Those of you that are readers of The Times Newspaper, may have read within the ‘Money Section’, yet another report on how Peverel / Consensus Business Group appear to be ripping off their retirement homeowners.

However, as leaseholders of CBG / Peverel properties - we drew many comparisons of the cases highlighted, with our own.

Retirement home tenants angry over ‘sneaky charges’
We investigate fresh claims of unfair and exploitative business practices by Peverel

Elderly leaseholders are squaring up to Peverel, the notorious managing agent of retirement flats, over new accusations that vulnerable residents are being overcharged by the company.

Times Money looks at the latest claims by residents campaigning for a fairer deal for older leaseholders and offers advice on how to tackle problems in your block.

Warden call and door entry

Residents have accused Peverel, which is owned by the Consensus Business Group, of trying to bamboozle leaseholders into paying for the installation of new equipment that is expensive and unnecessary. In each case, Peverel has proposed that the work is carried out by Cirrus, the technology company that it owns.

Carlex, the Campaign Against Retirement Leasehold Exploitation, has identified a number of developments where vulnerable residents were told of the need to upgrade their warden-call and door-entry systems but were given little choice over what the work would involve or who would do it.

Under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act managing agents must seek quotes from three different companies for significant works that will cost more than £250 per resident.

In Heather Court, in Chichester, Sussex, and Chislet Court, Herne Bay, and Roman Court, Edenbridge, both in Kent, only two companies produced a tender for the work: Cirrus and Glyn Jackson Communications. In the case of Heather Court, a third quote was sought from A1 Security Systems. However, its engineers were not trained to work with the equipment so it was unable to submit a tender.

Peverel did not ask for tenders from Chubb, one of the market leaders of warden-call equipment, or Tunstall, which fitted the existing equipment in many of its blocks.

In each case the Cirrus bid was cheaper than that submitted by Glyn Jackson. Residents would have to pay up to £32,000 for the work.

Residents in Gibson Court, Esher, Surrey, were told that they would have to pay about £39,000 for the new system because the current system did not comply with the new high-technology telephone network being rolled out by BT over the coming years.

Marina Golding, who owns a flat in the development that is used by her mother, was at a meeting in which residents were told of two quotes, one from Glyn Jackson for £41,000 and one from Cirrus for £38,973.

Mrs Golding was shocked at the huge bill quoted by Peverel and contacted another company to get an estimate for the work. Delta Communication Ltd carried out an onsite inspection and quoted her a price of £17,000 to upgrade the system in Gibson Court, more than £20,000 cheaper than the cost quoted by Cirrus.

The quote does not include all the specifications outlined in the Cirrus quote, such as an intercom system so that residents can contact each other, or a video door-entry system. However, Mrs Golding says that these are features that residents do not want, a fact that Peverel has ignored.

Roger Southam, of Chainbow, a property management company, says: “We have seen a number of examples where residents have received expensive quotes or overspecified quotes from Peverel. When challenged, these quotes can drop substantially.”

This year residents at Heather Court were also told that their warden-call system needed updating, but they say that they were not told why the cost needed to be so high.

Sheila Tofield, 78, from Heather Court, who fears the huge bill for upgrading the system, says: “It feels like you are banging your head against a brick wall. They will do what they want and not what is in the interests of residents in the block.”

Likewise, in Chislet Court and Roman Court, residents have been told that the system is out of date and needs replacing. In each case seen by Times Money, the cheapest quote was supplied by Cirrus, while the second-cheapest quote was always from Glyn Jackson Communications.

Times Money tried to contact Glyn Jackson but the mobile phone number listed on the quote given to residents was not answered. The company is not registered with the Telecare Services Association, the trade body.

Peverel refused to explain why Glyn Jackson was asked to quote in every case. But the company did say: “Peverel always follows a strict consultation process. This is regulated by statute including the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act. This allows a two-way consultation with residents to take place, where quotes from contractors can be nominated and subsequent quotes can be reviewed and agreed.

“It is important to note that at Gibson Court the consultation process is not complete. All suitable options, including contractor suggestions from residents, will be reviewed and discussed in line with statute.”

