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.

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

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

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 CA of [CO REMOVED AT THEIR REQUEST], 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.

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.

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

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.