The Story of Nicky Vogg
Nicky Vogg has been a regular contributor to TheTruthAboutSolitaire, fighting to get her voice heard by Solitaire / Peverel, whom have ignored her for many years.
Many will have read the messages that she has written, calling for Solitaire / Peverel to do something about her issues.
It would appear that Nicky’s requests have fallen on deaf ears and Lee Middleburghs (MD of Solitaire / Peverel) has advised that she should go to an LVT.
We’ve decided to highlight her cause and demonstrate that, Nicky has gone beyond the call of duty to prove that her problems are the responsibility of Peverel / Solitaire.
Here’s her story is below….
After communal waste pipe flowing with “poo” and urine of my neighbors, Revival Company, was hired by Peverel surveyor, Canam to decontaminate and dry the flat.
1st Decontaminationon 14th November 2007
Prior to drying the flat, John Murphy of Revival is photographed spraying the flat to decontaminate. Please notice no breathing mask. We were allowed to stay in the flat and suffered no side affects.
2nd Decontamination on 23 January 2008
What was sprayed and the process of decontamination is questionable which left my flat inhabitable and caused health problems by staying just for short while of skin and throat burning, breathing problem and coughing and so forth.
On 21 May 2008 John Murphy reports to Canam
“We have to wear full face masks because there is a health risk while Microban is air bourne…
Having treated the flat and then waiting half an hour, I entered the flat to find it was safe to return.”
The truth is when the flat door was reopened, I started to cough standing outside the building 30 meter away from the door.
The report further states,
“As she (Nicky Vogg)approached the door she said, “ no, I can smell it” and started a light cough. I assured her this was just treatment added to Microban and showed her from the doorway the boys are now without masks. She refused to enter the flat rest of the day.”
The statement is inaccurate as I enter the flat a few times. It also caused the co worker of John Murphy to choke, who you see in the picture wearing mask and gloves while blow drying the chemicals into the flat.
Furthermore, my research shows Microban is safe, no odour and does not need masks so what was used in second decontamination that made the flat contaminated to remain active even after a year. Further, decontamination by Clean Safe still has not cleared it fully. The disclosure is important and flat must be made safe to live.
Furthermore, John Murphy harassed me for 2 hours to sign the document that I am satisfied without allowing me to comment what took place. He threatened to remain in the property even it takes days in order to force me to sign. He will not let me record his threats. I was getting very ill in the flat and wrote in my report of 23 January 2008,
“I was very shaken with the whole experience as if it was going to blow up my head with unbearable pain and sore throat. Soon after John left I left for Asda to recuperate as breathing in the strong smell in the cold flat would not help me. I was in no fit position for a long drive. I stayed there around 4.15 and was still suffering from a foggy sore head. To allow reasonable recovery I decided to see a movie and eat some food before making my journey back. Around 9 p.m. I left for home. At night I heard my chest wheezing and did not sleep well”.
Nicola Holmes AIRPM writes to my ex solicitor on 17 November 2008,
“We have no reason to doubt the actions of the specialist drying company Revival and note their employee John Murphy who attended and worked on your client’s property is BDMA accredited”There are serious questions arising out of the whole decontamination process how it was conducted.
Is the decontamination process also used on weak and vulnerable too, who may die and no one suspect anything else?
Please read under the ARMA and News Coverage postings if you wish to know more about my story.
The above is just the tip of the iceburg, in reference to correspondence and documentation that Nicky has kindly forwarded onto us.
We hope that by bringing this to the public eye, Solitaire / Peverel will hopefully start doing something about it!
December 11th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Thank you admin for putting a part of my tragic story and there is plenty more one can put on the internet with evidence. I hope they can put links to other tags attached to my story such as The Times Newspaper Coverage, Peverel’s involvement Within ARMA, Peverel/solitaire MD- . Lee Middleburgh and Have Proof That Solitaire/Peverel Have read Your E-Mail and so forth so visitors can understand the gravity of Peverel incompetency and negligence.
I believe young Vincent, the owner of his glamorised cooperate companies is directly responsible for his staff and contractors, therefore, he must make them accountable. The insurance was underwritten by Norwich Union, therefore, in my opinion he is held responsible for their action and contractors too.
I want young Vincent to start investigation and provide me information on the following:
1. To make his staff directly involved with my case accountable, who made inaccurate statements and assessment regardless of their position?
2. To make the contractors accountable, who are: Circle Britannia, Oval (? no idea if the company is independent or owned by him), Canom Group, Revival and of course Norwich Union loss adjuster, Cunningham and Lindsey and his contractor Clean Safe.
3. All the reports of the tests/inspections carried out in my flat to be forwarded.
4. Allegation against my flat that it was responsible for flooding the lift shaft to be taken back or to provide evidence.
