BBC Nottingham’s Coverage of City Height’s LVT
Filed in Uncategorized on Feb.16, 2010
TheTruthAboutSolitaire has been able to make a recording of the BBC East Midlands Today program, that was aired on the 15 February 2010, that publicised the recent LVT Victory for City Heights Residents.
The LVT verdict has resulted in Solitaire / Peverel Property Management, being ordered to reimburse the residents of City Heights in excess of £187,000.
Below is the YouTube footage for those that were unable to view the program.
This victory we hope will act as an inspiration to all unhappy residents of Solitaire and TheTruthAboutSolitaire would like to pass our congratulations onto Greg Press and Neil Healey for their contributions to TheTruthAboutSolitaire and the work they have put into defeating Solitaire Property Management.
February 16th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Great!
Was hoping you would post up the you You Tube version
February 16th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Solitaire ‘manage’ my building. I have lived in the property for one year and learned the hard way that they are utterly useless and incompetent -
* My urgent phonecalls and emails are NEVER returned;
* I have to pay a window cleaner as otherwise they would have been filthy for a year;
* Our front door has been broken into 5 times in the last year, repaired with botched jobs leaving us waiting every time for the next break in (last one was 6 days!) and in receipt of a huge bill;
* One break in resulted in an arson attempt and was only discovered by accident – police said we were a high risk property for fire with no fitted fire alarm and no outdoor lighting to see who is in the building – the remains of the fire were cleaned by residents after waiting over 1 month for the cleaner to do their job;
* Graffiti resulting from break-ins remains on the wall 5 months after it arrived;
* We have been charged for a year’s worth of weekly cleaning, 5 months worth of which never took place;
* Two of the four residents have been threatened with physical violence and also received threats to their personal property because no repairs have been made to the door after the most recent damage was sustained 15 days ago;
* Police have been called 5 times in the last 6 days to stop repeated damage by teenagers who can now enter the building freely and do whatever they like;
* Internal damage has been sustained to the inside of the property, which residents will now be billed for.
These are a selection of the issues – Solitaire have totally failed to manage the property, have no regard for resident safety and continue to profit from residents who are charged with bills they have no hope of being able to pay due to their size.
DON’T touch them – not even with a very unpleasant bargepole, they will make your life a misery!
[ADMIN EDIT]
Helen has also posted on TheTruthAboutSolitaire as the user ‘pbs’.
February 16th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Helen – I suggest you talk to all the other affected leaseholders within your building / development, and get together as a group. Refer to the “City Heights” LVT case for evidence of what can be achieved when the united residents of a development band together to confront the management company. Complaints from individual leaseholders are, by & large, simply ignored.
Make a list of all the issues, dates when they first occurred, along with a list of your attempts to contact Solitaire to report them (and also any similar actions by your neighbours, if appropriate). If you aren’t already doing so, take daily photos of the deteriorating condition of the building, as further evidence.
Then demand an urgent on-site meeting with the Property Manager from Solitaire who is responsible for your building, and go through all of the issues one at a time, and don’t let him/her leave site until you have assurances that the issues will be attended to, including timescales. Get them to sign something as evidence of what has been discussed & agreed, if you can.
Then badger them relentlessly (daily, if necessary) until everything is dealt with. Make sure your fellow leaseholders do the same.
And if you don’t get a satisfactory outcome, agree with all the other leaseholders to withhold future Service Charge payments until the problems are resolved – make sure you communicate this to the Property Manager when you meet him/her. They won’t like it, but that’s tough luck. They aren’t performing, so why should you pay for services you simply aren’t receiving. And it would appear that their lack of action is putting both their building and you residents at risk…..
Also make it clear that you leaseholders will NOT be paying for the repairs to additional damage caused due to original damage not being attended to when reported. Again, why should you pay to have further damage repaired, which wouldn’t have been happened if the original issue had been dealt with promptly when reported…???
It sounds like you have currently got it bad at your building, clearly not helped by Solitaire’s apparent failure to act on previous damage, which is then allowing vandals into the building, which should not be the case. Perhaps you should also get a crime prevention report from the Police (if you haven’t already) to back up your case…???
Your individual attempts to get resolution on the problems isn’t working (no fault of your own). Get together as a resident’s group, and fight your corner. And keep fighting.
Good luck…!!! Keep us posted on progress (assuming you manage to get some…).
February 16th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Solidarity, Relentless Pressure and the Exposure of this scum really does work – what a great post and source of inspiration to all – keep it going!
