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.

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…..

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

Here is link to the Radio 4 program:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qjnv

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.

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.

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.