The Story of Nicky Vogg – Part II
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‘.
Despite this posting, not much has changed for Nicky and she’s asked us to publish Part II of her plight, which we have listed below:-
Nicky Vogg’s plan was to move abroad in 2007 after selling her rented flat. After 3 years, she is still fighting to clear her flat as not the source of flooding the lift shaft, demanding reports on tests carried out, to be in position to sell her flat and finally be awarded full compensation with an apology. Peverel are denying tests were carried out and blaming her for not giving access.
Nicky’s story is that 10 times access was given from 3rd Jan. 07 to 17 July 07, when no reports have been forwarded except 30 Jan.07. Most of the appointments were made by CXXXXX, the concierge of Peverel, who also accompanied the contractors.
NH of Peverel alleges on 24 Oct. 07 to Nicky’s ex solicitor, Ibblaw, “Circle Britannia attended the property on the 30th January 07 the leak into the lift shaft was probably caused by four leaks from the en-suite shower in Flat 4. …..
“A number of forced entry notification letters (dated 7th March 07 & 15th March 07) where sent to Mrs Vogg to enable the insurance contractors access into the property; however she continued to block access into the premises, stating that the leaks were not coming from her property; which therefore resulted in further delays in locating and rectifying the leak.”……………….
When access was finally granted there were two water leaks found to be coming from her property. One from her own boiler system and one on the communal soil stack”.
List of tests and threats
First Tests on 18 Dec. 06 :
One carried out as per concierge instruction conveyed by my ex tenant ( left 6 May 2007) – no leak found. Cost : £64.63(Next 2 tests were carried out by The contractor on the Shower Cubicle (used 10 minutes a day) which was 20 ft away from the lift shaft when one could have isolated it by shutting off the valves)
2nd test 3 Jan 07:
The contractor declared Shower Silicon faulty.My tenant wrote on 16 Jan, “For that amount of water to go from the shower to the lift, my bathroom, kitchen and hallway would have been flooded. I have told CXXXXX this and have not heard back”. The cost: £76. 83
Third test on 30 Jan. on the same shower now traced 4 leaks:
Peverel reported:“…….. to take the bottom half of the tiles off and replace using waterproof tile adhesive and grout and new silicone seal applied around the tray.”
On 7th Feb:
Second plumber was hired, who took the tiles of the shower. The cost: £88. 13I chased Peverel many times to arrange an inspection of the lift shaft before retiling of the shower cubicle as my disabled tenant was demanding a shower facility.
MW wrote on 27 Feb,
“Once Circle Britannia have given us a date to attend we will let you know so that you or someone can give access.”
My builder declared that no water leak could have escaped from the cubicle because, “The Shower tray has an uplip design to prevent water leaks. Walls are tiled over the lip. Power shower adhesive & grout was used and sealed with silicon.”
NH probable allegation, “30th January 07 the leak into the lift shaft was probably caused by four leaks from the en-suite shower in Flat 4” is without any foundation.
The cost to restore the shower: £ 352.50
Fourth test on 1 March
After inspection the plumber cleared the shower cubicle but then wanted to test the bathroom and demanded access at the spot.My tenant wrote angrily, on 2 March,
“CXXXXXX, was angry yesterday and that is because I had no warning you were coming and was hassled to get out of the shower. …………
Now the plumber ordered to remove the tiles and units in the bathroom to trace the leak even though one could access the plumbing. As with the shower cubicle additional cost and inconvenience would have been inflicted unnecessarily.Forced Entry Notices were served without a court order:
First Forced Entry Notice on 7 March:
Served without anytime or date when it would be carried out. It was a shock to me as from 28 February to 7 March my e-mails were rejected and no one was picking phone calls when I was offering to co-operate to find the source of the leak ( evidence can be supplied).15 March, received an e mail from MW, “I have posted a letter to you 1st class today to let you know what is happening” without attachment of the Forced Entry Notice.
