Residential Property Tribunal Service
Some people may not be aware of the Residential Property Tribunal Service, which is the public body that can decide many Rent and Leasehold disputes.
RPTS provide a fair, unbiased service that is used by thousands of Landlords, Tenants and Leaseholders every year.
Anyone can browse the ‘Archives’ for LVT’s against Peverel Group companies and a recent case, highlighted the commissions that were earned by Kingsborough Insurance, when arranging buildings insurance on behalf of Peverel Group companies.
The case in question, provided evidence dating back to 2002 and, it was proved that during this time, as the Insurance Premiums increased, as did Kingsborough’s commission. In the early years, they were taking upto 30% commission, which slowly reduced over the next few years, until it hit 34% in 2008!
Needless to say, that for the 2008-2009 period, the commission dropped substantially to only 24%.
Once again, during the hearing ‘Oval Insurance Broking Ltd’ were mentioned. A name that were are now all to familiar with, whereby Kingsborough, simply ring them to arrange the insurance cover and then charge ‘Peverel’ an increased premium.
Oval actually confirmed that they were only paid 4% by the insurers, which is what we would class as being a standard value for commission on these type of transactions. However, it demonstrated the greed of Kingsborough to make 34% on the same transaction.
Once again though, the resident in question managed to reduce their premiums by almost 50% when they obtained quotations for themselves.
It is this complaint, that all of us have, yet Peverel deny that there is any wrong doing. So much for having residents interests at heart.
When will this type of wrong doing stop?
TTAS Improvements
We have made it easier for you to find ‘Archive’ posts, that we have published on TheTruthAboutSolitaire, by tweaking the ‘Archive Section’.
Rather than having a list of ‘Months’ for you to scroll through the many pages of postings, you can now easily select the posting you want from the drop down menu.
We hope that this makes your experience of TheTruthAboutSolitaire, more enjoyable and easier to use.




January 30th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Ho…….had 3 quotes this week from leading insurance companies through a well known UK broker (not Kingsborough or Oval lol).
And the results are STAGGERING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even the most expensive quote…….yep expensive……..is HALF the price of what peverel are currently charging us.
This will work out at a saving of £100 per year for each leaseholder on our development when we get the Right to Manage sorted.
Put that in your pipe Peverel!
And I hope it smokes you to death
January 30th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
This is another issue that crops up regularly on this website. High (exorbitant…???) insurance premiums charged by Kingsborough Insurance Services, which leaseholders have to take on the chin.
Perhaps ALL developments should seek 3 competitive like-for-like insurance quotes, and then challenge their Property Manager to explain why Kingsborough are used, when the same level of cover (or sometimes better cover) can be obtained elsewhere for far less.
But in reality we all know why Kingsborugh provide the insurance…..
It’s time the closed-shop mentality was dispensed with. As things stand, the leaseholders are being ripped off – Bella’s post above being a good example.
January 30th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
ARMA’s Lessee Advisory Note 13 on Management Fees dated 16th July 2009 stipulates on Page 2, item “Commissions” the following:
ARMA’s stance on commissions is that transparency and
openness are required by agents as follows:
“If an agent receives commission directly or such
commission is paid to any other member of the same group
of companies as a result of undertaking the management,
then ARMA requires that it its declared to the client,
whether an investor landlord or residents management
company. If a lessee or residents association makes a
written request then an agent should declare any
commission receivable.”
Quote this to Peverel Estate Manager’s and guess what??
It gets ignored.
January 30th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Same as Bella with reference to insurance. Showed the policy (that we had to ask for a copy as it was never sent)to a local insurance firm who said and I quote “this is ridiculous,ask for an explanation” (some hope)
Also asked two companies for a quote explaining the situation. I have it in black and white BOTH were more than 50% CHEAPER AND FREE CONTENTS INSURANCE AS WELL.
January 31st, 2010 at 8:38 am
As mentioned in another post We were charged £3400 last year for 18 flats. Our insurance quotes so far range from £900 to £1100 and that includes Directors cover.
Even if a development is not RTM they can request a copy of the insurance then source other quotes. We used Lansdown and they are very thorough and answered all questions we put them to.
Once you have the quotes you can then request Solitaire obtain and implement these when the current insurance lapses.
If they refuse then use the above Residential Property Tribunal.
I know Solitaire or Peverel changed the e mail format to contact managers but I have the new format and I will post it today so at least people have a day to bombard their respective managers before Mr Andrew requests its removal. There was also another tool highlighted on this site to let you know if your e mail has been opened so please use this. If someone could highlight this then it would be helpful.
The other option open to people is to get all quoted work by Solitaire re quoted by two local reputable companies and then insist the work is completed at or near to that price.
Good luck.
January 31st, 2010 at 9:12 am
Ok.
The last format I have for solitaire. If your managers nane is John Smith
jsmith.propertymanager@solitairepm.co.uk
And for any admin staff such as accounts
Joy.Zinyemba@peverel.co.uk who is head of accounts for anyone who needs accounts balances etc.
