I am extremely disappointed of being ignored and wish Peverel (Santa) to grant me the following without fail.

1.As per posting under the tag “ Peverel Apology” dated 13 December 2009, a response for the apology from David Edwards, head of the legal department.

2.As per posting under the tag “Have Proof That Solitaire/ Peverel Have Read your E-Mail” dated 12th November 2009 and 3rd December 2009 under my initial N. V. to forward full information on Compass point is requested.

3.As per posting under the tag “Peverel / Solitaire’s MD – Lee Middleburgh” dated 19th November 2009 to forward full reply to my letter as requested.

4.As per various posting under various tags and dates an appointment with Mr. Tchenquiz to be granted.

5.On 17 December 2009, the waste pipe leak in my neighbour flat 3 was traced by my new cooperating neighbour ( thank God), who traced the leak himself. It was witnessed by 3 of my party including, Norwich Union Loss adjuster. We presume that leak in the shower room and bedroom will be resolved. However, The leak in the kitchen coming from the middle party wall into my kitchen travelling to hallway and communal hallway must be traced in my neighbours flat. Loss adjuster verbally has confirmed that my flat is not the source, so it is Peverel obligation to trace the dampness immediately by using specialist who traces leaks in hours with out damaging building fabrics.

6.Peverel staff must be allowed to supply me with the information that directly involves tracing the leak /dampness in my flat (ask concierge what happened on 17 December 2009) which so far is withheld. Your staff must not deny me the access to my neighbour flat, who is flooding my flat when the owner of the flat is present.

I wish you and Peverel Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. It is hi time Peverel have taken the U turn and act as my management company to provide service so dampness is cleared to resote my flat.

Dear E … D…

Please find attached internet posting. I like to add further and asking admin to make adjustment to their apology based on the information.

Please do send your evidences if you do not agree. I will respond in full when I receive your correspondence for the admin apology on my behalf.

The contamination took place on 23 January 2008 by Revival. There is no inspection has taken place by your company staff ever since to investigate my complaints. As a management company it is your duty to provide and maintain a safe environment for living for the leaseholder regardless it is empty or someone is living. If there are complaint which must be taken seriouesly.

Nicola Holmes wrote to my ex solicitor on 17 November 2008,

“Revival , are known to insurers and specialise in cleaning and drying buildings following floods. We are also advised that they work for well known companies such as Thames Water.

“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”

Your Company took side of Revival and gave your backing by Nicola Holmes own admission because they were well known in the industry, therefore, are trust worthy. That appears to indicate my words can not be trusted and I am a “serial complainer ( dribbling geriatric)” and your Company decided to ignore me which has caused havoc in my life.

Revival also threatened me that they will not leave the place even it takes days till I sign I am satisfied. This is bulling and harassment when someone keep demanding to sign incorrect statement and not allowing the person to make truthful statement. It went on nearly 2 hours when my health was getting affected by contamination sprayed in the flat. Now we experience the flat was left contaminated. Was it delibrate ploy to have me signed? so they will go scott free.

I need to know what part your company played to take care of my interest when health and safety is concerned. Why a contactor was not investigated to find out if he has done an error in spraying and then put it right. Why it was necessary to get my signatures on a document that I am satisfied and nothing else and there is evidence that you have turned a blind eye?

You and your company stopped replying to my correspondence. Nicola Holmes declined my claim on a letter that did not have my correct address. You and Tracey McCabe sent me as an e-mail attachment of your Company decision. I never received the letter because such postal address most likely does not exist which you were informed of that. But no response received so far to that.

Even now Mr Middleburgh is not responding to my letter in full but offering LVT mediation. The truth is if he does reply that will implicate your company.

In my opinion your company is incompetent negligent and request admin to adjust their apology accordingly. They can use any of statement if they wish.

Nicky Vogg

However, “Mr DE” from Peverel (“Company Secretary” and “Head of Legal Services” – he’s a busy boy…) must realise that such comments are only being posted on this website because his company is not performing. As I’ve posted previously (as have others) the very existence of this website must be of great embarrassment to this website (although I’m sure they wouldn’t admit this, at least not directly). If they performed properly, we wouldn’t need to post comments on here, would we…???

So, “Mr DE”, get your house in order. “Andy” keeps telling us that things are improving, although I think the vast majority of the contributors to this website would not agree, myself included. In my situation, things have happened at my development, but some issues remain unresolved, with progress seemingly haven ground to a halt. Again.

Dear E D,

Please send me a copy of your complaint which was sent to admin so I can reply appropriately and defend my statements if need to.

You (along with other staff members) were sent as e-mail attachments of my letter sent to Middleburgh dated 18 November 2009, with 3 attachments listed at the bottom. My story was number 1 under the heading 1. Decontamination Hell Under Peverel Management. Your company was given enough time to respond if there were any inaccuracies. I have been also complaining in reference to Revival contamination since February 2008. I believe the fault lies with your company, as a Management Company for not putting the record straight or taking any action to remedy it in the first place.

In future please include me if you have any concern/complaints of my internet postings that will be useful to all concern to protect the good name of the Company.

First Andrea …. AIRPM wrote on 16 March 2007

“….we can confirm that we are the landlord and the Managing Agents and therefore are able to force entry to your apartment..”

David Edwards wrote on 3 December 2007,

“The Landlord of the Property is Om Limited. Om Limited is a company which is part of the Peverel group Companies”

Please give an evidence where in the lease the powers are granted to Peverel to cause damage to my property. Which act of law in U K gives power to a company to break someone door without a court order when there was no emergency?

I believe I have been bullied by you and your company staff as defined by BREWERR’S DICTIONARY of PHARSES & FABLES, FIFTEEENTH EDTION (1996), by declaring as landlords then threatening me to break my door. The dictionary states:

“Bully. A person who harms, hurts or threatens weaker people.

It hurts deeply that I own 20% shares in Stuart Court Limited, the landlord which I have paid in full but feel humiliated and insulted that it is not so as per your statement. In my opinion, this gives an unfair advantage and power over me to submit to your Company’s inappropriate demands. It has made me feel small, powerless and worthless person who is no longer allowed to claim and enjoy her own rights as a part owner of the landlord Company.

It is high time you apologies to me – Nicky Vogg and put the record straight that OM or any other Mr. Techniguiz’s Companies are not the registered legal landlords but Stuart Court Limited is.

If your organisation (Consensus) did not operate as hundreds and hundreds of subsidiary companies many with opaque connections to the rest of the group it would be easier to understand. It would be a lot easier to understand which suppliers were linked and which were “independent”. Some apparently independent contractors even seem to have shared your registered address in the past so I’m sure you will understand why we might get confused (especially when most of us are well on the way to being what I believe your group describes as dribbling geriatrics)

Far from helping it seems your group are increasing it’s efforts to obfuscate on these matters. The organisation chart showing the investments of Consensus has disapeared from its web site and the links on the Peverel Group web site to Cirrus seems to have vanished and been replaced by Peverel Building Technologies. The Cirrus site it still mentioned on the Peverel OM site but the Cirrus site now seems to forget to link to Interphone, unless I missed it? Interphone itself now seems to forget to mention being owned by Cirrus, or is just in very small type? There again maybe its all been moved around in one of your many corporate reviews to improve efficiency?

So Dave rather than keep telling everyone they have misunderstood, misinterpreted or misrepresented the Consensus group structure and your links to contractors perhaps you could spend some time making things a little clearer for all of us.