Response to Andy’s Comment from Yesterday
By admin | February 17th, 2010 | Category: Past Articles | 54 commentsAndy from Solitaire kindly contributed to the site for the first time in a long while, with his comments on inaccuracies in the post relating to the City Heights LVT
To view his comments click here
TheTruthAboutSolitaire only report the facts that the residents in question advise us of and your response, sounds very much like the one which Peverel issued to CARLEX, when CARLEX reported that Peverel were taking down posters promoting RTM and CARLEX meetings – which was something along the lines of “we have not informed house managers to do this” – despite house managers, confirming they’d been told to do so.
As a previous contributor has mentioned – Holdings & Management (Solitaire) Ltd, have numerous companies registered to addresses at Ballards Land (same address as Estates & Management – whom Mr Tchenquiz is a Director of) and the former address of Solitaire in Barnet. Therefore, your claim that the freeholder is not Solitaire Property Management Ltd is correct, however, as the appointed Property Management Company by the freeholder – which is a company that is part of the Consensus Business Group - of which Peverel are also part of, we feel that Peverel / Solitaire are in theory indirectly the freeholders. (“you say tam-a-to and I say tomato”)
Insurances, as we are discovering from other contributors, currently it appears that all are arranged by Oval via Zurich on behalf of Solitaire / Peverel. We have received numerous policy certificates confirming this and therefore, if the insurances are the responsibility of the freeholder – why are they not responsible for insuring estates and why are their names not on the policies? Instead it is Peverel / Solitaire?
So are you confident that insurance has absolutely nothing to do with Peverel / Solitaire then? We’re pretty sure that Oval would disagree with that comment, judging by the replies we’ve had from contributors who have gone direct to them, following the lack of responses from Peverel / Solitaire’s customer services dept / property manager.
Your comments about the improvements and promises are almost identical to those that Lee Middleburgh wrote in his letter to ARMA on the 4 January 2010 (a copy is freely available for download on another post, should you not have read it).
Your post has clearly been written in great depth, planned and contrived to try and protect the reputation of Peverel and to suggest that the facts we have published are incorrect – some maybe, however, the City Heights LVT Determination say’s it all really and we tend to believe the residents that have suffered at the hands of Peverel / Solitaire over the comments of the company that lost the LVT, despite being defended by numerous professionals.
TheTruthAboutSolitaire has gained enough evidence to suggest that things aren’t changing and you’re still overcharging residents. Only when this site stops receiving complaints and we stop seeing people ‘googling’ for ‘Solitaire / Peverel Complaints’ we will believe that you have changed, because there won’t be a need for the website then!
Your comments are detrimental and more damaging to Peverel’s already poor reputation, than it is to try and protect it, because all contributors to TheTruthAboutSolitaire are aware of the real Peverel / Solitaire and is the reason why so many are now are finally starting to understand your accounts, know how to find out the facts and more importantly – know how to get rid of you via RTM or take you to LVT’s.
The excuses of new computer systems and information being incorrect cannot be used forever, how long has it been going on for now? Emmm, since last March / April? We think you may need to replace your IT / Systems provider, because they clearly ‘buggered it up’ and don’t know what they are doing.
This aside though, many of the residents in question have found discrepancies in paperwork dating back to way before Peverel took over Solitaire – highlighting the fact that for many years, residents have been overcharged / charged incorrectly.
Surely, when Peverel took over Solitaire, you did an audit of their developments before taking over?? Or is the Peverel / Solitaire take over, similar to that of Lloyds and RBS – rushed into and then realised the consequences?
Our rant has gone on a bit and we apologise to the avid visitors of the site, but we feel we needed to stand up for ourselves and residents, against a company that are completely blind to FACTS.
Finally, before we finish this post, here are some of the points that we have identified where residents have been incorrectly charged or overcharged, that ‘Andy’ may like to investigate:-
1) Resident Percentage Contributions to Service Charges, are not the same as residents leases, resulting in residents paying more than they should be;
2) Insurance Premiums are excessive, our broker has already sourced one policy which resulted in a £1500 saving – what are your excuses to that?
3) Failing to act / provide insufficient services for fees;
4) Excessive Admin Fee’s – £25-£50 for a photocopy of a document / name change;
These are just a few that we as Admin’s can think of, but I’m sure there are many more and we’re sure many of the other contributors to TheTruthAboutSolitaire will agree with the comments that have been made.
( My above posting to Andy is to use as reference point to check who is telling lies )
Hi “everyone” and Andy,
Have “everyone” read 2 postings dated 5th March 2010 at 2.35 pm and 2.37 pm from Andy from Solitaire? Postings contain alleged liable statements.
I apologises as Andy has no right to involve you all. All I can say it lacks professionalism.
I will be listing Andy name with his own posted statements in inverted commas and my reply underneath as Nic so “everyone” can detect the truth.
MY RESPONSE TO ANDY POSTING at 2.35 pm
Andy: “We have been very reluctant to respond to the many postings made by Mrs Nicky Vogg over the past few months.”
Nic: Why have you not written to me directly and what possible reasons your Company hold against me not to do so?
Andy: “……the other an apartment at Compass Point, managed by Solitaire Property Management…..”
Nic: I own a freehold house so above statement is incorrect and liable.
Andy “: We were seeking to resolve the situation by discussion or through a professional mediation service. To demonstrate to everyone why we felt a mediation service would best answer Mrs Vogg’s problems we said in our December letter to …..”
