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.
“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?”
We appear to be in the Fortune 500 as Oval places our insurance with Zurich. The policy states the insured interest as ‘Any freehold owning company within the Peverel Group of Companies and any freeholders . . . for whom the Peverel Group of Companies has instructions to arrange insurance’. This wording seems fine until reading the wording in the determination, kindly provided by TTAS, which says in para 19 that on all of these there is a ‘premium rebate of 33.05%’ whereas the LVT in para 25 states ‘a proper fee is 15%’. I’m already beginning to look forward to a couple of thousand pounds rebate for our small block.
Me too, Neil. I will be double (and triple) checking the certificate I have for my development when I get home tonight, but the insurance is certainly with Zurich, and arranged by Oval, so it seems my development is also within the “Fortune 500″.
As I’ve asked in another comment on a separate post, just how much of this could the Peverel coffers take…??? If all of the developments within the “Fortune 500″ went to a LVT tribunal hearing to challenge the cost of the insurance provided, how many would win, and how much would Peverel then be ordered to reimburse…???
I’m sure I can get the same insurance for my development for less than half of the current premium paid to Zurich, which equates to a saving of at least £4,000. Multiply that by 500 developments, and that’s £2m. Then start back-dating that over (say) 3 years, and there’s the potential for £6m. And this is only insurance costs – the City Heights case is for other items as well.
Presumably the board of The Peverel Group considered (at the time) that Solitaire Property Management was a good acquisition. I wonder what the current consensus (no pun intended…) of opinion is around the boardroom table…???
Matt,
We are not with Solitaire but PeverelOM. I’m not sure when the insurance moved to Zurich but possibly a few years ago about the time the Tchenguiz Family Trust bought Peverel. I think the Peverel Law Department will be overwhelmed before the money runs out. I discovered last summer that we are ‘renting’ the TV aerial and video door system from Peverel (Interphone is the name of the subsidiary) and suddenly realised that everything is not as it appears. Interphone alone makes an annual profit of £2m.
On the subject of Peverel assimilating Sol. which Andy discusses in his statement I have the following observations and comments.
It may well be that before assimilation Sol had their own particular set of problems. However I believe that the process of centralizing support systems and staff during the post assim. process is a business model not to improve services but to maximize profits as part of a business wide strategy.
Reputable property managers maintain a estate manager to estate ratio of around 1:6 to 1:10. Peverel’s ratio is around 1:30 to 1:40. Throughout their business structure the ratio of staff to tenant is leveraged to maximize profits. The customer support line is appalling and clients have been known to be put on hold for half an hour or more. Emails in some cases have been responded to some two months later. And this was before Sol were added to the load.
Admin charges are higher than industry standard and the process of selling a property and the necc. title change consents and info packs are a massive money bag for them. Those costs have sky rocketed in the past 5 years.
In conclusion we are a big money bag bent over for exploitation to fund and maintain maritime hobbies.
We have today recieved an e-mail response from a Ms Ann Sturgess of Oval after I asked how long our insurance had been with them…. the reply was only since 2004.
I have requested all copies of previous insurance premiums amd I await these from the accounts department in Luton.
Does anyone else have a paper trial pre 2004?
Jon,
You need to ask for an Audit Trail.
You can get one for every year that you wish.
The Audit Trail lists every invoice, date and amount.
Don’t waste your time seeking only the insurance stuff.
It will ALL be on the annual Audit Trail.
They are obliged to send it to you in the post.
They are VERY revealing!!
Bella
Thank you.
I already have the audit trial to 2004 but not before and even this does not specify the insurers hence the request. To be honest so far I think we are one of the luckier developments but the more information they send the more confusing it becomes!
“Oh what a web we weave when at first we try to decieve”
I have said many times you have the right to withold payment of charges if you are in dispute about them. A debt is not a debt until it is established in court. So please have no fears. All you need to do is show that you have the ability to pay and you would pay if your concerns with OM are properly adressed. That means proper accounts, no hidden charges and no unreasonable charges. it also means when you ask a question you get an answer and you do not get ignored. Whilst given the conduct of OM it is very unlikely you would lose in court, if you did as long as you comply with the court it would not affect your credit rating in any way. All that happens is you have a civil dispute, the court finds that OM are right so you pay, end of story. This would happen in a small claims court, so please do not worry, increase the pressure on Om. Remember, anyone who is taken to court in whatever part of the country will have hundreds of people as witnesses on their side.
If a thief mugged you in the street and you caught the thief you would demand your money back. You would under no circumstances let the thief keep your money and accept a credit note from him.
What has happened over the insurance is in my opinion theft, and every penny should be returned. the only point that needs to be clarified is the amount of compensation you are entitled to.
Clearly, as time goes by OM’s cashflow is weakening. Do not do anything that might help them, remember their business plan was based on how many ways they could fleece decent people.
If after the court ruling anyone has any difficulty in getting their money back then it is easy to go back to the court and petition for a winding up order against OM.
Thanks to the guts and dedication of all on this site the end game is near. The hunted are now the hunters. OM are the rat and we are the python. We are coiled around the rat and by God we are going to squeeze the life out of them!
Hi… Just had an interesting conversation with ‘C’ young lady at Oval, who has advised me that the total annual premium for our development of 15 – largely 2 bedroom apartments and no garages – for 2009/2010 was £2,544.93 inclusive of tax.