January 31st, 2010 at 7:42 pm
For the sake of clarification, and also to prevent myself from possibly committing libel, please can somebody confirm the EXACT relationships between “Oval Insurance Broking Limited”, “Kingsborough Insurance Services Limited”, and our esteemed friends at Solitaire / Peverel / CBG etc.
Am I right in thinking that Kingsborough are part of CBG?
Am I right in thinking that Oval are part of (or linked in some way) to Kingsborough??
Thanks in advance.
January 31st, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Matt you have got it right.
They are all part of CBG.
So are BNS Telecom Group that take the phone calls for customer services.
I’m also wondering if Maks Consultancy have a link as well.
Anyone checked their Audit Trail to see if they are charged by them?
The latest scam we have on our accounts is Maks sets up the landlords electricity meters, allegedly finding the best electricity price.
Then, and here’s the scum bit, Maks takes 25% of what they reckon they have saved on electrical supply costs.
January 31st, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Here is a link showing the depth f bad feeling about BNS
About the same as Peverel etc
Now, why am I not surprise lolol
http://www.plebble.com/listing114556/bns-telecom/
January 31st, 2010 at 10:46 pm
This is the page where the original poster explains their grievance
http://www.plebble.com/listing114556/bns-telecom/
February 1st, 2010 at 7:11 am
Bella
I was informed by British Gas that Solitaire/Peverel closed the corporate account down on 31/12/2009 and transferred it to EDF.
You are well within your rights to request a copy of the most recent bill and this should answer your questions.
We recently went RTM and the postcode for our site was totally wrong for some reason?
You can contact your property manager direct via e mail using the format in the Residential Tribunal Service, fifth response down or write direct to your property manager recorded delivery and ask for a reply within 7 working days.
The last format I have for solitaire. If your managers name is John Smith
jsmi…@solitairepm.co.uk
And for any admin staff such as accounts
Joy.…@peverel.co.uk who is head of accounts for anyone who needs accounts balances etc.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Hello Jon Dyson.
Interestingly EDF (Electricity De France and part French government state owned)is the supplier to the communal / landlord supply at a rseidential site that I know. A site manager there informed a leaseholder living there that Peverel had negotiated a “special rate” with EDF. Wonder who the beneficiaries are of this “special rate”?
Also CBG have big interests in world-wide Energy Resouces and Renewables etc. (Wonder if that’s why they had a presence in Iceland? They also have a connection with a research business run in conjunction with Imperial College London) CBG even sponsored an Energy Efficiency award for apartment block developments about 2 years ago (?) that was publicised in Newsontheblock. Odd then that CBG property management companies seem so disinterested in applying energy efficiency in the blocks they manage?
February 1st, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Well, I’ve received a quote from Lansdown – I don’t have my current buildings insurance details to hand (at work as I write this…), but from memory it would appear that Lansdown’s quote is only around 40% of the figure we’re currently paying, through Oval….. Quelle surprise…!!!
I will be double-checking the figures & details this evening, before sending a strongly-worded email to my Property Manager, demanding an explanation (although I expect he won’t respond…).
Added to this, I discovered last night that the current buildings insurance (March 2009 to March 2010) is nearly £6,000 more than the EXACT same policy was for March 2008 to March 2009. Again, I’ll be seeking an explanation, along with demanding details of what the new policy premium will be from March 2010 (which I’m assuming has already been signed up to). I dread to think how much it will have gone up by again…..
My view is that as residents in an individual development end up paying the full cost of the buildings insurance premium as part of the Service Charges, then the actual value of said premiums is of no concern to Solitaire / Peverel etc, as they know that ultimately they aren’t paying a penny of it. We residents are. Something stinks…..
Seems I’ve found a classic case of a licence to print money…..
Watch this space!
February 1st, 2010 at 10:58 pm
To Jon, Archangel & all readers.
Yep our landlord meters were changed to EDF Energy approx 2 years ago.
But here’s the rub:-
Peverel used a company called Maks Consultancy Ltd, PO Box 684, Bromley, Kent BR1 2XU to obtain the best rate.
On our Audit Trails, I have found they are invoicing for 25% commission on the “alleged” saving!!!
The bills from EDF are much the same as previously, if not more.
I’d recommend that everyone checks their invoices from Maks to see if they are getting the same charge.
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Hi Bella & Francescc,
I wanted to respond to recent comments regarding insurance.
Kingsborough Insurance Services (KIS) is part of the Peverel Group of companies and there’s no secret about this. KIS is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to undertake insurance mediation activities on behalf of the Peverel Group.
However, Oval Insurance Broking Ltd is not owned by Consensus Business Group and is an independent insurance broker.
BNS Telecom Group plc and Maks Consultancy are totally independent businesses and are not owned by CBG.
Finally, I understand that you’ve been provided with three independent insurance quotes and have found that they seem to be less expensive. I would be happy to pass these on to the relevant person and ask for a response for you.
