on this, but we would like to advise you that the original leaseholders that first approached us still want us to help them gain control of there block.
I am the last person to correct English written by other people.
However when I read the post by SPM two things spring to mind.
One, it was written in haste.
Two, before you get anything published it should be checked by someone who has a good command of our language.
I hope the original leaseholders are not going to experience the “norm” with there (or is it their its so difficult to understand)
new company.