Second Force Entry threat received on Friday 16 March :
“We have given you plenty of time. All you need to do allow Circle Britannia into your property on Monday the 19th at 10 am to carry out the trace and access that is required to find and fix the leakIf you are not there Monday we will be forcing entry to get resolved”
I panicked because Peverel were going to cause damage to my property when I was trying my best to work with them and also MW received my e-mail through CXXXXXX. I felt it was totally uncalled for using such unjust intimidating tactics.
My tenant got involved to pacify my fears he wrote on 18 March “they told me they were not coming on Monday and asked me to tell you. For them to change their mind and not give notice would land them in a lot of hot water. ………. they have no court order …….
5th test on 19 March -Forced Entry threat activated
The contractor was waiting outside the block to break the door. Peverel lifted the forced entry threat in view of my tenant’s negotiation but made a condition in writing either I let them carry out the testing on that day or “will be recharging you for the costs of Smiths Property Maintenance to attend”.I let the test go ahead in my bathroom, the plumber’s verdict was “Bathroom is bone dry“. There was no need to remove tiles or units. The leaks traced on 1st March did not show up.
6th test 20 March :
Two engineers came on the day and blamed the central heating straight way as it was not working and the pressure gauge was down.They would not believe me that my tenant would have complained if the central heating was not working. My tenant confirmed to the engineer on the phone that the heating was on that very morning and had never been topped up with water. Thank God, the central heating started to work while they were present.
They used a camera to trace 5 damp patches under ground. Because of the damp patches the carpets in my flat were lifted to dry up which was a health hazard to my disabled tenant and dampness was doing his arthritis no good. My flat was cleared verbally of any leaks. Dampness was also traced in the communal hallway, Flat 3’s external kitchen wall leading towards the lift shaft and declared, “now the leak can be from any flat above too”. They were coming back to test other flats next week.
NH alleges further on 24 Oct. 08, “I am aware that Circle Britannia did make access holes into plasterwork to try to source this ongoing leak, (any repair/reinstatement costs being met by the insurers). Further investigation works were required, but Mrs Vogg then blocked any further access into her property.”
Two thermal photographs
Were taken on 18 July 07 as evidence that dampness was present. One of them is the same wall with holes as NH is referring to and the next one is the corner of the lift shaft showing dampness. It was also picked up by the engineers as dampness on 20 March as listed above.(On 17 Dec. 09 dampness in the communal hallway was still present and my flat was still damp which needs to be cured. Flat 3 waste pipe leaking was traced partly flooding my flat)
7th test on 30 March:
An appointment was made for the same engineers of 20th March to return to test my neighbours’ flats in the building to trace the leak while I was to witness it. Instead a new plumber came with an attitude. He was blaming my central heating causing the leak in the lift shaft just by looking at the boiler when it was working perfectly.On that day my tenant argued with the plumber because he had no knowledge of the previous tests carried out and was infuriated that each time there was a new plumber offering new theories to trace the leak in the flat.
It was agreed to carry out a new test on 3rd April by isolating my flat and check the lift shaft water level before and after the isolation period to see if it had made any difference.
30 March, TC, Customer Service Manager is confirming the test of the claim which was on 3rd April and not 2nd of April as stated, “Just to confirm, the insurance company broker have organised with you, to send a contractor on Tuesday 2 nd April. I have contacted Circle Britannia to request that full history regarding this claim are made available to the contactor, together with any results of previous testing of water samples taken. .”
8th test on 3 April by isolation:
My tenant summed up on 4 April 07“Yesterday OM turned up with Circle Britannia at 8am as planned to turn off the water so that a test could be done to see if your flat was the cause of the leak. However there was no representative of Otis available to open the shaft and measure accurately the level of the water. Which meant that when the water was turned back on in the late afternoon, we had no measurement to compare against to know whether there had been any effect from turning the water off. So I am wandering what we achieved yesterday other than wasting time and creating further inconvenience to those of us living in the flat. I also note that there has been no word from anyone today about what was achieved yesterday. It seems common courtesy has also disappeared”.