5. To settle my claim in full with compensation so I can
enjoy rest of my life in peace.
6. Finally I need an apology, otherwise, this serial complainer( drabbling geriatric) is going to keep screaming for justice till I “go blue in the face” end up in my final box of resting.
Just to add In May 2009, third decontamination was carried out by Clean Safe contractor of Loss Adjuster Cunningham Lindsey ( contractors of Norwich Union). My flat is still contaminated but Clean safe have been paid in full while they caused damage, items missing, some are still left packed up and there has been no hand over or inspection ever since. Now I wanted in the presence of the Loss adjuster and Nick Line : to sign his papers, check the damage loss and write my comments in reference to the work. Furthermore, no certificate has been provided so the builder can restore the flat.
The History is repeating it self and I have to sack my loss Assessor, Henry Dony , ( see tag Involvent with Arma ) who charged me over £1000 for initial work, at the same time undermined me to make me feel small ( information withheld) which was not acceptable. He went directly to Clean Safe and asked the keys of my flat to be returned to him directly with out my knowledge or approval. . Mr Dony writes,
“Neither Mr Marshall (new Cunningham Lindsey Loss adjuster) nor I nor Nick Line (Clean Safe representative) could see any advantage in Nick Line attending and therefore he will not be present.”
Mr. Dony most probably is holding my keys of the flat now and causing more havoc. I am confused whether my Loss Assessor, who was charging £150 an hour is my contractor taking care of my best interest, is he? Surely he should have discussed with me before making any commitments and decisions. I have been informed he may be a part of his Loss assessor Association.
I have accepted appointment on 17 Dec. 09 for the loss adjuster from Cunningham Lindsey to inspect my property and see if there is U turn or not.
I am still waiting for an opportunity to meet the owner so I can put my full case so justice can prevail.
December 18th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Spelling mistake apology
I had a chance to look at the sentence which E D objected and the Admin apologised on my behalf. It was a typing error it should have read Freud (famous for working with unconscious mind by analysis ) rather stating as Fraud which I apologises for the spelling mistake, perhaps the Admin if may wish can insert back the sentence with correct spellings.. I must admit it is wrong but not as bad as changing from “dribbling geriatrics” to “serial complainers”.
It should read,
“There are serious questions arising out of the whole decontamination process how it was conducted. One does not need to be Freud to analysis what could the reasons be behind and why Peverel are supporting Revival”.
I stand by rest of teh setance as in opinion that Peverel did supported Revival, their contractor as Nicola Holmes per statement.
December 25th, 2009 at 10:08 am
So after nearly a year of a supposed restructering and what was promised to be more efficient customer service focussed Solitaire, so little has changed. It remains a joke as a property management company; so incompetent and indifferent towards its customers that it is unbelievable that it has not been forced into bankruptcy. If this were to happen at least there would then be a reasonable chance of us customers getting a replacement company that would provide the professional management service we so rightly deserve; or even better the opportunity for all us Solitaire victims to run our own respective management units!
December 25th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
I am sure that all Solitaire ‘victims’ would welcome the details of just how we can all rid ourselves of this grossly incompetent management company, supposedly managing our estate roads etc and run our own estates ourselves.
Most of the success of apartment leaseholders ridding themselves of Solitaire is now well publicised, but perhaps the website could now publish advice and the procedures by which those of us that live in freehold houses, but have the burden of Solitaire unfortunately still owning and supposedly ‘managing’ the drives and pathways by which we have access? Then we could all plan to rid ourselves of Solitaire once and for all, reduce costs, and have maintenance efficiently and affordably executed?
Help Support TheTruthAboutSolitaire
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:05 pm
Hi I agree that Solitaire are a disgusting company !! feel a victim and so hope they go bust soon !!
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:10 pm
my e mail is paulatlongmead@aol.com , I have , like a fool just paid Solitaire £500 – they still can’t get my name correct after 2.5 years !!! Flats look a disgrace , they trest us like sh+t and I’m just not going to put up with it anymore , feel fre to mail me anyone as this is getting out of hand !!
January 7th, 2010 at 1:48 am
Dear Nicky,
It sounds like you have had a hell of a time with this. And I would not like to belittle that or the stress it has obviously caused at all. However from reading your account it seems to me that your issues have been caused by Revival and the loss adjusters, both those contracted by Norwich Union and yourself? On the basis Norwich Union is involved I assume this is an isurance claim and not a property managment issue. Again I wouldn’t want to underplay the concerns many have here about Solitaire and their service or otherwise but shouldn’t your focus and compaints be targetted at Norwich Union who would have paid for the work or Revival directly? I am all for taking action where there is fault but you need to direct the blame at the parties in fault.
