Landlords Accused of Profiteering – You’ve Guess It, They’re Consensus Business Group Companies
TruthAboutSolitaire contributor ‘Phil’, kindly brought to our attention yet another report by The Times Newspaper that was published today, relating to ‘Retirement Home Landlords Are Accused of Profiteering” from residents.
The story is as follows:-
Retirement home landlords are accused of profiteering
Pensioners are fighting back and lobbying Parliament with concerns over excessive charges
James CharlesManaging agents and landlords are being accused by campaigners for the elderly of ripping off pensioners living in retirement blocks by imposing hefty charges and anti-competitive practices.
More than 100 residents from retirement homes around the country gathered at the House of Commons this week for a meeting of Carlex, the Campaign Against Retirement Lease-hold EXploitation.
There are 105,000 retirement flats designed for older homeowners in the UK, according to the Office of Fair Trading. These have features such as 24-hour telephone support and wardens on site.
Residents own the leasehold, but the landlord retains the freehold. The leaseholder has to pay annual service charges for the maintenance of the blocks, on top of ground rent and other fees. Residents also pay for the rent of the warden’s flat through the service charge.
Fairhold, one of the UK’s largest freehold owners of retirement properties, is under growing pressure to review the way the rent is calculated after accusations that it is overcharging thousands of vulnerable pensioners.
The rent is based on the sale value of the flat and then is raised on an inflation-linked basis. Campaigners point out that this does not take into account the market rate for rented flats in the area, which could be lower. Campaigners also say that the charges could fall foul of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act, which stipulates that all charges should be “reasonable”.
Fairhold has reviewed and lowered the rent charged in 65 blocks, but campaigners argue that the company should recalculate the rents charged in all its blocks. It owns 1,550 retirement blocks in the UK. One in five blocks has a warden.
Fairhold is part of the Consensus Business Group, which also controls Peverel, the managing agent used by Fairhold to collect service charges.
Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat MP for Kingston and Surbiton, says: “After meeting the Consensus Business Group it seems to me that it knows that it is overcharging residents but it will not reduce the charges unless it is challenged. I find that approach outrageous.”
Bill Proctor, of the Consensus Business Group, defended the way that Fairhold calculates the rent to Times Money. He says: “The level of the house manager flat’s rent is set by the developer before we buy the property. Residents are encouraged to write to us with issues and we have a considerable interaction with tenants as a consequence. The person who should decide whether a charge is reasonable or not is the person who is paying it. We think our rents are reasonable.”
Mr Davey is calling for the Consensus Business Group to be broken up. The group also includes Cirrus, a company paid to provide phone services. Mr Davey told the meeting that he was concerned by “monopolistic pressures in the market which feed into the way that residents are being treated”.
Mr Davey says: “The OFT is considering a wider investigation into the residential home market and I believe that it should consider breaking up this cartel to increase competition.”
Nigel Bannister, the chief executive of Peverel, rejected claims that the company awarded contracts to companies within the Consensus Business Group to boost profits. He says: “People are reading a conspiracy into a problem that isn’t there. We use Cirrus because it is an excellent service.”
The OFT is investigating whether residential home “exit fees” are unfair. These fees are taken when a property is sold, typically when a resident dies. The fee is usually 1 per cent of the sale price, but it can be higher.
If the OFT rules that the fees are unfair, Fairhold will be unable to enforce the lease clause requiring payment. The Consensus Business Group has confirmed that it is one of the retirement home companies in discussions with the OFT.
Mr Davey is calling for a wider investigation of the retirement leasehold sector.
Campaigners at the House of Commons acknowledge that the outcome of an OFT investigation or changes in regulation will take many years to come into effect. However, there are steps that residents can take immediately to address problems with their managing agent or the freehold owner.
Two-step action plan for residents
Setting up a Right to Manage company
Thousands of residents are joining together to take advantage of rules laid out in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, which gives leaseholders the right to manage their own blocks. Residents can throw out their existing managing agent without the need to prove any wrongdoing if half the residents support it.
The process involves setting up a Right to Manage company, which becomes responsible for day-to-day management and maintenance.