I have also requested an email advising of premiums going back to September/October 2004 when the Oval/Zurich facilitated cover was initially transacted. Oval has agreed to provide this, however there appears to be a delay owing to an installation of a new computer system, however, indications are that I am promised a mail by close of business tomorrow
Upon asking questions in regard to rebate (kick backs) no information was forthcoming and I was directed to guess who – yes Kingsborough!
Can anyone advise the legal and/or practical position, in terms of disclosure to leaseholders of the eventual premium charged, in order to assess the extent of any potential rip–off!
Can this be demanded from Kingsborough or do we circle round again to Solitaire accounts?
Try this one…
My managing agents are County Estate Management (another Peverel guise).
In 2006 we received a Section 20 for some works being done to the development. Each flat’s individual share was £805. Fair enough, so I paid up. Two years later, the work still hadn’t started. I and many others complained. CEM said they were chasing non-payers and couldnt start the work until they had collected the arrears. But what then happened was that they got so fed up with complaining residents that they then instructed a new company (NOT the company named on the Section 20) to do the job on the cheap. The new company quoted £30k less than the original Section 20 decision, yet no refund was offered to those that had already paid their share based on the higher figure. CEM claimed that any excess monies would be refunded to our service charge account (that never happened). CEM have been fobbing me off on this for over a year with excuses. And what’s more, the cheaper company have done such a shocking job that its probably going to have to be redone anyway. What a joke. I am awaiting my reply from Lee Middleburgh who is personally contacting me by the end of the week to go over this and some other points (or so he says…).
Dear Admin,
Thanks again for your post.
We understand that there are still frustrations out there.
You state below that “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.” We completely agree; we have found many instances of customers being charged incorrectly. We really appreciate the patience and support of our customers while these (and many more) complex issues are resolved.
The post states that the “LVT Determination say’s it all really”, but in fact there are a host of other important points which contributors and readers of this blog may wish to take into account, in order to come to their own balanced conclusions. Many of these points were addressed in my comment of yesterday (16th).
In addition, the post also mentions that “TheTruthAboutSolitaire only report the facts that the residents in question advise us” and agrees that some facts are “incorrect – some maybe’. Again, we are grateful for the opportunities to correct these sometimes small but important points.
Finally, in answer to the four specific issues you mentioned:
1) “Resident Percentage Contributions to Service Charges, are not the same as residents leases, resulting in residents paying more than they should be”
If anyone does think that this is the case, then I’d urge them to please let us know. I will always pass on any concerns directly to the property management team. Now that the new property management IT system is in place, this is one of the areas we are currently auditing. As such, we would welcome any constructive feedback on this issue.
2) “Insurance Premiums are excessive, our broker has already sourced one policy which resulted in a £1500 saving – what are your excuses to that?”
We are very happy to receive copies of any detailed insurance policy quotations so we can pass them on to the landlord. They will be able to check that the cover is like-for-like with the existing policy.
3) “Failing to act / provide insufficient services for fees”
Again, we are always keen to have examples that we can review, comment on and resolve where possible.
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.”
To answer your question I thought I would summarise what I said when you posted in October last year on this subject. When an individual leaseholder looks to remortgage, assign or gift their property, make alterations to or sell their property, it is likely to result in a request from a building society or mortgage company to a managing agent or landlord for information or copies of relevant documents in order that they can process the application.
We aim to provide this information within reasonable timescales. As the cost of doing so is over and above our management fee that you pay as part of your overall service charge, we do have set fees for these services that are both reasonable and consistent with market rates of other managing agents.
I can only say to everyone that we are listening and working to improve dialogue with customers. My job is to put your concerns and constructive feedback in front of the right people as every blog post and comment is taken very seriously.
As always, please feel free to email me directly
Many thanks,
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
Andy
We won’t take the effort of responding to your full message, because quite frankly – we were going to take the approach of Solitaire and not bother.
However, we will comment on the questions we raised:-
1) Personally I have asked for an explanation from Solitaire as to the accounts and explanation of the Groups, to which I have never received a response from my PM or the Accounts Department in over 6 years of asking. Only since speaking with another Admin, who has managed to replace SPM with their own PMC – that I now fully understand the accounts. In fact, my lease states that the share of the group 1 – should be 1/52, when in fact you are charging me 1/33, Group 2 state 1/18 and in fact you are charging me 1/14. These are the facts, which when I add these up over the duration of living at my property and paying SPM – I have overpaid in excess of £6000. Yet I cannot get through to anyone that will admit this, the accounts department say – “whats in the system, is correct and if you want that looked at, we’ll need a copy of the lease and that’s an extra £45″. More money that I have to spend to prove that I am right and you are wrong. If that’s £6000 that I’m owed, how much are the other 52 residents owed? We are currently collating the information to commence LVT proceedings, because following the City Heights case, we are confident that we will be successful.
2) Insurance Premiums – yet again, you’re telling us that you are happy for us to get competitive quotes. WE ARE PAYING YOU TO DO THIS, so why is it my responsibility to provide you with a cost saving that I can make for the residents? In addition to this, I’ve provided comparisions to my PMC by e-mail and it was ignored – so why bother?
3) You want examples of failing to act / provide sufficient services for the fees. Do you actually read this website? Is that not enough examples?
4) I admit that their should be a fee for additional admin work, but really £40+ for a photocopy and even that’s never done properly? What’s that about 5 minutes work, when you consider most mechanics charge £50 an hour to repair a car? That works out at an hourly rate of around £480 an hour if your Peverel’s Admin were to charge per hour.