If this seems reasonable, please feel free to email me copies of your detailed policy quotes, so that we can check that the cover is like-for-like with the policy from Kingsborough.
As always, you can reach me directly on andy.solitairepm@peverel.co.uk.
Many thanks all,
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:34 pm
BNS is owned by the CBG or that has changed VERY recently!
Andy:-
Trust you with insurance quotes????????!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you think I am totally unhinged?
I know where I’m going with my insurance quotes and that’s not to any CBG offices.
Lolol
February 2nd, 2010 at 5:56 pm
This is another group I have found that was bought out by CBG a few years ago.
http://www.braemar-group.co.uk/
http://www.braemar-group.co.uk/estates/estates_block_management.asp
I wonder how they are getting on under the CBG model??
Or is Andy going to deny that they are not part of CBG?? lol
February 2nd, 2010 at 7:38 pm
In fairness, I perhaps shouldn’t state CBG but a company that’s one of the Tchenquiz consortium of companies that are part of the trust fund in Guernsey.
February 2nd, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Andy……………..
Kingsborough undertakes insurance mediation activities for Peverel.
Mediation please explain exactly what that means.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear to you when I visited a local Insurance agent he was visibly surprised at the amount we pay. I can not be sure but when I mentioned the magic names I was left in no doubt that he knew precisely the situation and offered the words “I wish I could help you”
Like for like policies ! he said ours was totally inappropriate.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
hi bella
re the mysterious maks consultancy they too are involved with our development. i have confirmation from a peverel director that they have no common directors/ownership, so how did peverel get to hear of maks consultancy. they have no website, no internet presence, not even a proper address!!!!!
by the way, has anyone had any experiences of another Peverel favourite called CANAM CONSTRUCTION, of north london and enfield. please kindly advise.
i have also uncovered what i consider to be damning evidence of what is really going at the top of peverel om.
i recommend you all serve REQUEST FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985 as you will be im sure amazed what you have been charged for. i have found invoices for works not done, other schemes, even a birthday present.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Hi Andrew,
Found the same as you about Maks Ltd……zilch!
My friendly PCSO, believe it or not, has helped me on the 25% commission for energy saving. He used to work for a company (accounts in a laundry) which used a consultancy to find them the best energy prices and the commission on savings was 25%.
He added, due to their vast energy charges it made huge savings and very worthwhile in a high energy using environment.
He said that it beyond reason that this system is used for the landlord’s meters and is not going to offer genuine savings.
Oh…………..the infamous CANAM CONSTRUCTION!!!
Got the same and yes I have their invoices for 2008-2009. Surprised I did’t bump into you at Luton lol.
How about the rogues called MBS MAINTENANCE LTD based at Witham. Their website boasts all the wonders of gardening and maintenance.
They have turned our estate into a “Sink Estate”.
Their charges are just as bad as CANAN CONSTRUCTION!
Be great if we could share more Andrew as it’s sounds as if you and me are on the same trail.
Advise anyone to get Audit Trails for the past several years…..then DELVE!!!
February 9th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
http://www.rpts.gov.uk/Files/2009/May/00104JZ4.pdf
In the above tribunal case, the Maks bills were rejected!
February 11th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
hi bella,
Thanks for your very useful reply. ive never been to the luton HQ as peverel sent the invoices to my home. what is the set up like at their HQ?
we seem to have escaped MBS. below is my recent letter of complaint to CANAM together with chris anam’s replies (i shall be responding):
Dear Mr Anam,
Thank you for your prompt response.
1) does your company operate a complaints procedure? Yes we do. Copy attached.
2) please advise your hourly rates for electrical works for 05/06? Electrician £60 per hour approx plus disbursements and VAT / Senior Supervisor £70 per hour approx plus disbursements and VAT
3) please advise your hourly rates for electrical works for 06/07? As above
4) please advise your hourly rates for electrical works for 07/08? As above
5) most of your invoices do not identify the location of the works carried out, i.e. which light fitting was repaired. how therefore will manufacturers guarantees be enforced (in the event of a falure) where you have supplied and installed new gear trays etc (totalling several thousand pounds)? In most cases we will have been instructed by the client on locations of defects and the location of recalls would therefore be known.
6) Why do your invoices not state the date of the attendance? We are not generally asked to specify but would have no problem doing so in the future if requested.
7) Why do your invoices not include any separation of charges between materials and labour (this is contrary to Peverels instructions to carry out work). If this is something which should be in place then we will correct this situation with our accounts team. We will investigate on this end and correct this situation if required.