Residents must serve a notice on a landlord, after which time the management transfers from the landlord to a Right to Manage company set up by the residents. Once the ability to manage the property has been transferred to the residents, it is possible to elect a new managing agent. The process typically takes five months, but the landlord can issue a “counter-notice”, potentially doubling the time it takes to complete.
A spokesman for Lease, the leasehold advisory service, says: “You need to know about company law if you are going to set up a Right to Manage company or to employ someone to run the company for you.”
It is possible to get outside help from a fee-charging company, such as the Right to Manage Federation, which will also complete annual returns and other functions for the Right to Manage company. You can get a list of companies who assist in the Right to Manage from Lease.
Buying the freehold
Leaseholders have the legal right to go one step beyond Right to Manage and buy the freehold to their block from the landlord.
It is possible to approach your landlord informally and to negotiate the purchase of the freehold. However, under the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 it is also possible to force a landlord to sell to an individual or group who represents at least half the leaseholders in the block.
There must be more than two flats in the block to qualify and two thirds must have leases of 21 years or longer. The block must also have no more than 25 per cent non-residential use, such as offices. Usually leaseholders will need help from property experts to proceed. Valuers advise on the cost of purchasing the lease, while solicitors are required to help with the purchase of the freehold.
It is common for the purchase of the freehold to be carried out by a company owned by the residents, which will need to be set up and registered at Companies House.
Once residents have issued an Initial Notice, the landlord can respond with a Counter Notice querying the authority of residents to purchase the lease. A Leasehold Valuation Tribunal sets the cost of the purchase of the lease.
For more information on buying a lease or on Right to Manage, visit www.lease-advice.org or call Lease on 020-7374 5380.
Source: Times Online
TheTruthAboutSolitaire are in full support of Mr Davey’s comments, in relation to calling for the Consensus Business Group to be broken up. However, the only concern would be that, knowing how clever the Consensus Business Group are and have been, to be able to get away with their business practices for so long, it’s likely that they would find away around this - despite the company being ‘broken up’.
We are very amused by Nigel Bannister (Chief Executive of Peverel) comment relating to using ‘Cirrus’, because it is an excellent service. Forgive me for being a sceptic, but Cirrus are part of the Consensus Business Group and we doubt very much, that Peverel and Solitaire for that matter – even tendered for this service so that alternative suppliers could quote for it.
We as leasehold residents, have also had Cirrus placed upon us and have been advised by Andy, that this service will only cost an additional £5 per resident. Clearly by the Consensus Business Group of companies, sharing contracts amongst themselves, this is profiteering on behalf of the Consensus Business Group – via an alternative guise!
Yet again, the responses from Peverel, are what we have become used too and it’s reassuring to know, that the business model that us Solitaire sufferers have had experiences of, are common throughout the Consensus Business Group of Property Management companies….. who said that things were different and would change???? Oh…. that’ll be Andy.
Over to you, for comments.




November 7th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
This is really murky. As we know, Consensus is a broad group. It includes:
Wenghold (registered office Molteno House, 302 Regents Park Road, London)
Solitaire (which they accept has not been performing for some time)
Marlborough House (who recharge geothermal invoices)
E&M (registered office Molteno House, 302 Regents Park Road, London)
… and no doubt a range of others
Wenghold may be familiar to some of you: they’re the freehold owner of our block. So they get their own managing agents to chase tenants for money. The potential for a cosy relationship with other members of the group must be high. It’s not difficult to see that there’s a potential if not actual conflict of interest with the management of the blocks being in the same hands as the owner of the freehold.
Does anyone know who owns Wenghold? I’ve not yet been able to find anything but will post if I do.
November 8th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Just further evidence that formal regulation of the industry is needed, via new legislation. With a proper governing body in place, to replace the toothless beast that is ARMA, and to make sure that the “cosy relationships” as rightly mentioned by “Concerned” above are not allowed to continue.
Said future legislation should require freeholders to employ managing agents which they have NO link with. My development is managed by Solitaire, with Estates & Management being the Freeholder, so overall Consensus own & manage the development – very “cosy” indeed. If any new legislation required no link, what would happen at my development – would the Freehold be sold, or would Solitaire be removed as the managing agent??? I know which one I’d prefer…..