The only reason you are suddenly showing this ‘defensive’ approach and ‘willing’ to help others, is because ARMA are due to undertake another audit in March. We are also aware that when ARMA are informed of issues with Solitaire, they amazingly now get dealt with as a high priority by Peverel / Solitaire…. think following the ‘wrap on the knuckles’ that CEM got from ARMA, you’re now trying to be a lot more co-operative, so that you are not also punished.
This will be the last time that as ‘admin’ – I actively engage with you Andy, because you do not bring anything constructive to TheTruthAboutSolitaire, apart from excuses and ‘corporate smooching’.
To Doctor81
If you have a problem in regard to communicating direct with Lee Middleburgh then let me know – I have his personal mobile number, which was communicated to me, a leaseholder, in an email from him direct and I call him on it! (Strange – but we are now in the process of replacing Solitaire through E & M) So I guess this is in the public domain – Admin. what valid reason exists for not publishing contact information acquired in this manner?
The amount of pain these people have caused over time is unbelievable – let us add to the payback and keep the fire going!
SaxonHero
Unfortunately, due to ‘Data Protection’ – we would be liable for you publishing the mobile number of Lee Middleburgh. However, of course, our Facebook Group page is freely available for people to post comments on, which are then the responsibility of Facebook.
Don’t have any think to do with E&M they are bigger rogues than Solitaire we have been battling for over a year with E&M they are devious, be warned.
Hi Paul…. Appreciate your comments in regard to E &M and yes we are very wary hence any info or pointers from your experiences would be welcome.
Apart from the obvious association – they stupidly left all the edit exchanges in an email dialogue with between H.Q. at E&M and L.M. at Sol./Pev. – so proven collusion!
I am biding my time with the complete story but suffice it to say that we currently have three entirely independent quotes from local property management companies and agreement from H Q at E&M to accept one such quote – so we are not falling for any stunts such as replacing Solitaire with some other Consensus Group/related company. We have obtained agreement from L.M. at Sol./Pev. to ‘withdraw’ from the management of our development! – more later perhaps on that one!
We are now approaching the end of consultation period and therefore selection of Solitaires replacement. E&M has been told in no uncertain terms that if there is problem in any regard with the process then we will go RTM and that will be that.
Also raised questions about continuing insurance issues etc. – All we want from E&M is to accept ground rent payments!
Any further comments most welcome.
Hi SaxonHero
We have got so much evidence against E&M, the chief of operations have refused to talk to us, they increased our ground rent by 300 per cent, when we asked who was the charter Surveyors, who done a valuation, the response we got was a debt-collecting agency threatening us, also owned by guess who, E&M working for Peveral, we have all documentation to prove what we say is correct.
Hi Paul – many thanks for this – I guess the next stunt may well be something along those lines. – V.T. is a Director of E&M, I believe, so very close to home indeed – what are you doing about the situation? Please advise.
Thanks
Also so much more against Peverel
SaxonHero
We have been battling for over three years with the consensus group we have a lot of people on board, just waiting for a few more,
Thank goodness for the website, The Truth About Solitaire Property Management &Peverel Group Companies, because we fought we were on our own, now we are all working together, apparently VT is a poker player,I my self being an old poker player, there is an old saying in poker, sh-t or get of the pot.
Yes, “Andy” says we are free to seek alternative insurance quotes and submit them for forwarding on to the landlord (i.e. another company within the Peverel Group family) for comparison. At which point we run headlong into a brick wall…..
After all, why should cheaper but equivalent quotes be taken up, when they won’t pay a nice little (or, as it seems, not so little….) commission to Solitaire / Peverel / whoever, as is currently received with the Zurich / Oval tie-up (stitch-up…)…???
My Property Manager has told me that the current Zurich insurance for my development offers “good value for money”. Sorry, but that’s a complete load of bulls**t. Solitaire / Peverel / Oval know full well that much cheaper but equivalent polices are out there (after all, we residents are finding them easily enough), but if they take out these alternative polices instead, the current arrangement goes west….. And as the premiums are passed straight on to the leaseholders, why bother to look for more competitve quotes anyway…..
Total and utter stitch-up / rip-off / contempt for the customer. But do they care? Do they heck as like.
Hi Andy,
I received a threatening letter from: MARSTON GROUP
HIGH COURT ENFORCEMNET OFFICERS &CERTIFIED BAILLIFS
Details as follow:
OUT REF: DR06640 RE; Outstanding service Charge at ……..avenue
Date of Notice18th February 2010 (received on Saturday 20th February 2010)
Client ref: 86333010137, Notice of outstanding debt: £681.01
“We regret to inform you have failed to respond to our previous letters in respect of the above outstanding amount.
TAKE NOTE if we do not receive full payment within 5 days from the date of this letter, we will commence further action.
“…… A warrant of Execution may also be obtained, and your goods will be at risk from seizure in respect of the debt”
Andy I have received no letter or formal notices to recover the debt by your Company or the Bailiffs. I have received a statement that I wrote you on the site and asked you to arrange for the accounts books for inspection. No one has given me a date so far to inspect the books. I have received no summons from the court filed against me to defend or appear or judgment lodged against me. I have received a letter on Saturday which is demanding money to be paid on Monday (5 days from the date of the letter), however they will accept payment by cards but will charge 3% plus VAT handling fee.
Andy, am I going to expect heavy bailiffs who are going to break my door to sell my goods?
