Channel 4′s Reply
By admin | September 4th, 2009 | Category: Past Articles | 4 commentsFollowing the broadcast by Channel 4 News that was aired on the 1 September 2009, that focused on the Consensus Business Group’s retirement division of the company.
We subsequently contacted them to bring to their attention TheTruthAboutSolitaire website and to thank them for bringing this issue to the public eye.
They kindly replied to our message with the following:-
Thank you so much for taking the time to contact us after our film on Consensus Group retirement developments aired on Tuesday – we’ve had lots of feedback.
Your website was indeed one that we had come across in our research, and we are absolutely aware that this is a large and complex issue. On this occasion, for the sake of clarity and evidence-gathering, we stuck to the stories of a particular group of residents, but I am pleased that you’ve chosen to highlight our report on your website so that your members can draw their own conclusions about its relevance to their experiences. I’ve read the comments posted there, and found them very interesting
It’s encouraging to know that our website, was one that they had come across and we’d like to think that it helped point them in the right direction of the Consensus Business Group and it’s associated companies.
Since the film, we have seen a dramatic increase in visitors to TheTruthAboutSolitaire and can only hope that people continue to peruse the website and compare experiences.
Peverel Career Opportunity
A contributor to TheTruthAboutSolitaire brought to the attention of everyone, the vacancy that Peverel are currently advertising on their website for the role of ‘Social Media Assistant’.
It is rather comical that they are going to this length to protect their reputation, even to the point of within the job description:
“A key part of the role will be monitoring and engaging with online communities that could cause the business reputation damage in a way which mitigates the risk and generates positive perceptions of the Group and its operations”
From my perspective, the fact that they want to employee someone to monitor online publicity – goes to show that they are finally recognising the power of the Internet and Social media (however, it maybe a little too late)
Originally, TheTruthAboutSolitaire was setup to focus on Solitaire Property Management, until it became clear of the complete ‘inter-linked’ setup that was the Consensus Business Group.
Solitaire themselves, ignored the website for the first five months of the site being setup and only started to take it serious in Janary 2009, when obviously more people were referring to it and the companies reputation was starting to be tarnished.
Once again, had they done the job right in the first place and not made me feel that I was being ripped off, it would never have been setup – so it goes to show that Solitaire only have themselves to blame for this ‘tarnished reputation’.
We wait with interest the response that will follow from Consensus Business Group / Peverel / Solitaire Property Management.
Hi Admin
A contributor posted on the site on Monday that I see has now been removed. I thought would still share with you what I did.
“When I read your posting last week I immediately passed the information on to the Head of Customer services for Peverel OM for detailed investigation. I understand she has already been in email contact.
Firstly having purchased the property in July your initial problems related to the submission of documents from your solicitor that should have been sent to the freeholder, Estates and Management Ltd, rather than Peverel.
Before a managing agent can issue all relevant documentation concerning service charge etc we do have to receive confirmation from the freeholder of the new ownership details for a particular property. We can appreciate your frustration that this took so long to resolve but hope the regular and extensive email correspondence that you had with our Customer Coordinator manager shows our commitment to provide a responsive and helpful service for our customers.
Having moved into your new property you have experienced irresponsible and thoughtless parking in front of your garage by neighbouring property owners or tenants. The Property Manager for your development immediately arranged for a letter to be sent out to the entire estate reminding residents of the parking arrangements and asking them to refrain from parking in spaces other than those specifically allocated to their property.
Where specific vehicles are identified as causing a parking nuisance our procedure is to contact the DVLA and then write directly to the owner highlighting that they should not block access to garages of neighbouring properties. You might appreciate that managing parking on some developments is a difficult task and why Property Managers will consider options such as parking controls in an effort to resolve the issues with the agreement of all residents.
We are only answerable to our customers. Hence why your Property Manager is arranging to meet you onsite so that they can discuss your concerns in greater detail.
The Peverel OM Property Management team take pride in what they do; we hope that we will be able to demonstrate this to you.”
Thanks
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
Andy
I was the author of the posting on Tuesday not Monday. I also informed admin at TTAS that I would like to re-do my posting as it was written rather hastily as I was in shock to see the C4 programme and even more so having found the links to the daily mail/watchdog articles. I felt it didn’t depict my story in full.