Recent posts on this website have given Consensus / Peverel / Solitaire a right battering. Good. But without new legislation and subsequent proper legislation, the current situation can continue as-is, seemingly unchecked.
ARMA are guttless, not helped by the fact that there are Consensus personnel (plus, I acknowledge, personnel from other managing agents) on their committee. As we know, ARMA can expel a member, but this does not stop the company involved from continuing to do (or not do….) whatever they were doing which lead to their expulsion. This is a ridiculous situation, which needs to be stopped – but this needs the new legislation & regulation, via a fully-independant governing body. Until then, we residents are lumbered with the current non-performing system.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
My Rt. Hon. Lee Scott MP was handed the below paper with a hope that the conservative party includes in their manifesto and/or my MP has practical solution to help the leaseholders in their struggle.
Reason: Attempt to make Management Companies accountable. It is not only old people are taken advantage of but other leaseholders too.
I am requesting changes from my personal experience of sufferings inflicted by Peverel Om to trace the leak in my flat for communal flooding. I can be found in the internet under, “The truth behind Solitaire” under the heading the Arma, The Times news Coverage and so forth.
To reform Management Companies on the following for all the leaseholders:
1. A new Regulatory Body to be appointed to monitor the management companies conduct for all the leaseholders.
2. Management Company to be fined of a fixed amount for any breach of lease clauses or bylaws or acts s by the new Regulatory Body.
3. Management Companies must insurance themselves independently for the services rendered and not to make the leaseholders to pay for them in order to stop the conflict of interest.
4. Management Companies must be held liable for negligence/incompetence for he services rendered like any other contractor as the lease usually gives them immense power to do what they like as far as maintenance is concerned and it very difficult to question them for inappropriate testing.
5. Leaseholders must be included in the Building Insurance Policy to take Management Companies/Landlords to court if they are incompetent and or negligent.
6. Management Companies must give written reason/s of test/s for maintenance work on the leaseholder’s own property and reports of outcome. The work must be carried out by professional contractors available in the market.
7. Undemocratic powers given in the lease should be made null and void such as the Lessor, The landlord requires 100% approval of the leaseholders to remove management Company or to take over the maintenance work if the management Companies are under performing.
C C attched:
1. Copy of lease policy
2. internet posting to back my proposals for reform so they can incorporated in the MP discussion paper.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
BBC Radio 4 Money Box program of Saturday 14 November 2009 discussed the retirement home rip-off by Solitaire/Peverel.
Here is link to the Radio 4 program:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qjnv
November 17th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Hi admin, Concerned & Matt,
I’ve been carefully reading the posts on this thread and now want the opportunity to address your thoughts.
Admin – as you know, I have offered Berni my apologies for neglecting to respond to her email in September. I am committed to ensuring that in the future such incidents are kept to a bare minimum – if they occur at all.
But I was very surprised to hear that you have yet to receive a response from me. Unfortunately, I have not heard from you since I posted on the “Andy Heres My Complaint” thread on 7th October. Here’s what I said:
“As I posted back in early October we understand the reasons behind protecting your anonymity. I do want to help you, but ultimately we have to find a way of doing so that you’re comfortable with.
You say that it’s been ‘10 months since my initial email following your request.’ That would be an email sent in January. As I only started posting on this site from May 19th, it is very difficult for me to find out what has happened on your development. The comments you make about your personal situation clearly need to be investigated by our senior Property Management team, and they will be able to follow up on the information you have provided. “
I really want to help, but as I can’t identify your development I’m unable to give you an accurate answer to your comment that I never respond to your ‘numerous’ emails. Occasionally I am copied in on emails that contributors have sent to their Property Manager or their freeholder, but I always endeavour to respond to every email that is addressed me personally.
I now want to attempt to answer Concerned & Matt’s questions regarding ownership structure.