Tell me is this practice is a legal way to collect a debt used by one of largest management company in the country who boasts wining awards on how they operate and survey to match or are they using sheer bulling tactics to create fear so one submit to your Company unfair demands? What part is the reformed caring part where Company listens and provide services?
Admin is it possible to start a new tag for Management Company debt collection methods and what to do. May be it will be useful to have the list of names of the owners so one may find a way collectively to stop the harassment by illegal ways
Dear Andy,
To add to my posting of Saturday to you, I have posted one letter to Solitaire and second one to Bailiffs. The copy of the letters will be also attached to you by your e-mail address to act on it.
I dispute the amount and would like your Company to provide me “Audit Trail” accounts.
Can you defend or shed light why or how it happened? Do you think I deserve to lose more then one ways and also tick the boxes to be ignored by you as an Online Feedback Manager?
Regards
Nicky
These kinds of threats are illegal, I have informed the police on your behalf as a concerned citizen.
By the way – if bailiffs turn up and you live in a private close, you give them notice to leave and if they don’t, you can use reasonable force to make them leave.
Re: Andy’s failure to engage on any of the points raised on this site – he was, is and always will be simply a PR flak whose actual job is judged as successful the longer he can delay court actions against the company for whom he works, nothing more, nothing less.
It would be much safer to simply ignore or conclude the exact opposite from everything he says.
Admin,
Nicky Vogg raises a good point – it might be worth compiling a list of ‘Debt Collection Agencies’ used by Solitaire (CBG Companies) that pple have received these types of ‘threats’ from? Remembering from a program I saw on TV on how these types of firm operate and the kinds of underhand tactics they use!! Listing their addresses too as I’m speculating that some are operating from some Solitaire registered addresses and are just ‘in house’ and just used to extract even MORE money from Customers!?
Hi Doctor81
I read your posting about the problems you have had with County Estate Management (CEM).
I just wanted to confirm that you are now in touch with Lee, our Managing Director. If I can help in any way please feel free to email me directly at andy.solitairepm@peverel.co.uk.
Thanks
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
presumably we are all allowed to get in touch with the managing director? Especially since your other representatives don’t actually reply to any communication at all Andy?
Yes indeed, Mr IhateSolitaire, letter being drafted
Andy – dont want to talk to the oily rag I want to talk to the engineer
Dear All
With reference the baliffs visit http://www.legalbeagles.info/ for template letters that you can adapt. Join as a member then visit the library and you will come across the Debt Collection area.
There is also law that we used to stop the baliffs/solitaire and I will try to source this.
Thank you all especially IhateSolitaire. Now police have 2 reports one from Peverel OM and other one from you, a concerned citizen. My own reports how I am suffering in my personal life are not recorded by the police so far even though they are making my life unsafe and under threat.
There is evidence that Peverel may have carried out illegal bailiff raids to frighten the leaseholders, who ended up paying the service charge rather then their goods taken away to be sold off to recover the debt.
So far, Nicky Vogg has 2 illegal threats:
1.Force entry to break my door in March 2007(read my story part 2 and response from Eddie. On the day I chained myself to the door.
I was lucky to have a support from my tenant, a solicitor, who warned them that if they remove me then they will be charged for assault))
2.Now Bailiffs
If someone does dare to come to my door they will face:
1.My First door will not be opened and I will not enter into any negotiation.
2.I will ring the police immediately.
3.Scream at the top of my lungs to invite my neighbours to be my witness.
4.I will chain myself to the second door.
If someone does dare to enter into my property they will be charged for: 1.Assault 2.Theft 3.Breaking and entering.
So far, in my opinion charges against the company are:
1.Incompetence 2.Negligence 3.Prejudice 4.bullying 5.Harassment 6.Breach of Data Protection Act 7.The most serious one is withheld at present.
Mr. Lee Middleburgh I do not accept LVT mediation as it will not clear my immediate dampness in my flat so it can be sold off. It will only prolong my suffering and financial loss for further few years. My case can only be fully justified in the court. In future write to me on this site directly so we all know the letters were sent to me. I have received only 2 letters from you and I rang both times leaving very emotional phone calls messages which were never responded. I also have one of my letters response printed here on the site. Please do not write to anyone else befre seeking my permission as in my opinion it is nothing short then a slander to discredit me and may be termed as further breach of data protection act. Your Company has been given enough chances to reform but I see NO U TURN so far. I feel there is no empathy to care for us to provide the services you are hired for. As far as I am concerned OM is nothing more then a contractor and the law should treat you as one.
Thanks to TTAS contributors and others as my witnesses I believe we can back each of the charges listed above. If I have to fight OM then it will be in the open court so anyone can attend. I hope we could open the gateway like City Heights for others to seek justice and stop the illegal practices for once and all.
Dear All
Visit http://www.lease-advice.org.
On the top choose Free Advice Booklets.
Guides will appear.
Choose Service charges and other issues.
The below will then appear…….. just read on.
Forfeiture and possession
The final sanction for a landlord faced with a leaseholder in breach of his lease due to the failure to pay the service charges, ground rent or administration charges is to take steps to forfeit the lease and to repossess the house or flat. This is a right in law, but it is not possible to obtain possession without a court order. The process is commenced, generally, by the service of a valid notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the Notice of Seeking Possession.