9) There is no evidence that any works were carried out in respect of your invoice dated 14/11/2005 for £1,091.20. I am more than happy to meet you on site for a joint inspection. Furthermore, I disagree ‘difficult access’ as there is are four opening access windows to the eighth floor landing (see photograph 10 taken on 31/01/09 – to follow in separate e-mail) giving direct and immediate access to the roof above flat 133 (which is at seventh floor level) (see photographs 8 and 9 taken on 31/01/09 – to follow in separate e-mail) and furthermore the ‘roofing upstand to wall’ claimed to have been repaired is directly beneath the access window. I inspected the roof on 31/01/09 and 13/02/09 and there is no evidence of ‘Seal roofing upstand to wall…’ having taken place; it can be seen from the photographs appended (see photographs 11, 12, 13 and 14 taken on 31/01/09 and 13/02/09 – to follow in separate e-mail) that the original render remains undisturbed along the upstand and there is no sealant. Furthermore, the concierge Terry Thrower told me on the 13/02/09 that he is unaware of any roof repair at this location. Likewise, the estate manager Richard Wentworth had no recollection of these works when I showed him Canam’s invoice on 16/02/09. The ‘roofing upstand to wall’ can easily and safely be viewed from the window; ‘Abseil across to area of water leakage on roof’ is therefore an exaggeration at best. No need for ‘abseil specialist’ as work is to roof rather than vertical areas such as walls. Therefore appropriate safety equipment would merely be a harness, line attached to anchor and hard hat.
The cost also appears inordinate.
Handwritten note seemingly by Richard Wentworth states ‘??? have said. Included repair no damage. Peverel to pay’. The reference to ‘no damage’ needs to be explained.
This job was tackled by one of our abseiling specialist sub-contractors and has been reported on previously to Peverel OM. For Health and Safety and insurance reasons we would not allow a general operative to undertake works of this nature using only a harness. If other contractors would be prepared to allow their general operatives to work in this manner then that would be their decision. We however would not allow this situation and if instructed again we would proceed in the same manner. The cost reflects the attendance of two specialist abseilers. Clearly work was carried out as they stopped the leak. We can not comment on the handwritten note to which you have referred as this was not made by us. In addition we can not comment on why the Estate Manager or concierge cannot recall the repair but you will appreciate this was done 5 years ago.
Kind regards,
Andrew Wernick
16 The Warren Drive, Wanstead, London E11 2LR
Tel: 020 8989 7080
were you involved in the matthew parker street LVT?
surprised how many similarities there are between cases.
yes we do seem to be on the same trail, and more than happy to work together/share info. as may have to go to LVT again this year. went last year but my case is filed under poverel rather than peverel so not easy to find on the search engine:
http://www.rpts.gov.uk/Files/2009/June/00002Z82.htm
this is now going to be partly reviewed as peverel have successfully appealed to the lands tribunal.
andrew
February 11th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Hi Andrew
No, I wasn’t involved but this is where I found it when “digging” around for any hope of info
http://www.carlex.org.uk/
Also, been advised by a fellow leaseholder who worked for the VAT offices of this:
http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?r.s=sc&r.l1=1073858790&r.lc=en&r.l3=1073965654&r.l2=1073858944&type=RESOURCES&itemId=1073791759
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/managing/charging/vat-invoices.htm#2
And complain to these people:
http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/cib/
February 11th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Our CANAM CONSTRUCTION invoices mmake for similar reading as yours!
Our fellow leaseholder can’t wait to report them to HMRC + all the others.
Peverel are a rogues gallery of shame.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:42 am
hi bella,
thanks…that was really helpful.
this is what i said to chris anam who i guess is the MD of notorious CANAM CONSTRUCTION:
Dear Mr Anam,
Thank you for your prompt response.
1) does your company operate a complaints procedure? Yes we do. Copy attached.[AJ Wernick] if the complaint is not resolved through your complaints procedure, what third party mediation is available?
4) please advise your hourly rates for electrical works for 07/08? As above [AJ Wernick] Your invoice 18043 of 10/07/2008 for £2,816.48 is one example of grossly excessive overcharging. Arealight who are qualified electricians charge £35 per hour + vat for first hour and £25 per hour + vat thereafter are now used. Your rates are way above the industry norm and even at these excessive rates equates to an unfeasible 34.2 Senior Supervisor hours for testing emergency lighting. I request that this cost in particular is investigated and details provided of the names, dates of attendance, times of arrival and departure etc.
5) most of your invoices do not identify the location of the works carried out, i.e. which light fitting was repaired. how therefore will manufacturers guarantees be enforced (in the event of a falure) where you have supplied and installed new gear trays etc (totalling several thousand pounds)? In most cases we will have been instructed by the client on locations of defects and the location of recalls would therefore be known.[AJ Wernick] that is not the case at gerry raffles as peverel do not have such records as they rely on yourselves, as the ‘competent installer’.
6) Why do your invoices not state the date of the attendance? We are not generally asked to specify but would have no problem doing so in the future if requested. [AJ Wernick] Not only is it obvious that the date of attendance is required to be stated, it is also a legal requirement. I find it difficult to reconcile your claim that ‘We are a responsible company’ with deliberate non-disclosure of information required by law, i.e. http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?r.s=sc&r.l1=1073858790&r.lc=en&r.l3=1073965654&r.l2=1073858944&type=RESOURCES&itemId=1073791759
All invoices should clearly state that this is what they are with the word ‘invoice’.