The current legislation provides a mechanism for Leasholders to choose the way their block is managed by excersing RTM as many posters have already highlighted. In my case (a Peverel Block) everything was ticking over perfectly well until a small minority of leaseholders – some might say militant serial complainers – decided to start causing a fuss over a couple of very minor points (some water stains on the carpets in the corridor, a couple of light bulds that where not changed for a week or so). Then “witheld” payment of their service charges. Because of this, the lack of funds, the property manager was then not able to carry out some other works. And low and behold suddenly many people decide just not to pay, there is even less money in the pot so more works cannot be carried out.
So from a block that everyone bar the militant minority is happy with the managment we suddenly have a stand off with the managment comapany as a significant number of leasholders have taken it on themselves, no doubt after reading such websites as this, to not pay. Well they did try and go RTM and failed, not because Peverel stopped them but because the majority of Leaseholders simply did not want it. They shirked off with their tails between their legs and no doubt started paying their service charges again and now everything is fine.
I am not saying Peverel are perfect or I would have chosen them but I can honestly say I am satisfied with the managment of my block and have been assisted by some very helpful staff there. Here I am obviously the minority but I thought for once it might be nice to give a bit more of a balanced view.
January 7th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Hi Jordan,
You raise a valid point – RTM shouldn’t be pursued through ‘tyranny of the minority’ or, for that matter, ‘tyranny of the majority’. Withholding service charges due to minor niggles isn’t only in breach of your lease, but jeopardises the reserve fund and the ability of your management company to deal with any larger problems.
So, if you’re broadly happy with the service provided by your management company but unhappy with their charges, the way to go is a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal rather then RTM. A LVT will indepently review the charges to see if they are reasonable, and reward rebates to leaseholders if necessary.
Having said that, if you are living in a development that has been neglected by your management company, paying for services that you never receive, highlighted discrepancies and overcharging, and remain dissatisfied with your management company’s response, you and your neighbours should seriously consider RTM.
RTM is about building concensus with your neighbours to achieve positive change at your site. That is why the legislation states that a majority (greater then 50%) have to agree for RTM to take place.
Like Jordan has highlighted – RTM isn’t for everyone and should be pursued for the right reasons. However, in the absence of a shared freehold or commonhold, it is fair to say that RTM is the only way that leaseholders in flats and apartment complexes can currently exercise any significant control on the way their site is funded, managed and maintained.
Greater than any financial loss, is the feeling of helplessnes and expolitation from dealing with a bad management company. No-one should be made to feel that way for doing nothing more than living in their own home.
Jon
January 7th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Jon, your comments “Greater than any financial loss, is the feeling of helplessnes and expolitation from dealing with a bad management company. No-one should be made to feel that way for doing nothing more than living in their own home” could not be more appropriate and that’s why this very popular website exists in the first place!
January 8th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Dear Andy,
Could you help me with my service charge queries?
I am coming directly to you to stop any extra admin cost added, furthermore, the accounts department to defer the payment so the accounts can be checked for its accuracy.
11, Millennium Drive, Isle of Dogs:
Service charge: £1350.68 for six month.
For the year it would be £2701 then there has been always additional cost around £350 for the year that makes over £3000 per year.
I feel this is the biggest joke has been played on me when I am losing money due to Peverel incompetency and negligence. Furthermore, in my opinion have been bullied and harassed and also discredited among my neighbours and others, who are blaming me to protect Peverel.
Sextant Avenue, Isle of Dogs:
Total service charge: £534
Andy you will find my complaint letters going over 10 years or so in reference to Compass Point community centre. Myself and my neighbours been harassed by anti social behaviour youths, who kept breaking in to use it and threatened to burn us alive if we do not stop complaining. The place was in total disrepair. In 2007 squatters moved in and we were bombarded by loud music and parties for months. When the suqauters were thrown out then the furniture was left in the balcony of the building and around the compound for years. There was no gardener appointed to take care of the lawn. Only sweeping of the road was carried out by was the wind.
The building was not even insured and only recently has been done. There is further negligence that outside valve is leaking for years. Even the spout due to the leak is rusted and half is chipped off.
I believe this is negligence whenthe building has always running electricity and water when it is empty and sealed off which I take it is in breach of the insurance policy.
I will request The Admin to put the pictures as evidence if that is necessary.
In 2007, I reduced the service charge which is now mounting to £289.03. After each reminder your account department was explained the reasons behind who would refer to Simon but he never responded. I have asked the company again and again to write off my bill and any deficit should be claimed though the insurance as rental loss which should be covered.
I like to come to your office in Luton to check the accounts of both the properties and invoices. I paid my past service charge for Millennium Drive “without prejudice”, therefore, could you arrange for last 3 years accounts to be presented for both developments.