In practice, very few landlords enforce the procedures up to the point of their gaining possession of the house or flat, but they serve the section 146 Notice as a means of enforcing a payment of arrears, or to correct a breach of a covenant of the lease. The misuse of the process in some instances has led to a significant revision of the procedures. The landlord now has to prove that a breach of a covenant or condition in the lease has occurred before he can serve a valid s146 Notice. There are also controls on the use of forfeiture to recover very small sums.
The landlord cannot serve a valid section 146 notice unless the leaseholder has agreed the arrears or that the breach has occurred or that the breach has been finally determined by a LVT or a court or under a post-dispute arbitration agreement. A determination becomes final at the end of any period provided for appeal and the landlord may not serve the section 146 notice until 14 days after that date.
Where the dispute is about arrears, the landlord must also obtain a determination from the LVT that the amount is payable, and therefore reasonable.
So, where the landlord wishes to commence forfeiture action, the steps to be taken are:
the leaseholder must agree that the breach has occurred and that any arrears are duly owing: or
the landlord must make application to the LVT for a determination that the breach has occurred; and
where the breach involves arrears, that the sum is payable and reasonable;
after the determination becomes final, the leaseholder must be allowed a further 14 days in which to resolve the breach or settle the arrears;
where, after 14 days the leaseholder has not resolved the breach, the landlord may proceed with service of the section 146 notice. This will require separate determination by the county court.
Failure to pay a small amount of charges for a short period
The landlord cannot serve a valid section 146 notice where the amount of service charges, administration charges or ground rent owed (or a combination of all of these) total less than £350, or have been outstanding for less than three years.
Of course, while forfeiture or action seeking repossession may not take place, a landlord may seek to recover monies through other means, such as the small claims court. This should not therefore be used as a means of withholding sums of money that are lawfully and reasonably payable under the terms of the lease.
Nicky
I quoted this to Marstons, our property manager,and sent a copy to the legal department in Luton.
No more notices were sent. We were going RTM at the time and we had excess funds in our account but it worked.
If a DCA (Debt Collection Agency) is being used all the above criteria must be followed, ie you must agree that the debt is both yours and fair. You should obviously not sign anything from Solitaire as they tried to sneak a form in asking for a signature from one of our leaseholders……..ME.
Hi Jon,
Thank you. You have helped so many with your postings. Bless you
I have already written to them and let us wait what response I am going to get otherwise I have a few ideas. As a last resort I will knock at each door to see if we can chuck them out for once and all. I know number of other residents have not paid either.
Nicky
Thank you that is very kind of you. I must apologise as I promised to write eveything up from my experience but more and more layers get added as we go along and the RTM Company has taken lots of my time with the learning curve being very steep.
That said if anyone does have any questions please please ask, I know what a nightmare this can turn into.
As for DCA’s the link to follow on legal beagles is:
Home page
Scroll down to DCA’s
Click on “Dealing with DCA’s” by Curlyben
I cannot be grteful enough for the information I have gleaned from this site even if it is not directly linked to the RTM process it gives many easy to follow template letters.
Nicky
On top of the above there is an article in the current copy of News on the block referring to the legality of service charges.
I do not have the details to hand but several years ago the law changed and all service charge bills had to be accompanied a copy of the leaseholders rights and expectations in regards of such.
If this was not issued with the charge then I believe te charge is invalid. I do not know the legalities of challenging this but I will find out.
Nicky (again)
Lastly as my eyes are closing and my spelling is getting worse……
In issuing a service charge the management company must comply with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) Section 18-30, particularly relevant is Section 19
19 Limitation of service charges: reasonableness .(1)Relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period—.
(a)only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and.
(b)where they are incurred on the provision of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard;.
and the amount payable shall be limited accordingly.
(2)Where a service charge is payable before the relevant costs are incurred, no greater amount than is reasonable is so payable, and after the relevant costs have been incurred any necessary adjustment shall be made by repayment, reduction or subsequent charges or otherwise..
[F1(2A)A tenant by whom, or a landlord to whom, a service charge is alleged to be payable may apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for a determination—.
(a)whether costs incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, insurance or management were reasonably incurred,.
(b)whether services or works for which costs were incurred are of a reasonable standard, or.
(c)whether an amount payable before costs are incurred is reasonable..
(2B)An application may also be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal by a tenant by whom, or landlord to whom, a service charge may be payable for a determination—.
(a)whether if costs were incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, insurance or management of any specified description they would be reasonable,.
(b)whether services provided or works carried out to a particular specification would be of a reasonable standard, or.
(c)what amount payable before costs are incurred would be reasonable..
(2C)No application under subsection (2A) or (2B) may be made in respect of a matter which—.
(a)has been agreed or admitted by the tenant,.
(b)under an arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party is to be referred to arbitration, or.
(c)has been the subject of determination by a court or arbitral tribunal.].
(3)An agreement by the tenant of a [F2dwelling] (other than an arbitration agreement F3. . .) is void in so far as it purports to provide for a determination in a particular manner, or on particular evidence, of any question—.
(a)whether costs incurred for services, repairs, maintenance, insurance or management were reasonably incurred,.
(b)whether services or works for which costs were incurred are of a reasonable standard, or.
(c)whether an amount payable before costs are incurred is reasonable.
Hi Jon,
Your advice is so helpful and feel you have put your heart and soul in it. All we ever need a few motivated people to change the history.
When I have time I might sum it up so we can really define it all together for admin too.
Just wait till tomorrow then I would like all the feed back for my next step.
