Peverel On The Offensive
TheTruthAboutSolitaire is not only related to bringing to the attention of others, Solitaire Property Management’s failings, but also highlighting how other ‘Peverel Group’ companies operate.
We’ve been forwarded a letter and accounts that by a ‘Peverel Retirement’ homeowever, which Peverel have sent to try and allay the fears of retirement homeowners and disway any residents that maybe considering going Right to Manage – following the CARLEX campaign.
Here’s a copy of the correspondence, that we welcome your comments on:-
Working to Minimise Costs for Residents in Challenging Times
We are very much aware of the impact the current economic climate is having on Residents at our managed retirement developments, in particular the effect the recent tumble in interest rates is having on their savings and investments.
As your managing agent, we have always worked hard to keep costs in general to a minimum, without compromising quality. Yet these are undoubtedly challenging times – not experienced by many of us since the early nineties – and therefore requireing exceptional initiatives. Consequently we have been actively looking at ways in which we can help ease the financial pressure on Residents during this recession. We are investigating – on an individual development basis – areas where we feel money can be saved. This extends from simple things like trimming the number of times the window cleaner is called out, to reducing contingency fund contributions, insurance premiums and negotiating to keep utility costs at a minimum.
As part of our drive to ease costs, we will strongly resist any increases in charges from third party contractors and suppliers. We will also be capping our management fee at 2% and, from September we dispensed with the administration fees that applied to major works and redocoration.
We consider it a privilege to be granted the responsibility of managing your development. Ensuring the fabric and smooth-running of its communal parts, systems and facilities is of paramount importance to us, as is retaining your trust, confidence and satisfaction in the service we provide. We very much hope that the measures and cost savings we are proposing to implement on your behalf will be both welcomed and accepted and go some way to demonstrating our concern for your well-being and financial security in these difficult times.
Enclosed, pleased find the Service Charge Budget, notes and weekly / montly breakdown of costs for your development for the year ending 31 March 2011, which I will be presenting at a meeting to be held on XX Date.
Having review a copy of the ‘Service Charge Budget’ for the development in question, Peverel are charging £75,000 for 2009, which is budgetted to increase to £78,000 in 2010 and £80,000 in 2011!
This is for a 40 unit development and works out that this resident in question is required to pay £1950 per annum! A vast amount of money to pay for an elderly person, on a pension.
Insurance costs are over £8000 for 2009, 2010 and 2011 – which we know is pure profit for ‘Kingsborough / Peverel’.
In addition to this, good old ‘Cirrus’ have the ‘Door Entry / Emergency Call System’, which they are charging over £2,500 per year for.
Peverel are taking an ‘Accounts Administration’ fee of £4,500, increasing to £4,700.
If we assume that the cost of the insurance should really be about £4000, the Cirrus Contract should be a maximum of £1300. That works out to show that Peverel are marking a profit of around £9,700 when you include the ‘Accounts Administration’ fee, from the £75000 they are charging. This doesn’t include any of the other ‘commissions’ they receive from the landlords!
If we then take into account the 1-2% that Peverel are entitled to upon the sell of the property – demonstrates why it’s such a lucrative market.
The costs listed are appauling and quite frankly, the letter above makes it appear that Peverel are doing residents a favour, when in fact, they have been ripping them off for years.
I’ve had the good fortune to visit and inspect this development and also meet the ‘House Manager’, whom, quite frankly, was a complete waste of time and rude!
When I mentioned that I knew all about Peverel and their ‘tactics’ of trying to scare residents off of ‘Right to Manage’, I was told to leave and threatened by them that Police would be called. Peverel have obviously instructed all House Managers to protect their developments!
Our point is, that if Peverel are writing to Retirment Homeowners, in regards to the recession, why haven’t we as ‘Solitaire’ clients also been made these promises?




January 11th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Is attack is the Best Defence to Carry on Making Money!!!!!!
Slowly but certainly the truth behind Andy statement dated 11th Deceber 2009 under the tag “Peverel OM Customer Satisfaction Survey 2009” is being revealed that was,
“The people who work with me in Peverel are loyal, dedicated and immensely respectful of you our customer. The fact that you may be a little older is neither here nor there and the moment anyone in the team starts to think otherwise then we should send them packing.”
I fully agree with the above statement as Peverel staff are fully dedicated, who are prepared to use threats or other means to protect Peverel. As per whistle blower if someone try to do the right thing they get bullied and they leave. How does that help us is our dilemma?