9th test on 27 June carried out by me
When DT, Peverel’s surveyor was present with his plumber when my central heating passed the pressure test. The report of his finding is required.10th test
Bby DTaround 5 July and his final report when he verbally cleared my flat and informed he was sending his final report to Peverel to say so.11th test 17 July 07 by HRR, Peverel surveyor:
A full report from the surveyor is required with disclosure what action was taken to stop the flooding of my flat for half an hour.I dispute NH allegations that 2 leaks were traced:
1. The communal soil stack is embedded in the communal wall, therefore, my flat cannot be held responsible, furthermore, communal waste flooded my flat. It is Peverel’s maintenance obligation in the lease.
2. Peverel must provide evidence with details as no leak ever emanated from the water services within my flat which could flood the lift shaft or my flat.
It is evident that tests were carried out and not all the reports were forwarded so far. I feel I have been bullied and harassed (according to meaning in the Collins Concise English Dictionary, seventh Edition 2008 ) by NH accusation that no access was given and in reality tests were carried out systematically.
I have lost approx. £75,000 plus loss of equity in the flat which may be more than £200,000 at present state. I need justice with compensation and Peverel’s apology for their incompetence and negligence.
The full story of real hell experienced under Peverel’s management is still not out
Whilst TheTruthAboutSolitaire do not know the full background of Nicky Vogg’s story, what she has told us is quite horrifying and if the information she has produced (which is very in-depth, to not suggest otherwise) – goes to show that she must surely have a case for lanching a complaint against Peverel / Solitaire?
Maybe ‘Andy’ can confirm what the correct channel / process would be, for Nicky to make a complaint as it appears she (like A N Oymous did) have a reason to complain and request that we publish this information?
TheTruthAboutSolitaire Disclaimer:
We have taken every effort to ensure that ‘The Story of Nicky Vogg – Part II’ does not contain any content that could be deemed as defamatory statements. If however, Peverel / Solitaire feel that this is the case, please contact us via e-mail and we will happily consider editorial amendments.
January 21st, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Thank you Admin & high time Andy to respond
With due respect, Andy I need to know why Admin is not permitted to print the names of Peverel’s staff such as NH when I am quoting her written statements and she is the Estate Manager. How does that make Peverel staff accountable to provide the services which I am paying for ? What CBG are going to do to the staff members who have been incompetent and their action/non action have made my life hell and lose money?
Andy, I did follow the channel to complaint set in 2007 which was to write a formal compliant to DE, head of the legal Department. My letters used to go to all the directors of that time but produced no result and in the end stopped responding to me. What are you going to suggest with the company reformed customer service?
Andy, I am still waiting for you to respond to all my past queries raised on the site and also wish to have a meeting with the owner of CBG to put my case to seek justice.
[ADMIN EDIT]
Nicky, every person has the right to protect their online privacy and should anyone who has been named, wish to have their details removed – we are required by law to abide by these requests. (our Privacy Policy is freely available to view)
For your information, we do not remove the names of Peverel employee’s due to Peverel instructing us to do so, it is purely to ensure that TheTruthAboutSolitaire remains an open and constructive place for greivances to be heard.
As much as we’d like to ‘name and shame’ Peverel employee’s, we have a duty to protect their identities. We have previously mentioned that in the event of a Peverel employee opting to leave the company and their name was published on TheTruthAboutSolitaire, the reason for publishing the name, could jeopadise there chances of alternative employment. As almost all new employers will carryout online searches of social networks and websites to ascertain the type of person that potential employee is.
If you have a Facebook account, search for ‘Peverel’ or ‘Solitaire’ and you get an impression of the type of employees that work for them. Some of the profiles that are freely accessible are quite enlightening and not very professional!
The above is of particular interest, in the event that the reason why the grievance hasn’t be dealt with, isn’t the responsibility of the Peverel Employee.
e.g. Jane Doe is the PropMan fo ABC Site, a resident at ABC side complains and nothing is done. However, Jane Doe had passed this instruction along to another employee within Peverel who has refused to action the work. Therefore, Jane Doe is not actually responsible for not actioning the work.