Consensus Business Group (CBG) owns a large number of businesses in the property and technology sectors. A few years ago the Peverel Group of companies was purchased, and soon afterwards CBG asked Peverel to run their other property management businesses, including Solitaire Property Management.
We have been open about this and we have let everyone know of our plans to improve the Solitaire business and its communication with its customers.
Outside of the Peverel Group, CBG also own a number of businesses that purchase freeholds from developers and collect ground rent as result. It is quite common in the property industry for freeholds to be acquired by what is known as a SPE (Special Purchase Entity) or SPV (Special Purchase Vehicle). That’s why the group have a large number of companies such as Wenghold, the freehold owner of Concerned’s block.
Over time this creates what seems to be a complex company structure in terms of different names, but I want to reassure you that there is nothing sinister in the ownership.
Again, I invite anyone with concerns or questions to get in touch with me.
Thanks,
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
November 17th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Andy – the complex structure of the Consensus Business Group is already well known & documented (although I suspect there are even more companies within the “family” yet to be uncovered…). Therefore, the company that owns the freehold of a development is separate from, but often related to, the company that manages said development – for my development, that means Estates & Management Ltd, and Solitaire Property Management. Separate companies, but ultimately in the same bed…..
It is my opinion – and I’m sure that of many others – that such relationships can create a conflict of interests (particularly when the management company is not performing), and should any new legislation that then brings in proper regulation of the industry (which ARMA at present don’t have the teeth to do) ever come into being, then such relationships should be prevented. Whether this could then be applied retrospectively to existing arrangements remains to be seen – could legislation ever force a change in the freeholder, or the management company…??? The latter would be the preferred, easier option in most cases, I suspect.
The problem with the current set-up is that when a management company is not doing their job, the freeholder (who presuambly appointed the management company in the first place) is not going to stir up much in the way of pressure on the mis-performing managing agent if they are both part of the same, larger entity. It therefore falls upon the individual leaseholders to make a fuss in order to get anything done.
Which is why this website exists – and I’m glad it does, as it gives myself & many others a platform to lodge our complaints. I do have to wonder how many long-running issues would have continued to go un-resolved up & down the country, if they hadn’t been exposed on this website…..
November 26th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
A Model for the Builders and Reforms to the Existing Leases
The leaseholders are paying dearly on many levels without receiving adequate services from some of the Management Companies.
It appears the grass root problem lies with the builder, who is solely responsible to create the lease before he starts the development.
In my opinion, the Management Companies influence the builder to create a lease in a way which gives them the power to do what they like. Then they buy the land directly from the builder establishing themselves as Landlords which one may term them as “21st century scrooges”.
We have a leasehold flat built by the builder, Fairview, which has an Excellent Lease Model.
1.The limited company was formed by the builder for the building giving powers to the “The Company” to run by the leaseholders.
2.Each leaseholder owns a single share in the Company.
3.The Company has the power to hire or fire the Management Company, therefore we were able to sack Clarke Hillyer without any fight.
4.The Company has the right to insure the Building.
5.What I like to add to the above Model is that the builder is including the land and sells to the leaseholder as one package. Hence, the properties are sold to the each leaseholder giving automatic share of the land. This will eliminate the landlords for once and all.
The best way, we can help ourselves is to lobby our MPs to force the builders to adopt the model that gives the right to the leaseholders to own the property and to be in charge of their development by reforming the law on the existing leases.
I hope TTAS admin will agree with me to refine and define our needs as one so it can be taken to 10 Downing Street with the petition. I would like to see the following:
1.The leaseholders should not be forced to fight to own The Right to Manage which is costly and time consuming but have Got the Right to Manage and Own the Freehold of the Land by having simple majority of the leaseholders.
2.The Management Companies to be treated as any contractors of the land and should be made accountable accordingly
3.Any breach of the lease, laws and bylaws must carry automatic fine.
4.Any undemocratic clauses to make them null and void.
5.A regulatory body to monitor the Management Companies.
What would help us is the press behind us to publish The Model forcing builders of today to adopt it which may help them as a selling point for their development. Finally, the reform to the existing leases is a dire need to be highlighted so in order to stay in current market as the Management Companies either mend their ways or disappear.