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

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…..

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.

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?

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.