February 16th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
Play Fair Helen
Your post is just the same as what you wrote on the 9th Jan 2008
on another web site.
Please do not bring the integrity of this site into question.
Perhaps you should clarify
February 16th, 2010 at 11:36 pm
What’s wrong with highlighting my problem on this website as well, even if I reported it before on another website?
I would like promulgate my problem here too. This site deals specifically with Solitaire unlike the site I wrote before, so it is more appropriate.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
re. “BBC Nottingham’s Coverage of City Height’s LVT” some comments highlight themselves:
1) “…we’ve lived with the problems, week in week out, year in year out, for the last 6 years…” – I think we can ALL relate to that!
About Greg Press and Neil Healey efforts:
2) “They’ve put in so much hard work of their own time. I know Neil has taken quite a lot of time off work to help us out on the Estate”
3) “It just shows you what people can do when they are united and everybody says ‘Hello! We’re not putting up with this any more’”
From the sounds of it it took around 2 years for Greg and Neil to fight this case on behalf of all at City Heights and in that time things like having to take time off work etc. will never really be compensated for – the award that they’ve been given is for the overcharging that they’ve evidenced. What about all the time wasted in pursuing and chasing and not getting any where (…again something I think we can ALL relate to!) If that were factored into the equation at say a mechanic’s rate of £50/hr (as mentioned in another post) then we’d be talking a MUCH bigger amount and in my opinion this would be fully justified.
Again WELL DONE to City Heights – your achievements are inspirational! And I hope we can all be as successful as you. Surely any future LVT’s will now have to look at this ruling too when dealing with complaints against Solitaire, particularly when statements like “…in it’s ruling the tribunal described Solitaire’s maintenance as poor, it’s accounts as a mess and said it lacked urgency” – surely these statements are true of Solitaire as a whole and not just in regard to their management of City Heights?! In which case somebody – The Government, OFT, Trading Standards – somebody with some power should be forcing a review of ALL Solitaire managed properties and not relying on us individual leaseholders to give up our own precious time to fight for something that is so obviously unfair!
February 21st, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Nirmal describes the judgement on Solitaire as something we can all relate to. The Tribunal said “The Tribunal find that the standards of preparation of the accounts and audit have consistenly fallen below what it is reasonable to expect.” Andy’s post talked about the problems it inherited on taking over and that things are now being improved to Peverel standards. I say I relate to them as a Peverel client.
I am an accountant living in a PeverelOM managed block. Our annual accounts has a page titled ‘Independent Auditors Report’ but it does not use the prescribed form of words laid down by the Institute of Chartered Accountants and is not a valid audit report.
Until two years ago it used to say that it was prepared for flat owners but now it says ‘it is prepared pursuant to our engagement letter with Peverel OM Limited’. As I am presently in fine toothcomb mode I requested a copy of the engagement letter which reads ‘Our work as accountants will not be an audit of the accounts in accordance with Auditing Standards.’ So what further condemnation would the Tribunal have given if they had known this.
February 21st, 2010 at 6:07 pm
So, “Independant Auditor’s Reports” – at least for Neil’s development – are anything but. If they aren’t produced in the correct format, as laid down by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, then are they even worth the paper they are written on…???
Seems Neil is well placed to be advising on this issue – perhaps we should start a directory of qualified professionals who could (if willing) advise other Peverel Group residents on various issues…???
Perhaps Neil should also be offering his services to Peverel directly as well, as they don’t seem to know the correct procedures for producing valid audit reports…???!!!
Something else for us all to consider, should we follow City Heights and instigate an LVT tribunal…..
Just how much murkier can the waters get…???
February 22nd, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Oh they can get Murkier.
Last summer on receiving the budget our TV aerial charge was doubled. I received a less than convincing answer from the estate manager as to why this should be so. Then one day in November while eating lunch I heard someone on the roof and asked him who he was and what was he doing. He came from Cirrus Communications and he was ‘earthing the aerial’ for Peverel. I asked why he was interfering with an aerial we rented, for £750 annually, from a company called Interphone but he didn’t know why. He also told me he couldn’t do anything without closing the lift shaft.