They should also include the following:
a unique identification number
your company name, address and contact information
the company name and address of the customer you are invoicing
a clear description of what you are charging for
the date the goods or service were provided (supply date)
the date of the invoice
the amount(s) being charged
VAT amount if applicable
the total amount owed
7) Why do your invoices not include any separation of charges between materials and labour (this is contrary to Peverels instructions to carry out work). If this is something which should be in place then we will correct this situation with our accounts team. We will investigate on this end and correct this situation if required.[AJ Wernick] It is required on every order raised by peverel to you. These state ‘Please ensure your invoice details separate charges for materials and labour’. I think that is pretty clear? Therefore, please provide breakdowns for all your invoices since 2005. I find it difficult to reconcile your claim that ‘We are a responsible company’ with deliberate non-disclosure of information that you have been instructed to provide by peverel. Furthermore your reference to ‘If” is erroneous.
[AJ Wernick] Your invoice no is 9271 and job no is 5696.
9) There is no evidence that any works were carried out in respect of your invoice dated 14/11/2005 for £1,091.20.
I am more than happy to meet you on site for a joint inspection. Furthermore, I disagree ‘difficult access’ as there is are four opening access windows to the eighth floor landing (see photograph 10 taken on 31/01/09 – to follow in separate e-mail) giving direct and immediate access to the roof above flat 133 (which is at seventh floor level) (see photographs 8 and 9 taken on 31/01/09 – to follow in separate e-mail) and furthermore the ‘roofing upstand to wall’ claimed to have been repaired is directly beneath the access window.
I inspected the roof on 31/01/09 and 13/02/09 and there is no evidence of ‘Seal roofing upstand to wall…’ having taken place; it can be seen from the photographs appended (see photographs 11, 12, 13 and 14 taken on 31/01/09 and 13/02/09 – to follow in separate e-mail) that the original render remains undisturbed along the upstand and there is no sealant. Furthermore, the concierge Terry Thrower told me on the 13/02/09 that he is unaware of any roof repair at this location. Likewise, the estate manager Richard Wentworth had no recollection of these works when I showed him Canam’s invoice on 16/02/09. The ‘roofing upstand to wall’ can easily and safely be viewed from the window; ‘Abseil across to area of water leakage on roof’ is therefore an exaggeration at best. No need for ‘abseil specialist’ as work is to roof rather than vertical areas such as walls. Therefore appropriate safety equipment would merely be a harness, line attached to anchor and hard hat.
The cost also appears inordinate.
Handwritten note seemingly by Richard Wentworth states ‘??? have said. Included repair no damage. Peverel to pay’. The reference to ‘no damage’ needs to be
explained.
This job was tackled by one of our abseiling specialist sub-contractors and has been reported on previously to Peverel OM. For Health and Safety and insurance reasons we would not allow a general operative to undertake works of this nature using only a harness. If other contractors would be prepared to allow their general operatives to work in this manner then that would be their decision. We however would not allow this situation and if instructed again we would proceed in the same manner. The cost reflects the attendance of two specialist abseilers. Clearly work was carried out as they stopped the leak. We can not comment on the handwritten note to which you have referred as this was not made by us. In addition we can not comment on why the Estate Manager or concierge cannot recall the repair but you will appreciate this was done 5 years ago.
[AJ Wernick] it is just over 4 years ago, not 5. You have not commented on the photos which show no works have been done, the easy access from the windows onto the roof or my offer to meet you on site.
Kind regards,
Andrew Wernick
and this the reply received today:
Dear Mr Wernick,
Thank you for your e mail below.
We have considered your comments and would recommend that you refer these matters to your Managing Agent.
Kind regards
C M Anam
CANAM
Evelyn House, 10 Little Park Gardens, Enfield EN2 6PQ
Tel: 020 8370 9950 | Fax: 020 8370 9951 |
I GUESS THEY WERE DIFFICULT QUESTIONS FOR CANAM CONMEN TO ANSWER.
IM ESPECIALLY DISGUSTED AS I UNDERSTAND MR CANAM IS A CHARTERED SURVEYOR.
February 15th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Bella,
Thank you for info on NH leaving. Sadly, it will make no difference as she was just a replaceable cog in the big machinery, who did what she was told. I have met her many times and got along very well, so why her reports depicted a different story rather than facts is a mystery?
I believe Chris Anam is the owner of various companies comes under the flag Canam gro… He is a charter surveyor. I met him about 4 times and was the only one who knew what he was doing and talked sense so why his reports were not factual either that troubles me. He was removed before he could cure the dampness in my flat. His last appointment never took place and my flat was neaver handed over as dry.
Is Canam Construction.. is a limited Company as on the net there is another international Canam Construction ltd with a different address. I wonder if Canam Construction has a link with our Management Companies.
Andrew,
legally Chris Anam of Canam.Const…is right for you to take it to the Management Company. As the leaseholders/freeholders we have no contractual agreement with any of the contactors hired by our Management Company and we do not pay them either. If there is a problem, I know Peverel and the Insurance Company try you to deal with the contractors directly where the contactors either will waste your time or/then can simply refuse you to help.
I have only answered Revival because they came on the site otherwise I would not have dealt with them. They are Peverel problem and they must sort it directly to sort the dispute.
I hope that helps and someone will put me right if need to or give you additional help.
February 15th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
To answer your query on Canam Vicky, this is their web site obtained from their invoices submitted to Peverel
http://www.canam-group.com/
February 15th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
Oooops…………..sorry Nicky, I put your name incorrectly on the last post.
Hope I’m forgiven
February 15th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Bella, I know it is unfair but legally we have no contract, therefore, cannot make the contractor
accountable. They know it and use it for thier benefit.
February 15th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Nicky, you make the people you pay accountable.
That is very common legal fact in many transactions in England & Wales.
i.e. if you pay someone for a service, any problems lie at the doorstep of who you pay for the service.
Or, you pay for a washing machne from a well known high street supplier. Any problems and it’s their doorstep you seek redress.
Hence, whoever you pay for your communal land service charges has to be the ones accountable.
The way to redress the issues are to write and ask for the accounts.
Unlikely to get them but you can visit their offices and get them.
Check all the invoices that they are correctly submitted + check for overcharging.
If your service provider has paid invoices not appropriately checked, invoiced to HMRC requirements etc, etc…..then you can challenge this at the LVT……..;)
February 16th, 2010 at 9:33 am
You are right and we have to make our Management Company accooutable for wasting our money
February 16th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
hi bella and nicky,
nicky please note that in reply to your statement ‘…the accounts.
Unlikely to get them…’ peverel have a legal obligation to provide as ive indicated above (REQUEST FOR INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS UNDER SECTION 22 OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1985) and i thought those posting leaseholders knew that. nicky has your posting been censored because some of it doesnt seem to make any sense? you state ‘I met him about 4 times and was the only one who knew what he was doing and talked sense so why his reports were not factual either that troubles me’…not sure what teh last bit means, but unless you understand building pathology you should not be making such categoric endorsements about someones expertise.
i agree and am aware that peverel are foremost in the firing line. i had asked peverel to consider sueing canam for all the defective work i believe they have done, but the will is not there and numerous lame excuses made.
i have written direct to canam:
1) as they do owe a duty of care and a contractural duty would arise under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (although im not a legal expert).
2) an LVT will look more favourably on an applicant who has tried all avenues to resolve a problem.
3) i wanted to know their hourly rates (which they have confirmed) so i could challenge them more authoritively on the hours they have charged, eg ‘unfeasible 34.2 Senior Supervisor hours for testing emergency lighting’!
4) i want canam to know that im on their case and i dont give up easily. i resent being mugged by anyone, but especially not by a fellow chartered surveyor.
as ive stated canam are banned from our development and i recommend you all make sure you confirm to peverel etc that they are to be banned from your sites as well.
keep up the good fight!
kind regards
andrew
February 16th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Hi Andrew,
In response to your post dated 15th Feb, I think it’s brilliant that you tried to pin down that worm Chris Anam.
Chris Anam’s email response “We have considered your comments and would recommend that you refer these matters to your Managing Agent” is the reply of a man that is seriously struggling and wriggling.
From the past year, 2008-9, some “classic” invoices on Emergency Light Testing, Smoke Detector Testing (another Canam favourite), Lamp replacement(the ultimate Canam favourite!). An electrical survey £1,100! To carry out repairs from the elctrical survey £4,100 !!! Checked the survey reports and um…err….can’t see even £500 worth of work…..unless I’ve gone blind!!
I think you and I, have the “flavour” of their COLOURFUL invoicing ability ….lololol
Had a Canam beauty the other week over trying to get a lamp changed that had not been working for over 6 weeks. Smoke Detector Tester, that happened to be on site was not allowed by Canam to carry out the lamp replacement. The lamp a 20watt low engery BC.
They said they had to send out an electrician for the next day!! In our Canam cleaning contract the cleaners are required to do this
If Chris Anam is a surveyor, then he should be struck off….end of!!
In the meantime, we have to slog on to reveal these scummy worms.
February 16th, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Hi Andrew again,
Can I ask how did you manage to get Canam banned from your development?
Are you going for Right to Manage as well?
Trying to do both here and it’s nearly a full time job lol
February 16th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Both …means LVT and RTM.
Jeez…I’m tired tonight
Been doing posters for the communal areas today, to keep the leaseholders up to date and onside.
Getting quite good at them now, even if i say so myself:)
February 19th, 2010 at 12:30 am
hi bella,
i agree with all that you say. why are canam having multiple callouts when changing bulbs is in the job description of cleaners (or in our case the concierges). will you be challenging canams invoices with peverel as they too sound rip off?
sounds like canam have really got their greedy mits stuck into your development.
one of the points i won at the lvt was that bulbs (only 20 or so) were being delivered from kent to e15 london by a pet builder (not canam for a change) obviously charging his time and about 3 times the rate for each bulb! these were not special bulbs…they could have been bought for a fraction in the shopping centre next door by one of our concierges.
get rid of canam and you will save a shed load of money; feel free to mention me (my details are above) and cite all the overcharging as well as their pathetic response to my complaint. we formed a leaseholders assoc., got official recognition under the landlord and tenant act 1985 from peverel, and then off the back of my lvt case last yr, richard wentworth our former estate manager asked us at our meeting with him if we wanted certain 3 notorious contractors including canam to no longer work on our site. this was seized with both hands. we now work very closely with our new manager, and a lot of progress has been made, although it takes a lot of mine and others time.
we are considering rtm and having a vote under the terms of our (barratts) lease which allows new managers to be appointed if a simple majority of lessees vote for this. seems less effort than RTM. perhaps your lease has the same provision.
at what stage are you at with peverel?
andrew
February 20th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Hi Andrew,
Good to hear your news.
Here, it is just me and another leaseholder helping me. She is a star, 78 years old, can hardly see with trouble walking but full of grit & hatred for Peverel……oooops OM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. She was a civil servant for Customs & Excise. So knows a few things about invoices & the tricks these companies can play. Quite a girl and VERY helpful!!
So, that’s the “team” here lolol.
But we intend to FIGHT OM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
Quick pre-amble (and perhaps helpful to other readers):
We had the external painting carried out by the infamous and very regularly used by Peverel, SAXON BUILDING SERVICES LTD.
The work overan and so did the PRICE! Usual story of extra service charges & levies!
I and all the other leaseholders were livid and I set out to once and for all sort the situation. Always been “talk” from various leaseholders but no-one seemed to know how to implement the process.
Found LEASE on the internet, phoned them and started with talking to leaseholders + poster campaign on notice boards etc. Contacted another local managing company for price comparisons and was recommended a local solicitor who specialises. He has done a fair few case on RTM & LVT. Agreed price with solicitor etc.
Cobbled together an information pack and sent it to the more “resistant” leaseholders who read it and decided it was a good idea, after all
Created more posters to keep everyone up to speed & maintain their
enthusiasm. Obtained audit trails, last years’ invoice, still more years to get, loads of letters to Peverel from the two of us, querying everything. Some shocking replies, obstructive answers etc (you know the stuff!).
But, getting together quite an amount of evidence including insurance.
Today, they should have received 2 letters in the post. One asking for a sum to show their support for RTM before a final vote, hopefully soon. Second letter asking their support for LVT.
So…. now I have to sit with fingers crossed hoping I have their support.
It’s going to kill me waiting. Worse than waiting for exam results!!
Jeez………I’m far too old for this lol.
Struggling with the surveyor as he was not the best of choices. So if you can recommend someone I would be very greatful.
Going to tear CANAM’s invoices apart. But he’s made it easy as they are so obviously fictious.
February 20th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Oooops…..on the paragragh where I state “they should receive 2 letters in the post” that means the leaseholders should receive the 2 letters.
Sorry
February 21st, 2010 at 8:57 pm
hi bella
what area are you in?
who is your surveyor?
if you prefer you van contact me direct on ajwernick@ricsonline.org
saxon did our decs too. peverel didnt prepare a proper schedule of work despite taking a 15% fee. consequently saxon were paid extra for doing the stairwell as this was not in their quote. below is pasted from a recent e-mail recd.:
2010 has not even reached the 1st quarter, and Peverel has made the
headlines on Saturday 20.02.2010 for the 3rd time in just 7 months,
hence the name change to “OM” as nothing but a PR stunt to disassociate
itself from bad press!
Please click on the following link for more info
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/monet/property_and_mortgages/articles7034059.ece
alternatively google “Regulation calls for Retirement Leasehold
Industry”.
The interesting part of this topic is in the Community Action section,
which discusses the “Right to Manage” (RTM) legislation and our rights
by law to take control of blocks from incompetent Freeholders/Managing
agents such as Peverel OM or OM as they prefer to be known.
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:16 pm
Hi Bella, if everything fails then try for Independent Charter Surveyor (that what you need) at your local large Estate Agents. They usually have in house service which is often used my mortgage Companies. You may try RICS which is surveyor association. Good Luck.
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:21 pm
hi nicky
a mortgage valuer is totally the wrong discipline…what is required is a chartered building surveyor, and ideally one who has been recommended. not all professionals are the same!
andrew
February 22nd, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Andrew,
One needs independent building survyor as Estate Agents mainly deal with buidings and properties, therefore, will have or recomend the right one. One need show in tribunal that valuation is fair without any personal influence. I hope that may be useful.N
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:53 pm
hi nicky
i wonder if you misunderstand what i said…im certainly not putting my services forward! im saying a mortgage valuer does not have the correct skillset to decide if works are appropriate, preoperly tendered, reasonable cost etc. a chartered building surveyor is a different type of chartered surveyor to a valuer. hope thats clear. i wonder if you are confusing valuations of buildings for mortgage purposes with valuing building works…these processes are completely different.
it is dangerous territory to give advice on something on which the poster may not be fully conversant.
February 24th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Hi Andrew, You are right to correct me as I presumed Bella wanted also a surveyor to establish building valve against Peverel Insurance Policy scam. Thank you.
I like to add that we are at the melting process of RTM or LVT and so foth and testing the water and giving our opinions so others can join in to find the perfect solution. At no time I thought your point of view was other then honourable or you had an ulterior motive.
In my case I was advised to get Expert Witness Surveyor who specialise in refurbishment of the building. Theses experts are mainly to appear in the court to give evidence. They are impartial, only state the facts and have to write their report in a certain manner which is accepted by the court and other professionals. I have worked with 2 of them who have given me their reports which will be used in court against OM.
I am wondering if one rings some surveyors to talk through on the phone that is free or contact the Association for advice who would be best to advice what is required if going to fight a csea till admin has their own system to guide the way.
Surveyor Association RICS web link is: http://www.rics.org/
My concern is that our is open format. If a surveyor is recommended then the management company may use it against the claimant as we are all trying to under valve their work and conspire together against the Company. In my opinion it is a double edge sword where the publicity can help you or harm you. If someone is going to fight them in the court or go for Tribunal mediation then it is utmost important to be careful what is disclosed here and how we are collecting evidence. I am myself is guilty of saying too much and often have said that I am not professional and only have life experiences so seek advice. I will be stating each time iin future, so thanks for pointing out to me.
February 24th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Quote Nicky Vogg: “I presumed Bella wanted also a surveyor to establish building valve against Peverel Insurance Policy scam.”
No I didn’t. You, yet, again have misinterpreted!!
N.B.
Before you post, please ensure you are in command of the full facts before adding your valueless comments.
They ruin the work of TTAS, us people working hard to rid ourselves of OM Property Management et al and trying to colaborate together to resolve our issues.
I will not posting on this site again, thanks to you!!
February 24th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
I had no intention to upset you which I hope you can forgive.
My real horror story is not out yet. I would like to see if someone has suffered more then I have. I am very explosive by nature but was taught to remain focused and not get emotional if fighting the big boys.
What I have suffered is not out yet just like I have been trying to muddle through to find solutions as the market is not set up for the leaseholders needs. Bella I lived in a flat without hot or cold water supplies because I cut them off to prove that my water supplies could not flood the communal lift Shaft. I was actually sponging water by galleons each day by my hands. I lost 3 stone in weight due to contamination. I had no toilet facilities. Only when the water was tested we found out it was my neighbours poo and urine that was flowing in the flat. Can you imagine living without any water months after months and no one is listening, at the same losing money every month.
I hope one day you might hear the whole story. My whole intention was not just for you but for everyone. I hope you can just dismiss if it is not serving you.
February 24th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Get a life!!!
And get your problems sorted!!
Stop bleating on here
Yawn
February 24th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
It should be called Nicky Vogg’s website
February 26th, 2010 at 9:04 am
hi nicky,
good luck in your forthcoming court case. turning off your water supply for months seems excessive to prove a point; was this a recommendation of your expert? hope the plumbing leak from above is now resolved.
you are correct about expert witness reports that they must be in a special format and most importantly contain a declaration of truth. i am not happy however with your use of the phrase ‘conspire together against the Company’. this implies we are doing something wrong. this is not the case; we are working together to share info and uncover the truth. that is not a conspiracy. the only party of wrongdoers are peverel and accordingly i for one have nothing to hide.
andrew
February 26th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Hi Bella,
I read your postings on both this and other threads, including your response to my post of the 2nd February on insurance, as I understand that you have been unhappy with the management of your development for some time.
We do want to understand the problems that are specific to your development and try to resolve them. That’s why we feel we would like to offer for one of our senior managers in our property management team to meet you personally to listen and discuss how we can resolve the problems on your development.
My direct email address is andy.solitairepm@peverel.co.uk and I will arrange for someone to contact you direct to agree a mutually agreeable date and time.
I do hope you will get in contact as our only aim is to resolve your problems and hopefully begin to regain your trust in our company.
Thanks,
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
February 26th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
“Andy”,
On Monday evening (22nd Feb) I sent you an email, attaching a copy of a letter (plus enclosures) as posted to my property manager (MP) the same day. The letter was regarding buildings insurance for my development, and the enclosures were the current Zurich policy certificate, plus a quote I have obtained myself (being less than half the cost of the current Zurich – arranged by Oval – policy). You have invited us to submit alternative quotes, after all…..
In my email to you, I specifically asked you to acknowledge receipt, and to also confirm that you have forwarded the email on to the appropriate people for consideration & comment.
I have received a Read Receipt from you – confirming you read the email at 9.00am on Tuesday 23rd Feb, but no actual reply, to date. So, I don’t actually know whether you have even read my email (or just clicked the “Yes” button when asked if you wanted to send the receipt back), and I don’t know if you have forwarded the email on, as I have requested.
So, perhaps you could advise accordingly…???