Comments on: Is Peverel OM Rebranding?

By: Archangel

Archangel — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:35:56 +0000

A ‘typo no doubt, but oops – if you change the letter ‘n’ in Jane’s spelling of the name of the House and substitute the letter that holds the position in the alphabet of tomorow’s date…!

By: AnotherReviewer

AnotherReviewer — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:07:02 +0000

That’s Molteno House.

By: Archangel

Archangel — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 11:01:08 +0000

Michael,

Like you I’ve followed the ‘Peacocks’ story with surprise and interest.

Yesterday’s ‘Times’ states that they have ‘won some beathing space in which to seek a new buyer’.

By contrast I would think that Peverel’s oxygen supplies have virtually run out?

By: A Reviewer

A Reviewer — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:23:15 +0000

Michael

Of course you are right … “selling” requires effort to buy product, to store and distribute it, and finally actually sell it. all of which takes lots of people, and there is huge competition. britain is grossly “over shopped”. so no need to build any more mega stores, so construction is knackered, etc etc

a landlord however has NO competition – the tenants cannot go any where else for their lease. its a GOTCHA !
and with virtually no running costs, no stock to buy, so its a highly “profitable” IF and it is a big IF you can get the money to buy a few …

if on the other hand, you are the Duke of Westminster, you ALREADY own all these leases, so no borrowing .. just a nice little earner….

and he has lots of happy days as a result …

By: Michael Epstein

Michael Epstein — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:53:23 +0000

Archangel,
If Proxima to raise cash wanted to sell their freehold interest in my development, I would have right of first refusal. If on the other hand a company bought Proxima, then I would not have the right of first refusal, as it is the company that has been sold not the freeholds. However this could only apply if Proxima as a whole was sold. Should the company be wound up, or be sold in parts then the right of first refusal applies.
This is why the administrator has been so desperate to keep Proxima via OM trading.
The freeholders, ie the owners of the head lease only have value if the company can be sold in a single entity.
Either a management buyout was planned, or someone was in mind as Peverel collapsed into administration.
It is my understanding that the administration was only meant to last a few weeks, that the debts would be “parked” and the banks and new owners would carry on free of debts, and all would eventually get their money back, at the residents expense!
This plan has gone completely wrong.
A chiropodist friend of mine tells me for Peverel “DE FEET” is inevitable!
Looking at the sad situation regarding Peacocks, it should be noted that they were trading profitably. Indeed last year they earned £77m. RBS decided to withdraw support because Peacocks had debts of some £700m,
in a large part due to borrowings to buy the company.
Right or wrong RBS decided that there was no prospect of Peacocks earning enough to clear the debt. As such it was deemed to be best for RBS to pull ther plug on Peacocks.
Compare the situation Peverel find themselves in.
Peverel’s debts are far higher than Peacocks. Peverel’s earnings are far less than Peacocks.
Peacocks, as far as I know did not have an enforced customer base dedicated to leaving them, as do Peverel.
Nor, as far as I know did Peacocks hold thousands of pounds of client money that could not be accounted for, as is the case with Peverel.
Nor, as far as I know did Peacocks fail to file accounts as is the case with Peverel.
For the sake of their staff, I do hope that a way can be found to save Peacocks, can’t say the same about Peverel though!
No

By: Jane

Jane — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:17:48 +0000

The Registered Office for GR Proxima, Retirement Care (BH) Ltd – another landlord group – is Molenta House, so now part of Consensus/Tchenguiz Family Trust.

By: Archangel

Archangel — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:21:39 +0000

Right of First Refusal

This link to a LEASE case study sounds almost to good to be true

http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=62

But it certainly proves the point that thorough research and advice-seeking pays off

By: Michael Epstein

Michael Epstein — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:49:08 +0000

Neil,
You are of course right.That said, were the unfortunate to happen, by not having OM the value of the freeholds decreases to Proxima. Indeed without OM, the income needed to service loans such as to Merril Lynch is taken away.
Though the head loans fall due in 2015, i am of the belief that due to the very complicated loan structures between the holding and operating companies, a default by the operating company can trigger a default by the holding company, as the loans would become payable on demand.
Since it is far from certain the holding company loans can be satisfied in 2015, why would any bank want to take further risks, when they know, their best chance to recover money is to act sooner rather than later.

By: Neil

Neil — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:14:59 +0000

There’s two things wrong with the scenario that is being developed here about the possibility of an ‘accident’ befalling our lovely friends in OM.

1) With a few exceptions our freeholds are not owned by OM or one of its related companies in Administration. Most are owned by Fairhold or what used to be called Peverel Properties and is now called GR Proxima. Although the latter is in receipt of a jumbo loan from Merrill Lynch, which has no hope of being repaid, it is not due for another couple of years.

2) My lease, and probably many others, states that the freeholder appoints the managing agent. So even if an accident befalls OM GR Proxima simply appoints another pet company. You will NOT need to choose a new managing agent–Daddy knows best.

Not very happy days.

By: NotAScot

NotAScot — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:40:52 +0000

This makes for an interesting read – will Peverel/OM be run out of Scotland?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/property/article-2087283/MARKET-WATCH-Follow-Scots-license-property-managers.html