Could you also arrange to send insurance policies on Compass Point and 11 Millennium Drive too.
Thank you.
January 8th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Jordan Lincoln your posting is polite, sadly is belittling me and definitely adding “the stress” by your assumptions. Furthermore, you are scaring others not to go for RTM by your block example while claiming Peverel are not to blame.
One can only help if one knows the facts, which are:
1.My insurance policy is Peverel own insurance policy and the Norwich Union are merely underwriters.
2.Revival were directly appointed by Peverel own surveyor Chris Anom of Canam, therefore, Peverel are held responsible for my plight and require answers as neither Revival nor Clean Safe ( next cleaning Company employed)work was signed off by me:
a)Who approved their work as satisfactory work?
b)Why they were paid in full without any paper work signed by me?
c)Why it was allowed to happen?
d)Why my complaints were not investigated ?
e)Why Peverel have supported contractors with out any inspection to verify the facts?
The full truth behind what has been done to me is not revealed yet. I agree there will be many supporters like you otherwise Peverel could not have survived so long. I believe Peverel use divide and rule tactics so people like me can not be trusted and are discredited again and again by the cooperate world and others including neighbours.
To admin:
May I request that the leaseholders who wish to go for RTM have the following information so the success may be 100%:
1.To have majority well above 51% so any drop outs will be have no impact.
2.Try to use solicitors who already have success fighting with Perverel/Solitaire. In my experience most of the solicitor firms have solicitor/s live in the property managed by Peverel and may not give impartial service.
3.Peverel are award winners from Royal Institute of Surveyors so it will be useful to employ who have worked against Peverel and have successes too.
4.Limited Company formed must have right clauses serving the leaseholders. There are usually under lying tables too which are not printed in the constitution but are fully applicable. The copies of the tables’ implications must be supplied with the constitution of the company.
5.Finally, make sure the directors on the board are not appointed from management companies, estate agents and so forth as they may own the property in the blocks and usually real culprits to cause maximum disruption to take control of the management affairs to make money.
I hope this is useful. I am no solicitor but only have life experiences so please do seek professional advice too.
January 21st, 2010 at 8:30 am
[...] The Story of Nicky Vogg – Part II Filed in Uncategorized on Jan.21, 2010 Nicky Vogg has been a frequent contributor to TheTruthAboutSolitaire and in December 2009, at her request, we published the posting ‘The Story of Nicky Vogg‘. [...]
February 2nd, 2010 at 11:51 am
We take very seriously any accusations suggesting that company
personnel may have acted in appropriately, or used methods, equipment
or products that are a) not suitable or safe for the job and b) may
cause unpleasant side effects.
After a thorough investigation, we are happy that the work carried out
at Ms Vogg’s property met strict BDMA guidelines and furthermore, that
the symptoms Ms Vogg reports, are in no way related to our activities
in her home. We therefore refute all allegations made.
Matthew Cooper
Director – The Revival Company Ltd
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Response to Mr Mathew Cooper from Revival
Please to hear you have carried out your investigation, therefore, your company will be in position to answer some of questions:
1.What is the moisture reading considered to be damp and what reading is dry when measuring the surfaces of the property by your company?
2.Are your staff trained to change the readings on the report after the customer signed off or not?
3.Is it pre requisite to demand from the customer that they must sign they are satisfied with the work on completion?
4.Is the customer has the right to write their comments on the report?
5.Is it your company right to demand signature on the document that the customer is satisfied while ignoring that the customer is suffering side effects?
6.How long your staff is allowed to carry on demanding signatures while ignoring to take overboard what the customer is prepared to do?
7.Is your staff is trained to refuse to be recorded when they are threatening and harassing the customer?
8.Does your company disclose what they are going to spray or what they sprayed?
9.Does your company supply leaflets or verbally advise the customer for their protection during and after the work is completed? Do they have required knowledge what to do if someone is suffering?
10.Do you have after work policy to monitor your staff performance by checking with the customer? If the staff retunes without signatures on the document that the work is finished so what is in place to investigate?
Please respond as per numbers listed, which would be appreciated
February 4th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
BDMA, Revival Association
I have been informed by Revival, Matthew Cooper, a member of BDMA that they have followed “strict BDMA guidelines”.
Please read “The Story of Nicky Vogg” on decontamination carried out by John Murphy of Revival. Please comment from the Association point of view for the services provided.
I also like you to answers the questions inserted on the internet by me on 3rd February 2010, which was response to Matthew Cooper defence inserted on 2nd February 2010.
What are the “strict BDMA guidelines to regulate your members when providing service to the public, please disclose? Furthermore, is your Association regulated by the industry itself, or not?
I have e-mailed you with the website page address to invite you for your respond on the site, as you appreciate it is vital.