I do have 2 proerties 1. With solitaire where they have appointed balliffs 2. Millennium Drive with OM has water leak problem.
The way I work that I keep my focus on the goal post and do not know how I will be achieving it. But I do believe by some magic it will be alright. I usually do not know what my next step is while absorbing all the advice given to me or I read or hear. A few days ago I believe I may have struck gold and found the solution which will be best for all concern if someone is ready to move forward.
The longer Peverel neglect me deeper they are sinking and longer will I remain in the public eye.
27th February 2010
Stuart Court Limited ………
&
Peverel OM Limited, ( also known as OM Property Management)……….
Re: SALE NOTIFICATION of Plot No. 106 Millennium Wharf, Manchester Road as listed in the Land Registry, now known as Flat 4, 11 Millennium Drive, Isle of Dogs.
Dear Sirs,
We no longer feel safe or protected in the property or development, yet are still forced to pay the full service charge and other expenses to keep the flat so that it can be restored to achieve the maximum sale value, therefore we have put the property on the market for sale in the current state for the sum of £370,000 and will claim for any shortfall.
It is the Lessor’s, (Stuart Court Limited) responsibility to insure the building as per “The NINTH SCHEDULE” Clause 6.2, which states “The Lessor shall determine a reputable Company or office with which the insurance is to be placed and the sum insured.”
The Building is insured under the Manager’s own Insurance Policy “Peverel Residential Insurance Policy”, underwritten by Norwich Union currently known as Aviva. “SECTION 1B” (ii) (a) page 25, insures the loss of rental income due to damage and costs for only 36 months. Furthermore, “Extension” 8 page 26, insures if damages occur while the “Residence” is “awaiting sale”.
It is the Manager’s, Peverel OM Limited (listed in the lease as OM Limited)) responsibility to obtain the workmen to “Maintained Property” as per the lease. The appointed manager has failed to hand over the property dry on 15th January 2008. We have witnesses on the day that the kitchen reading was showing dampness, which is also recorded in the report by Revival, the contractor (wrongly listed Block 10, which was reported to the Company) as damp reading. On 17th December 2009, the dampness was also traced in shower room and bedroom as witnessed by Loss Assessor Cunningham Lindsey and others. Furthermore, there was no certificate issued confirming that the flat is free from contamination. Our building contractor has refused to work unless such a certificate is issued in order for his workers to commence restoration.
The company has failed to provide any evidence the source of the lift shaft flooding was located in our property. However, we are in a position to prove the property could not be a source of flooding the building.
Our flat was on sale through a local estate agent in 2006 and viewing was taking place. Access for viewing was often given by our ex-tenant Gareth Davies. We received a private offer of £365,000 in 2007. Mr Davies met the prospective buyer in person and was involved in the negotiation so that he could remain as a sitting tenant. The sale fell through due to the on-going problems.
To maximise the sale value we are going to implement 3 methods:
A. By Internet marketing
B. Through a local estate agent
C. By tendering in the newspaper
For tendering purposes three open days for viewing the property will be offered from first week of April. After the closing date the best price offered by the best placed prospective buyer (whose finances are in order to proceed) will be accepted.
We hereby request that the Manager and the Lessor provide the necessary information for the purpose of the sale. They will be held responsible for any delay that prevents the sale process, due to lack of information requested by the prospective buyer’s representative and for our tendering pack. Any loss will be claimed further from the appropriate party if not insured.
We hope to sell the property by May 2010 and then we reserve the right to review our claim further.
We hereby give you 14 days notice from the date of this letter to restore the flat and issue us with a certificate confirming it is safe for habitation. If the full value of the property is not achieved, any shortfall will be claimed plus interest from 2007.
It will be in the best interest of all parties concerned to assist in achieving the maximum value, to minimise the settlement claimed through the insurance policy or any other claim arising out of the sale process. We are attaching our information list for the Lessor and The Manager to provide us with the necessary information directly, in order to accelerate the sale process.
We hope we can all work together
Yours Sincerely
A.Vogg & B.N. Vogg
By e-mail to Aviva, Cunningham Lindsey, OM Customer Service and Andy, Ian Shearer ===++++++++++++++++===
Re: Info for prospective buyers
Could you be kind enough to provide the information so we can all move forward? Your assistance will be much appreciated. Thank you.
1. On whom the buyer serves Notice of Transfer. How much are the fees if any to be paid and whom?
2. Please advice when the current year of accounts comes to close.
3. Please advice as to whether any shortfall is anticipated during the current year of accounts.
4. Please advise if any large item expenditure have recently been occurred or to be incurred, if so, likely amount to be added to the service charge.
5. Is there any accumulated reserve for future expenditure?
6. How much is there in the sinking fund?
7. How much is the service charge? Is it paid in advance and on what dates? If there any outstanding amount. (A cheque is about to be sent to clear the balance so do check the accounts before making the statement)
8. How much is the ground rent and on what date is paid and whom to.
9. Please supply a copy of the Insurance Schedule.
10. Please confirm if there has been any breach of covenant by the current lessee such as might cause an action for forfeiture for breach of covenant.
11. Have any regulations been made since the date of the lease? If so, please provide with the copy.
12. Please provide The Fire Safety Risk Assessment under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for common parts of the buildings.
13. Please provide The Asbestos Risk Assessment under the control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002, if applicable
Dear Andy
Could you be kind enough to send the copy of my notice and the list to the appropriate body. This is my evidence that letters were sent. I have also sent copies by the email attchementto you and others.