I was also threatened in October 2007 by Peverel director to hand over the keys of my flat for 2 weeks or the leak will never be repaired “till I go blue in the face” and no one will listen to me including environmental health. Stop writing to us telling what to do? Now it is January 2010 and my flat is still inhabitable and damp, therefore, it seems the threat is still active.
John Murphy threatened and harassed me in January 2008 to sign the documents that I am “satisfied” with his work or he will not leave my property even if takes days. When I took my camera out to record his threats I was threatened that he will call the police if I record as I have been warned not to do so.
Are we getting a customer service or some of us are being punished for asking for the service we deserve or standing up to them?
Our cost at Millennium Drive-Isle of dogs can easily be reduced by stoping the miss use as follow:
1.The cheaper insurance policy will reduce the cost.
2.We have about 6/7 electric gates and doors to provide protection which can be reduced very easily to make them more effective and some flats valve may go up too and reduce the cost.
3.We have cameras ( WITHOUT APPROVAL) may be 10 or so erected which appears to monitor some of the blocks residents moments more rather then providing overall protection to all the residents and their cars. The cameras are monitered by the concierge. A few cameras erected at the appropriate location will be far more beneficial and reduce the cost.
4.We have bike stand in the ally way (WITHOUT APPROVAL AND IS A BREACH OF THE LEASE) for 12 or so bikes with 2 high fence gates which blocks exist from my own bedroom in case there is an explosion or dire emergency. In my opinion, it is monitoring my contactors and my moments which is nerve racking. I have clear evidence that my ex – expert witness was intercepted by Nicola Holmes and Chris Anom, Peverel surveyor in September 2007, without my knowledge or approval. My case was discussed when my expert witness had no authority to do so. Peverel did not know he was appointed to act on my behalf or were ever introduced. This is a clear breach of data protection act from both Peverel and my ex – expert witness. Bike stand must be dismantled and camera to be replaced at appropriate location to provide over all protection which will reduce the cost.
We pay 15% of the expenditure to the Management Company, so there is the conflict. Higher the maintenance and refurbishment work, the more money Peverel are ripping off. In my opinion the work created is not to providing the service but just another means to increase the profit at teh residents cost !!!!!
Finally, if someone calls the clients as “dribbling geriatrics” which was changed to “serial complainers” in front of the public and the visitors are threatened then my fear is what is being done to the weak and vulnerable ( any age) behind the doors or away from the public!!!!!.
How many are there with financial resources, skills and above all emotionally strong to stand against Peverel continuous incompetent negligent customer service?
January 11th, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Does anybody know how to undertake the process of removing Solitaire as the management company of my block of flats ??? Ive just received my service charge demand for Jan 2010 – July 2010 ands its gone up by 50% !!!!!! Its a total con !! They simply cannot justify the increase.
January 12th, 2010 at 10:23 am
I am not sure if this is the correct place to put this but I cannot find any other way of contacting the truth about solitaire website.
We are an ex Peverel managed development having recently succeeded in gaining the RTM and getting rid of Peverel. However, since we have gained the RTM they have had to provide us with a number of copy invoices, accounts and bank statements which have thrown up a lot of financial queries and issues. We are looking to taking them to a LVT based on these and also the Kingsborough Insurance issue (our costs via Peverel this year being over £13,000 as opposed to a quote for £9,000 obtained for when we get rid of Kingsborough). Peverel have told me that the published case where Kingsborough’s commission charges were ruled to be unfair and had to be refunded was being appealed against. Does anyone have any further information about this please? Is there an ongoing appeal or has a decision already been made? Incidentally Peverel are refusing to hand over the balance of our reserve fund being £19,000 on the basis that they need to keep it towards outstanding invoices (£6,000 of which is to Kingsborough). Any help towards fighting this great big organisation would be really appreciated.
January 12th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
I would ask Peverel to pay you on account £ 13000. You must head the formal letter “without prejudice” that give you chance to fight your case later, if your company choose. Please note I am not a lawyer but only have life experiences so please seek professional help.
If you click home page and go downwards and you will find another case that is waiting for the money to be refunded by Peverel has done a fair bit of research. I hope he may be in position to help you.
Good luck.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
The use of “without prejudice” is actually for use when you do NOT wish for the letter to be used against you in proceedings, so long as a few criteria are satisfied.