Nic: I have responded in my letter to MD on “Peverel / Solitaire’s MD – Lee Middleburgh” ( August tag) 19th November 2009 and various other postings as meditation is not acceptable but the “Manager” is refusing to accept this. The “Manager” has not inspected the property or investigated since 15th January 2008. The same time to prolong the case, meditation is on offer which is being repeated in a “parrot fashion”. I am being now blamed for not accepting it.
Andy: “On Monday March 2nd Mrs Vogg posted on this site a letter she and her husband has sent to the freeholders of Millennium Wharf and Peverel OM Ltd.”
In response I am happy to confirm to everyone that our position is that the work carried out at her investment property at Millennium Wharf was undertaken by professional, independent decontamination specialists who completed and signed off the work that the flat was dry at the time of completion in 2008.”
Nic: Our posting 2nd March is about putting the flat for sale and claiming our losses through Insurance Policy, which has been ignored.
Have you read “The story of Nicky Vogg” (December 2009 tag) and other postings on what took place and on “signed off” work and why I am declining the meditation and seeking answers which have not been acknowledged so far? Your statement “happy to confirm to everyone that our position is that the work carried out….” is not of a caring and listening Management Company but some may say of using intimidation tactics to victimise, discredit, isolate……?????
I am not going to respond further but requesting “everyone” to put my name Nicky Vogg in Google and find the truth about the “Manager”, Peverel OM Limited if you have not done so far.
Andy: “We still maintain hopes that Mrs Vogg will take up the offer of mediation.”
Nic: Flat will be sold at the current condition and Andy for the last time meditation is not an option. I feel it is just another way for your company to delay my sale of the flat further. I waited over 3 years and lost over £75,000 in cash and it remains to be seen how much further I will lose.
Do “everyone” including you Andy have that much money to waste, if so, do send me a cheque which will accepted gracefully, coins and small amount will also be accepted.
MY RESPONSE TO ANDY POSTING at 2.37 pm
Andy: “Mrs Vogg has previously asked her landlord about a redundant building at the Compass Point development that is not maintained through service charge funds. The landlord has responded some time ago to her queries.”
Nic: On “her landlord”
Forward my LEASE REGISTRY NUMBER which grants my land to Holding & Management (Solitaire) Limited to become my landlord otherwise your alleged statement is liable. First the “Manager” try to takeover Freeholder building at Millennium Drive and now Compass Point so what is next … ?????
Nic: On “redundant building” , community Centre’s upkeep is paid by service charge but Andy says “is not maintained through service charge funds”
Here is the statement from Holding & Management (Solitaire) Limited, letter dated 17 November 2009, confirming we pay for it.
“At the same time any works of maintenance and upkeep of the Community Centre would need to be recovered from the Compass Point service charge. We do not think that this represents a good use of service charge monies”.
(( See above posting for further evidence)
Holding & Management (Solitaire) Limited is CONTRADICTING ANDY OWN STATEMENT as the “redundant building” is “maintained through service charge funds” .
Andy it proves you are clearly out of touch with reality and may be termed as a liar. You back up your alleged statement now or they will be held liable.
Andy procedure to collect unpaid service charge is as follow. I have put numbers so we can all understand the procedure.
1. “ Most leases have a standard term to give property owners 21 days to pay.”.. 2. “…send out a reminder”…3. “ If, after a reasonable period, payment is still not received, a further letter is sent …”4. “Legal proceedings are only commenced when every other avenue has been exhausted” 5. “The solicitor’s next step, should payment still not have been received, is to seek a County Court judgement which gives the debtor every opportunity to defend the action.” 6. “If a County Court judgement is obtained and the debtor still fails to pay then the debt can be enforced by way of the appointment of a High Court Enforcement Officer. They carry out the same function as County Court Bailiff.”…….
“The letter sent to Mrs Vogg by the Debt Collection agency on the 2nd February does not mention anything about the appointment of a bailiff. The letter does confirm that if payment is still not received for her outstanding service charges that the debt will be referred to the County Court.”
Nic: Andy, are Marston appointed debt collecting bailiffs or not?
Why your Company is wasting by money by appointing debt collecting bailiffs, who do not serve notices giving 14 days and 7 day but threatens,
“TAKE NOTE if we do not receive full payment within 5 days from the date of this letter, we will commence further action.”
I received the letter on Saturday demanding payment by Monday? Am I not allowed to go on break for 3 days or so as I feel I am kept a prisoner because I do not know what is going to thrown at me next, so, I have to stay at home without any break?
Furthermore, it threatens, “…… A warrant of Execution may also be obtained, and your goods will be at risk from seizure in respect of the debt.”
I have put a posting on the internet for your Company to forward copies of the accounts and requested not to charge admin cost, which was dismissed. What proof have you got that the letters were sent to me according to the procedure and your Company intent to appoint debt collecting bailiff was informed.
Dear Andy,
The whole saga with your company appears to create fear and divide and rule. Surely your Company actions are not termed as improved services from a listening Company but appear to be………..????
I would like your Company to refund admin cost if charged and also not to charge any debt collecting costs either. I hope your company can satisfy any accounting queries.
Thank you, Andy for giving me further liable statements as written evidence to strengthen my case. Some of the contributors out of “everyone” you wrote may be used as my witnesses if or when court case is filled with full charges against the “Manager”.