Thank you
Nicky
Nicky
Wow, you go girl!
That must have took some doing.
A SWIFT REPLY IF YOU PLEASE MR ANDREW.
Nicky Vogg,
This is serious stuff. Why don’t you add Andrew Billson, Managing Director (Operations), to your circulation. According to a post in the string “e-mail received from Lee Middleburgh” on 27/04/09 his address is andrew.billson@peverel.co.uk
Thanks Nell & Jon. I usually have a long list but when one sends
formal legel notice then it only needs to be sent to registered
address. I have just sent emails to key people to start the ball rolling.
Jon I am fighting the cream of high flyers and the notice and the list is my work. Only addition is editting. May be what has happened to me has given me strength to accept that I am better then any solicitor or expert.
Now any expert will work under me including barristor as most probably be heading the case.
Hi everyone
We have been very reluctant to respond to the many postings made by Mrs Nicky Vogg over the past few months. As people may have read from postings she has made, Mrs Vogg is a property owner/landlord with two investment properties in London, one an apartment at Millennium Wharf, managed by OM Property Management, and the other an apartment at Compass Point, managed by Solitaire Property Management which I will comment on in a separate post.
Previously we have written to Mrs Vogg on the 30th October 2009, the 2nd December 2009 and the 26th January 2010 regarding her long standing dispute relating to her flat at Millennium Wharf. 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 her:
“…. in your e-mail of 30th November you have questioned the independence of the suggested mediators and the mediation process. I think that it is important to emphasise that the Leasehold Advisory Service is totally independent and Government funded.
The process is straightforward and the mediators trained to help parties in dispute to find a mutually acceptable solution to problems that may at the outset appear difficult and intractable. If you want to understand better how the process works I would be happy to get one of the team here to talk the mediation steps through with you. Alternatively please visit the LEASE website http://www.lease-advice.org for more information and their contact information.”
In our January letter we again offered Mrs Vogg mediation and provided her with the contact details of LEASE. Copies of the letters were supplied to the Admin of this site to show that we had acted professionally throughout and that we had done everything we could to resolve matters with Mrs Vogg.
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.
We still maintain hopes that Mrs Vogg will take up the offer of mediation.
Thanks
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
Hi everyone
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.
Any non payment of service charges to the development specific ‘Trust’ account will affect cash flow and therefore will concern other owners, particularly those who actually live at this development, as reduced cash flow for the account will impact on the ability of any managing agent to pay contractors, utility companies and insurance premiums promptly.
Why is a formal Credit Control process so important? The money you pay can only be spent on your development, and only residents on your development can benefit from it. Money collected is never used on other developments. These requirements are all designed to protect you and to ensure your fund is safeguarded.
When property owners fail to pay their service charge we do commence credit control in the interest of all property owners. Our initial Credit Control process is run to an agreed standard. Most leases have a standard term to give property owners 21 days to pay. If no payment is received from a resident then we send out a reminder.
If, after a reasonable period, payment is still not received, a further letter is sent indicating it is the final notice before legal proceedings. This letter confirms that if payment is not made within 7 days the debt will be referred to a Debt Collection agency or a solicitor, which will then incur their costs.
Legal proceedings are only commenced when every other avenue has been exhausted.
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.
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 Bailiffs.
So everyone is clear on the position here, we invoiced Mrs Vogg for her service charges at Compass Point, sent her two reminder letters and as you can see referred her to a Debt Collection agency. We now hope that she will pay her outstanding service charges for her flat.
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.
Thanks
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
At last you responded. I will answer briefly here and rest will follow once gone through in details.
As you have not responded here and I assure you no one has responded me in writing either or your company response has been mentioned here. Have you any proof the letter were sent to me?
When are you going to arrange for me to inspect the accounts for last 6 years which I have requested?
Your posting are full of wrong statements as usual. The top of the list is that I own freehold house in compass point and not leasehold apartment. Can you prove my entitlement been reduced to apartment now? We do pay for the upkeep of the community centre as it was created for us as community centre as it adjoining to my house which affects me.
On Millennium Drive, my property was for sale in 2006 and now it is 2010. I am repeating again, there has been no inspection taken place from 15 January 2008 by your company and flat was not handed over dry. Now your company is offering meditation, however, no experts are appointed to trace the dampness in my neighbours flat since last inspection. The last surveyor appointment to carry out further test in the building was cancelled. How are you justifying my loss of income and reduced life style tied to remain in the country which feels like a prison? I can not even go for holidays as I do not know what threat is coming though the letter box.
I am selling the flat so it will be advisable for your Company to assist to sell on the maximum price.
Before I put any entry on the site I went D E, head of the legal department and Norwich Union, Chief Executive but no resolution was offered. Before my story started publishing I went again, but no resolution was offered and now I am serving notices to sell off my flat and you come to defend your company with wrong statements to undermine me.
I do own 2 properties which have been my investment income. I carry mortgage and expenditure as forth like everyone else. I have only state pension and my properties were my pension provision. In Dockland my estate agents usually introduce me as the best landlady in the area. I often let my property to help people and not to earn maximum rent. My ex tenant in Millennium Drive is testimony to that.
I am also very disappointed that I have been trying to send you e-mail with evidences of plight in Compass Point and around the area and they have been rejected again and again. I no longer know whether you have received any or not. I will try to send 2 at a time. This is not the first time my e-mails are being rejected when trying to contact someone in your Company.