Come the evening the TV/Radio did not work and so I rang Peverel the following day. Confident of the usual no response I also called and left a message with Interphone on the tel number given on their website, which I supposed was in Harrow as that is the address given. Imagine my surprise then a) the call was returned and b) it came from New Milton, Hampshire the home of Peverel Towers. By the time the new electrician had arrived to restore service I had googled Interphone and Cirrus and discovered that they were all part of the Consensus Group. I asked the new electrician what work was being undertaken and as he was not convincing suggested to him that there was something fishy. Under examination he told me that the TV aerial rig probably cost around £85. I unfairly asked him to compare that with the £9,000 we have paid in ‘rent’ to what I now realised was Peverel. The poor lad was speechless. In the evening I discovered TTAS and started work on our RTM.
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Neil – wow, what can I say. That’s stunning. £9,000 to rent an £89 aerial! That’s hardly ‘reasonable’ nor ‘proportionate’, and surely you have grounds for a rebate via LVT along the same lines as the recent City Heights judgement re insurance? Particularly in view of the CBG monopoly of suppliers you are dealing with here.
RTM is definetly the way to go to be rid of Peverel and Co. but I’m given to understand that this will not bar your development from applying for a LVT as well.
In short, whereas RTM gets you out of their web, Peverel will only be obliged to release ‘uncommitted service charges’. If they’ve happily spent £9,000 of this renting a TV aerial, and their accounts reflect this, the RTM won’t result in you getting this money back.
On the other hand, a LVT will assess the reasonableness of these charges in the first place. If the judgement goes in your favour, and you’ve already completed RTM in the meantime, this means Peveral won’t simply be able to fudge the books with a ‘credit to your account’, but will be forced to release actual funds, as per the RTM process.
if every development not only pursued RTM, but a historic LVT, this would really hit Peveral where it hurts. Their pockets.
I’m meeting with our Residents Committee tonight re our ongoing RTM and I’ll be suggesting that we also apply for a LVT to assess the historic charges.
Will keep you all posted.
Keep up the fight Neil!
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Hello, hello….. In an update letter I received from my Property Manager at the end of last week, mention was made of getting the TV aerials at my development upgraded for the digital switchover (there’s 5 blocks, each with it’s own aerial). When I get home tonight, I will be double-checking exactly what the letter says, and checking that we aren’t “renting” the aerials through “Interphone”. If we are, I will be raising merry hell (again…), and demanding that the new aerials are purchased outright, rather than being rented at an extortionate rate for the next who-knows how many years…..
I’m sure the links between Cirrus Communications, Interphone & CBG have previously been discussed (and confirmed) on this website. From what Neil states, his particular estate seem to have been well & truly done – how else do you refer to rent totally thousands of pounds, for an aerial worth £85…??? Perhaps “Andy” can provide some justification for us…???
So, in recent weeks we’ve come to realise the extent of the over-charging in relation to buildings insurance. Is the renting of TV aerials the next big scam…??? And anyway, how many people even rent a TV set these days, never mind renting the aerial…???
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Matt please go to Digital UK web site and have a look at the “How many people will need Aerial upgrades and how much will they cost”question.
Then have a word with your Property Manager
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Thanks, Francescc. I’ve had a quick look whilst still at work, but will be checking further when I get home tonight.
I see that there is a test page on Teletext (page 284, says “all four channels”, so presumably that’s BBC1, BBC2, ITV1 and C4…???), which gives an indication if the existing aerial is suitable for digital, or needs upgrading. I’ll be checking on my 2 TV’s when I get home as well. If it turns out my aerial is already “fit for purpose”, I’ll be straight onto my Property Manager…!!!
Whilst I’ve seen plenty of adverts relating to the digital switchover, this is the first I’ve heard about the Teletext test page. Have I missed something, or is this a facility that hasn’t been advertised…???
Couple of interesting statements within the advisory leaflet on the Digital UK website:
“Any roof top aerial in good condition is capable of receiving
analogue and digital TV services. You don’t need to have a ‘digital
aerial’ for switchover. If you have good analogue reception now it
is unlikely you will need to replace your existing aerial.”
And:
“In some areas a new aerial may give better reception however we recommend you wait until after switchover to avoid having unnecessary work done.”
I wonder if anybody has mentioned these little matters to Cirrus Communications / Interphone / Peverel…???
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Just a note of caution. It’s too soon to know exactly how much a new aerial costs so I don’t yet know whether or not the £85 is a reasonable number or not. We are not quite at the stage of appointing a new managing agent yet but you can guess what will be high on their agenda of things needed doing. We also ‘rent’ the video control system for the door from Interphone and we will be getting the new agent to quote for a new one of those. They both need closing the lift shaft so perhaps that cost can be shared. The video system has only cost us £19,000 so far so perhaps the ROCE is not quite so obscene! But sooner rather than later it will all come out . . .