A useful explanation can be found at http://bit.ly/4uia8M
January 15th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Thank you Arthur for explaining the meaning “without prejudice” which is an excellent tool to use appropriately specially for negotiation with the knowledge that will not be disclosed in the court.
So the best way would be to write 2 letters on the same date-
1 without prejudice not to be shown in the court
2 ordinary one that will be presented in the court.
January 15th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Reply to Carol: My understanding (having just successfully invoked the right to manage) is that on acquisition, the existing property manager has to hand over any unspent funds. “As soon as reasonably practical”.
Looking on the bright side: they’re not delaying your acquisition date until the invoices are sorted. It’s jsut a case of the resrve fund???
As a purely practical observation – there shouldn’t really be many invoices on your reserve fund as the mjority of invoices will relate to day-to-day issues.
I also understand that it’s the County Court that you have to apply to to get access to the funds as opposed to the LVT. They can’t ignore that – if they do you automatically win your claim (if my memory serves me right). But double check in case I’m wrong on that.
All that said… why are you writing legal letters? If you used a solicitor to manage the handover, then ask them to write the letter. I mean, if you’re a rtm co member, or worse still a director then you must have legal bakup? I’m sure your fellow company members won’t mind the extra cost given the large sum outstanding. You’ve gone so far with the process which is great, but don’t jeopardise things by not checkeing your exact legal position.
If your RTM co can afford it (£300/hour plus VAT) go to a direct access barrister at a London chambers specialising in poperty law. He or she will write a properly framed letter, in the RTM co’s name that will spell out the exact position. It’s about half hour to an hour’s work and I tink you’ll find it money well spent.
Obviously it’s expensive if the barriste has to represent you in court or at tribunal but it possibly won’t come to that. By the way, the barrister can’t sign the letter or send it – but you will find their expertise well worth it.
Good luck – I’m really interested ni this as it’s the next hurdle we have to clear and we have reserves of £25k. Also unpaid service charegs cannot be used as an excuse to delay acquisition or transfer fo funds – the debt simply carries forward to the new company.
I’d urge you to seek legal advice
January 19th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Sorry my last post had so many spelling mistakes, i should never have bought a keyboard from Peverel! Mind you the “Last Post” and Peverel would be wonderful.
I think when it comes to insurance i think if pushed peverel would not be able to reasonably able to justify the extra charges from Kingsborough, so i think it would be a very good idea to insist on the actual invoice from the insurance company. Having done that insist that the extra Kingsborough have charged is deducted from your account.
The pressure we have managed to put Peverel under is little short of astonishing. Despite all the disgusting threats not once to my knowledge has any one been taken to court. So carry on well done to all of you!
January 20th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
In my opinion, there has been a clear breach of the data protection act as stated by Nicky Vogg at 11 Jan. 2010 and I am witness to that.
On 25th September 2007 Nicky invited me as a witness to a meeting at Millennium Drive, Isle of Dogs together with Environmental Health Officers, the Managing Agent’s estate manager, Nicola Holmes, who brought their surveyor Chris Anom and his plumber to determine the source of water leaks in her flat and lift shaft.
Nicky also requested her independent witness expert, Mr. Cockram , her builder, and myself to come prior to the meeting to make sure her team was on time and prepared. When Mr Cockram did not arrive, Nicky phoned him and learnt he was discussing the case with Peverel without her knowledge or approval. As a result of that she hurried out of the flat to remove him from the Peverel meeting. She was very upset in front of us with him.
In the meeting it became clear that Peverel surveyor and Mr Coakram both had already discussed the case and Mr. Cockram even suggested that it was his job to take the meeting which Nicky declined.
In my opinion, Nicky’s best interest was not taken care of as he refused to represent her case because he no longer wish to support her against unnecessary tests demanded by Peverel in writing.
January 20th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Michael, It is an excellent idea that the leaseholders need to see the invoice from the Insurance Company. I do not think that somehow will work as Insurance Companies are known to include additional fees charged by the landlord and/or broker in their premium on request.
I have dealt with the landlord insurance Company Aviva(Norwich Union) policy when I was on the board to mange a block. It was a huge fight to change. We used Lansdown as a broker, who gave us a cheaper quote from the same Insurance Company, Aviva (Norwich Union) as the landlord because it did not include our commission.
Your advice is good but it remains to be seen that it will work. Management Company will find another way to “milk” us from our money as far as insurance policy is concerned.