Thanks for your prompt reply to that posting, pity such efficiency wasn’t displayed to me when I called your customer services dept –
several times in one day to try and speak to someone about Peverel’s procedures (having just moved in) and having been blocked in my garage that day by 2 cars parked in the communal area, I wanted to know what Peverel’s policy was on this sort of thing and more importantly get it resolved satisfactorily. What happened next can only be described as the most appalling treatment of a customer that I have ever encountered.
I called the customer service dept who couldn’t help me as I wasn’t ‘registered’ and referred me to the property transfer dept, the phone rings, voice mail comes on, press this that and the next thing and you go back to the main menu, start all over again. 14 mins I was holding on one call. Finally it dawned on me they don’t answer the phone, it’s ignored. I thought they may have been busy but not the case, they just don’t answer the phone.
I tried to speak with the customer services manager, not possible, no one would come to the phone. In the end, I wrote a missive to the MD of Peverel, who in fairness, responded to me, apologising for my mis-treatment and passed my case over to a Senior customer services person to look after.
Suffice to say, it has been a most frustrating and irritating experience. Normally when a customer is irritated (and I was) one would expect the offending company to smooth troubled waters, not here, talk about evasive and vague replies. My main complaint was about the parking, in the initial response from Peverel it was ignored!
Regarding the submission documents, I did address the matter with my solicitor and was told Peverel had the file and until they responded nothing could be finalised. I chased things up and discovered that the cheque and forms (both originated from my solicitor) had been sent to Luton and not E&M and the cheque was incorrect, both documents sat on someone’s desk at Peverel for nearly 4 weeks and were only sent to E&M after I chased the following week. So a further delay in getting things sorted.
When I establish how the error with the cheque & address occurred, I will let you know.
Andy, as for the’ regular and extensive email correspondence’ I am having, believe you me, it’s not initiated by Peverel, I query things that are not clear and chase up outstanding items, I am not contacted willingly by your company as one would expect, so please don’t make it sound like you are bending over backwards for me. If questions were answered clearly, if at all, there wouldn’t be half the correspondence!
With regards to the residents letter re parking, again I had to ask several times what was happening, check the emails Andy. I cannot believe that a company can take over the running of an estate and not have a contingency plan for problem parking. This problem is not new and I am sure that other management companies deal with it too. Since the letter of 26th Aug nothing has happened and again I was blocked in! If the land was mine, I would have had this problem sorted out by now, via clamping/towing/fining, since the land isn’t, I am doing things legally and by the book – and getting no where fast. All I want to do is use my car & garage at my convenience,is that such a bad thing?
You have suggested contacting the residents re the parking and of course looking at extra costs, meantime we still have the problem and as was quoted to me “absent owners aren’t interested in the problem”! which translates, if they don’t respond to your suggestion, nothing gets done and we are back to square one.
If parking issues are difficult on some properties (as you state), then Peverel should be upfront and honest with prospective buyers and tell them so, that way they can choose whether or not to buy.
As for meeting with the property manager, I wondered why I got a call today asking to meet up, once I logged on tonight , I now know why!
Andy, whilst I appreciate your interest in my comments, I would be far happier if Peverel got their house in order and deal with problems customers like myself have in a professional, efficient and speedy manner and stop dragging their feet!
AB
Hello all.
I have found another three websites to visit and leave comments, they are:
PEVEREL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OR MISMANAGEMENT
MY PEVEREL TROUBLES
PEVERAL ACTION GROUP
TAS Admin, Would it not be possible to consolidate all the ‘evidence’ that been provided / investigated and put in the public domain (TAS and other Websites, BBC WatchDog, Channel4 News, CARLEx, CARL, etc.) and provide this to the OFT for their own investigation? I fear that he OFT investigation (like most LVT cases) will only just scratch the surface of the problems and not delve deep enough in this intricate and complex matter. So many people can not be wrong and the following that the TAS site has should be weight enough for a thorough detailed investigation by the Government into how so many people are being ripped off by Solitaire / Peverel and co. Thanks for all your effort!