The other thing is digital signal strength. By chance the week Peverel sent me the answer as to why the TV ‘rent’ was going to double (digitalisation etc) they decided to give us loads of signs pointing to the staircase as a fire exit, like we don’t know how to leave the building everyday. The guy who did it used an illicit power drill and tripped the circuit breakers for the block. I live in London and I spoke to the Interphone engineer who had to come to restore service. This was before I knew that it was another name for Peverel. I asked him what happens on digitalisation and he told me that when the analogue signal is switched off at the Crystal Palace transmitter then the power of the digital signal will be multiplied (10x?)
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:32 pm
We also had a upgraded aerial three years ago, supplied by B. aerial Limited at the cost of £1,500 we have also been paying £1,200 a year ever since, the aerial is still not fit for purpose.
But at the beginning of this year Peverel OM, decided to charge us £4,900 to upgrade our aerial, when I challenged them they said, we are up grading all of our estates.
I told them we had been up graded three years ago, and why are we still paying £1,200 per annum, did we not get any warranty on the new aerial,
After showing then there error of their ways they decided after a long argument to reimburse us the total amount of £4,900, but we are still arguing over the previous money’s for the so called up graded aerial three years ago, Peverel OM are trying all the tricks to get money out of us.
You must challenge all of their accounts, because they will if they can, be warned
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:57 pm
So, as I hinted in my previous message from 1.50pm today, it seems that TV aerial upgrades / rental etc. could well also be an area where residents are paying well over the odds within their service charges….. And unless we all start challenging Pev Co on this issue (once we’ve established the level of the charges on our own developments), then they’ll keep doing it…..
So, what’s next…???
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:05 pm
I was told by a local TV dealer, if you receive Channel 5 with your present aerial then it should be OK after the switchover ?
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:45 pm
I think aerials are a problem for peverel I can’t get any reception from them! I am surprised that Peverel even try to fix the aerials at all. The only thing worth watching on tv are all the documentaries on the peverel scams! before paying you must insist on the invoices both from peverel and the aerial suppliers.
February 24th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Hi Helen (aka PBS)
I read your posting about your Solitaire development. Whether you have posted previously on another website doesn’t matter – what does is that you still have a problem that we want to help resolve.
The comments you make about your personal situation clearly need to be investigated by our senior Property Management team. Once we know the location of your development they will be able to follow up on the information and get back to you with a response.
If you’re comfortable with letting me know the details please feel free to email me directly at andy.solitairepm@peverel.co.uk.
Thanks
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
February 26th, 2010 at 9:49 am
Hi Neil,
I read your posting about the Independent Auditors Report on the annual accounts for your development.
I got in touch with our Head of Client Accounts who has provided a detailed response from our auditors:
“The auditors report included within the service charge accounts is an ‘Independent Auditors report on Service Charge Statement’. An audit opinion is given to ensure the service charge accounts are a fair summary of the income and expenditure for the period, and is sufficiently supported by the relevant documentation and that the accounts are prepared in accordance with section 21 (5) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
This report is written in accordance with the Auditing Practices Board (APB) Practice Notes and is reproduced in the Institute of Chartered Accountants auditing and reporting standards manual. The report is specifically written for Service Charge accounts only. As the audit report details, the work undertaken did not evaluate the overall adequacy of the presentation of the information which would have been required if the auditors were to express an audit opinion under International Standards on Auditing (UK and Ireland) issued by the Auditing Practises Board. An ISA audit is mandatory for Limited companies with turnover above £6.5million or Gross Assets of over £3.26million and generally these thresholds are far in excess of the largest service charge accounts; hence specific procedures and guidance has been written by the APB which is applicable to leasehold residential properties only.
The APB’s guidance indicates the auditors report should be addressed to the Landlord or Managing Agent with whom the auditors engagement letter is held. The engagement letter between the auditors and Peverel OM Limited is clear in that the work is not an audit in accordance with International Auditing Standards (as required by the Companies Act 2006 for companies exceeding the mandatory thresholds) but an audit of the Service Charge Statement (in agreement with APB practice notes) applicable for work under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 as required for flat management entities.”
As always I endeavour to respond directly to as many posts and comments as possible.
Thanks
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager