Peverel’s Letter to ARMA Members
By admin | February 15th, 2010 | Category: Past Articles | 5 commentsWe’ve been forwarded a letter that was sent to all ARMA members by Peverel in January, pretty much saying ‘go easy on us, we know we’ve got problems and we’re sorting them’.
A contributor to TheTruthAboutSolitaire had previously mentioned that this had taken place and until today, we had no evidence to back this claim.
It’s interesting to have read the attached and to try and understand, why they felt the need to send this letter to all members, had it not been for the fact that they are worried about the increased negative publicity and their own failings.
More importantly, we’ve also been supplied a copy of ARMA’s January Newsletter (which isn’t freely available to members of the public) that raises the following point:-
A SUDDEN SPURT OF RTMCos
Figures obtained from Companies House show that by mid-November 1,968 Right to Manage companies had been registered – a 20% increase in less than a year. Assuming none of these RTMCos were created over the head of RMCs then it is thought that RTM has been exercised on over 10% of blocks owned by investor freeholders.
Whether this surge is recession-led or just the growing awareness of RTM is not clear but it is beginning to look like the Government’s aims under CLRA 2002 are succeeding. Well for RTM anyway – we are not so sure about Commonhold!
This point brought a smile to the faces of the TTAS Admin’s, as it appears that finally – residents are fighting back and ARMA are aware of it!
If you are interested in reading the ARMA Newsletter and Peverel’s Letter to ARMA members, feel free to download them from the following links:-
ARMA Newsletter (January 2010)
Peverel’s Letter to ARMA Members
Have Peverel now started to use the services of a spin doctor…??? Perhaps this is why “Andy” has gone quiet, again – has he been re-assigned…???
Not fooling anybody. Yes, they acknowledge they have problems (no arguments on that one), and they advise that they are sorting them out (jury’s out on that one…), but we need to see positive actions, not a load of hot air & bluster, as appears to be the current campaign of action from Peverel Towers.
Anyway, they must now be focusing all of their “fire-fighting” onto the damage that will have been caused by the LVT decision against them for City Heights. And off the back of that, the apparent (alleged) insurance scam…..
Perhaps “Andy” could let us know that he is still available to help us out with our issues & concerns…???
14 years ago I moved into my freehold house with a tiny access road.
When I moved in 14 years ago, I was paying £41 a year. Now Solitaire are charging me a staggering £260 a year, and they do absolutely nothing. That is an increase of 650%!!! It is blatant theft. When I challenge them, they ignore me.
There is nothing I can do, they kept this small access road to make money. The council did not adopt this road for some reason.
“pbs” – does the “tiny access road” only serve your freehold property, or are other similar properties also accessed off it…??? If there are others, then presumably they also pay a fee to Solitaire – how much between the various properties do you actually pay…???
As you are getting no joy from Solitaire (which comes as no surprise), have you talked to your local Highways authority to establish why they haven’t adopted the road…??? Give then some grief until you get an answer – establish why they won’t adopt it, if this is the stance they take.
If the road only serves a few properties, with no prospect of any further local development that would be access off this existing road, why don’t you and the other affected freeholders (assuming there are some) get together and offer to buy the land the road is on from Solitaire (or whichever of their many sister companies currently owns the freehold), thereby buying Solitaire out. Therefore more more fees payable to them. Offer them a token amount, but don’t let them hold you to ransom. You would of course then be liable for the upkeep of the road, and would need a good solicitor to draw up the legal agreements to confirm who was the new freeholder of the land/road, who had access rights over it, and who pays for the upkeep. But you’d be free from Solitaire & co.
Of course, the road itself might be a “ransom strip” for further development in the vicinity, which would be accessed off it. In which case, Solitaire would probably not sell it to you at any price, knowing that a developer would be willing to pay more than you could ever offer…..
It is actually a small cul-de-sac or close. In my cul-de-sac there are 8 freehold houses, the council adopted part of the road, but Solitaire kept a small piece of land in of front of our houses.
There are four other similar cul-de-sacs in this estate and there are 3 blocks of leasehold flats.
Solitaire charge the leasehold flats and the freehold houses together. There are 124 properties in all. The accounts are a mess and undecipherable.
There are freehold houses in this estate which are on a council road, but since they form part of the whole estate, Solitaire still charge them service charges. This is very dishonest.
pbs – I suggest you band together with your various neighbours, and form an action group. Demand an on-site meeting with your Property Manager from Solitaire, assuming you know who this actually is – otherwise go straight to the top of Solitaire’s management tree, and basically raise merry hell until you get some action.
As has been shown by the successful “City Heights” LVT action brought against Peverel, banding together and then going at them hard brings results. The lone leaseholder (or in your case, freeholder) is basically ignored. Over 100 individual properties got together at City Heights, and have achieved a major victory.
Power to the people…!!!