‘Andy’ or ‘AM’ as we know his surname to be, has advised that Senior Management i.e. those responsible for the company – are entitled to be named and shamed, as the buck at the end of the day falls at their door and not the PropMan – who can very easily be replaced.
I trust that this goes someway to answering why Peverel employees are not named.
January 23rd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Thank Admin for your info.
January 24th, 2010 at 11:25 am
I witnessed all the tests in Nicky Vogg’s flat from 19th March 2007 to 27th June 2007 as listed in her story part 2.
Peverel confirmed verbally to the tenant (a solicitor) that their threat of forced entry was withdrawn but then informed him on 19th March around 9 am when he was already at arrived at his work that they were enforcing entry at 10 am. They had no court order, hence the threat was not legitimate. Nicky was so enraged at this unfair demand, that she chained herself to the door and said she was not going to move. In the end she agreed to conditional access. I witnessed testing was allowed in the bathroom in front of the tenant and concierge, C A of Millennium Drive. No traces of any water leaks were found and no damage was done in the bathroom.
I assisted in writing an 8 page formal complaint to D E, Company Secretary, head of legal department on 2 April 2007 listing tests from December 2006 to 3 April 2007. He acknowledged the letter and then Peverel surveyors took over but still insisting on unnecessary tests and threats. It appears the main focus has been to create work for the contractors thus increasing automatically their commission rather then providing a service. Even now Nicky is still suffering stress, loss of income, and above all the flat’s condition remains a health hazard and damp. I do not wish on my enemy what Nicky has gone through.
Nicky has stood firm compiling evidence in the face of oppression and threats. It is a joke how the corporate world is bulling her into submission while trying to make money at her cost. How can company expect to get away with lies that no access was given when there are witnesses around and evidence from their own correspondence?
January 24th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I was Nicky’s tenant when this problem began.
Nicky tried to deal openly and honestly with Peverel and constantly came up against walls. They demanded access to the flat to run tests to see where the water was coming from. I witnessed several tests over a period of more than a year and the tests got more and complicated. However they were always, at best, inconclusive.
I always got the impression that they didn’t know what they were doing. To be fair finding a leak is not an exact science and requires a lot of guess educated guess work. There wasn’t much sign of ‘educated’ in the approach taken. It was as if they knew the answer to the question before they came…even if that answer was incorrect. They wanted to find the leak in Nicky’s flat and would not listen to other views.
I am not a plumber, so I would have little idea of how to start looking for a leak if it’s not obviously coming from a tap, or an exposed pipe, but I would think that once you have done some tests and they don’t reach the answer you expected then you would start considering other possibilities. Peverel didn’t for a long time, until months after I left the flat. I really only left the flat because of the leaks.
Peverel’s treatment of Nicky was never good but went downhill and became intolerable. They were very unprofessional.
January 25th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Interesting to read Gareth Davies’ comments on the issues with Nicky’s flat – seems Mr. Davies (as the former tenant) is just as well placed to pass comment as Nicky herself.
Seems heads were firmly buried in the sand on this issue, as far as Peverel were concerned – the leak must have been coming from within Nicky’s flat, and therefore when it was shown that Nicky’s flat was dry, they (Peverel) were at a loss. Not what I’d call good customer service at all…..
Nicky’s saga is a bad one, but I’m sure there are other examples of similar poor service when dealing with Peverel & co. when trying to resolve issues. I know myself that getting basic, straight-forward maintenance jobs done can turn from what should be a simple operation into a total fiasco. At least my block hasn’t got any lift shafts to flood…..
I am wondering when the improvements in service promised by “Andy” months & months ago are actually going to materialise…..
January 28th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Thank you Matt, Eddie and Gareth for your support and insight.
Even when I have been in the raging storm form all directions and my life boat appears to be in danger of drowning without trace, I have always kept focus that I only need one life line to pull out and rest is a history. It is a valuable experience that may help others.
Gareth, my tenant of 7 years is one million and my hair stands up when I think of this young man courage. He is a credit to the society.
Bless you all