Insurance

Residents of some retirement blocks report receiving expensive insurance quotes inflated by commissions earned by a subsidiary of Peverel, the managing agent.

Peverel is expected to collect insurance premiums on behalf of the landlord of the blocks it manages. It does not organise the insurance for the retirement developments. Instead, Kingsborough Insurance Services, owned by Peverel, is employed to obtain the buildings cover for the blocks. However, Kingsborough is not an insurer itself or a broker. Instead, it is a middleman, working between Peverel and Oval, the broker that obtains the buildings insurance.

In the last financial year, 2008-09, and in 2007-08, Kingsborough Insurance charged some residents a commission of 33 per cent for its services. This is on top of the 3.45 per cent charged by Oval for organising the insurance. This resulted in residents in Royston Court, in Esher, Surrey, paying £6,369.57 for buildings insurance, plus £209 to Oval and £2,004 to Kingsborough.

In the current financial year the commission collected by Kingsborough Insurance has fallen to 5.45 per cent, but residents fear that it could rise again. Peverel is carrying out an investigation into the commission earned by its insurance arm, which will be completed by February next year.

Residents can challenge the commission that is included in their service charge for reasonableness, under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act, but the process can be costly.

Mr Southam says: “It is a case which is incredibly hard to fight because the market costs of insurance can vary.”

He recommends that residents who are unhappy about hefty commission payments should seek to manage their own block through Right to Manage. For more information on Right to Manage visit www.lease-advice.org.uk or call 020-7374 5380.

Minor alterations

Leaseholders in some Peverel-owned blocks are charged every time that they wish to change the fixtures and fittings in their own homes. Peverel insists that residents seek permission to make alterations, such as changes to lighting or the installation of new kitchen equipment. The cost of each permission request is £35 plus VAT.

However, this is not the only cost incurred by residents, who complain of other charges designed to provide a steady income stream for Peverel.

Mrs Tofield tried to install satellite television recently. She was told by Peverel that she would have to pay a company other than Sky to install the equipment, at a cost of £299, and would also have to pay a yearly maintenance fee of up to £95 in addition to her satellite subscription. Mrs Tofield says: “The charges became so restrictive that I decided not to bother.”

Mr Southam says: “Peverel is the king of sneaky charges. It even charges people to set up standing orders. In the Commonhold and Leasehold legislation there is a requirement for administration charges to be reasonable.”

Peverel says: “It is now common in a lease for residents to promise not to alter landlord’s fixtures and fittings. Residents may need Peverel to seek the landlord’s permission to make alterations. To ensure there are no difficulties when they sell the flat the resident also needs written confirmation that alterations have been agreed by the landlord. This incurs a cost.”

Source: TimesOnline

It’s pleasing to know that The Times newspaper are not letting this story rest and ensuring that CBG are kept in the public eye, whilst also confirming the facts TheTruthAboutSolitaire has previously highlighted, whereby Cirrus and Kingsborough are all CBG / Peverel companies.

No.10 Downing St Petition

We are up to 449 signatures on the No.10 Downing St Petition, calling for government regulation of the property management / service industry and need your help to hit the minimum target of 500, to ensure that the petition is considered by No.10.

Therefore, if you have not already signed the petition, please, please sign it today and let neighbours / friends know about it. 

Sign the petition at: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/flatownerhelp/

Solitaire’s / Peverel’s Contributions

Those regular visitors to TheTruthAboutSolitaire, will have noticed that the contribution of ‘Andy’ (Peverel/Solitaire online feedback manager) has been very little of late and it’s not due a lack of visits to TheTruthAboutSolitaire by them! 

Our webstats, show that they are frequently monitoring the website and we wonder whether the lack of comment is due to the fact that they realise, we do not believe a word ‘Andy’ has to say and know he is simply playing lip-service to residents?

Everyone is aware that when a problem is highlighted on TheTruthAboutSolitiare, they endeavour to remedy it – however, it should not come to this and should be dealt with immediately!

Therefore, if you are still experiencing problems with Peverel / Solitaire and would like us to highlight your issues, please e-mail us with photo’s and a story of the actions you have undertaken, to no avail.