Nicky Vogg
Andy
Credit control!!!!!!!!!!!!!
After going RTM and insisting on all paperwork being forwarded it became apparent what a total mess Solitaire had made of managing our development.
Some six people were in arrears for over 2 years, do you understand the law with regards to this?
You are quick to demand money but spend it as you see fit on expensive contractors who are not local to developments. When work is allegedly signed off you do not ask opinions feom the leaseholders THE PEOPLE WHO PAY YOUR WAGE!
It has also become apparent and under investigation that a flat was allegedly sold with an outstanding debt of £1000+ and up to now knowone at Peverel or E+M have any knowledge of this.
You should be totally ashamed of the way you treat your customers and the day will come when you have none left.
Please feel free to reply Andy
Hi Andy,
I have received your e-mail. Thank you for explaining that,
“digital photographs have been saved at a very high resolution (2Mb) I suspect that this is the reason that I hadn’t received them before if you tried to send them as attachments to just one email.”
My photographs were sent in 2 batches initially. Is this the reason that your company e-mails address is not equipped to handle all sorts of data and our e-mails are never arriving on your side? How do they disappear as my first batch did?
It appears you still have not received all of batches and missing photographs. I did clever thing by putting my name to show whether the e-mails were going through or not otherwise it was impossible for me to work out which one was bouncing back again and again. My e-mails are all back now but you are still missing. I will be listing the batch numbers and the photographs it contains and you let me know which you have not received and I will try to resend them. Four batches as listed in the subject section are as follow:
1.Batch 1(contains 2 Photos) was sent twice and only received once back.
2.Batch 2( contains 2 Photos)
3.Batch 3( contains 3 Photos)
4.batch 3 ( contains 3 Photos)
Total 10 as you can see. Number 3 and 4 batch is differentiated by capital B and small b.
Hope to hear from you
Nicky Vogg
Hi Jon Dyson
Thanks for your posting. I’ve been in touch with the senior management team as you raise relevant questions regarding Solitaire’s credit control process.
You will have read in my previous postings on the recent LVT deliberation in Nottingham, that when Peverel Property Management took over management responsibility for Solitaire in mid 2008 we found some good and committed people but who were operating with poor management practices. This included credit control procedures.
It’s worth repeating what we said when we wrote to Solitaire customers in March last year. We stated that during 2009 we would implement a number of significant management and operational changes that we knew were necessary to improve our service to customers. These included introducing a new Property Management IT system to estimate, commit and report on expenditure in a more timely and accurate way; new banking and accounting arrangements and restructuring sales ledger and purchase ledger so that customers received service charge invoices on time and contractors get paid promptly.
With the transfer of many of the support functions to Luton in the autumn of last year, we also implemented a revised credit control process for Solitaire as it is, as you will appreciate, integral to the smooth running of a development.
If you have allegations regarding a property that was sold with significant outstanding debt it is important that any correspondence or evidence you have is brought to the immediate attention of the freeholder.
Please feel free to email me with any details – my email address is andy.solitairepm@peverel.co.uk. Any information you have will be sent to the freeholder for their attention and response.
Many thanks
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
Andy
It is not an allegation and the service charge was not paid for almost two years. I will deal with this as I see fit and not through you.
Unless you have noticed it is now 2010 so why are your new integrated systems unable to inform you of when a flat was sold?
I also still find it amazing that you rattle on about your property managers being field based!
Get a grip Andy.
If your property managers had the guts to visit each site and log all the problems, inform the contractors to assess and resolve them then things may improve for people.
Visit the sites Andy and tell me if you would be happy knowing YOU were paying over the odds for work not to be completed or completed to a sub standard.
Its all been said before.
Goodbye Andrew.
Go Jon…!!!
Is that faint noise I can hear the sound of “Andy” squirming…???
Probably not, in all honesty…..
“Field based” means – as I understand it – that they work from home. But, our lovely Property Managers are no more “in touch” with the developments they are responsible for than if they were office based. The office isn’t (wasn’t…) close to the developments, and neither (I suspect) is the PM’s home. It’s all a cost-cutting exercise (i.e. closing all the regional offices), but all it means is (depending on where they actually live…) that the Property Managers have less mileage to claim for when they do site visits.
Doesn’t make them any better, because they are “field based”. And they aren’t based “in the field” anyway – they’re based in their own spare bedrooms / dining rooms / garden shed, which is remote from their so-called “field”. I live in Cheltenham, and my Property Manager lives somewhere in Birmingham (from what he’s told me) – closer than Barnet / Luton / Leicester, but not what I’d call “in the field”.
Matt
Thanks for that.
I guess most of them were born in a field!!
Maybe thats where field based comes from….LOL.
First posted “Have Proof That Solitaire / Peverel Have Read Your E-Mail” (Nov. Tag). The information is relevant to my next reply to “everyone” and Andy. If anyone would like to check the facts how Andy is trying to bluff his way out and change your views about me. There is goes:
ANDY, over 4 months are gone. I AM LISTING MY QUESTIONS again and your Company response. I am forced to waste my time once more as by referring to my entries are just being ignored by you.
In my opinion, 2 entries under the tag Andy’s Comment from Yesterday, March 5th 2010 appear to be bulling me.( I will deal with them later).
SEE MY ENTRY (see above listed Tag, 12 November AT 1.18 pm, over 4 months ago.) Below are my 3 request which still waiting to be resolved.
1. Meeting with Mr. Technequis (surname corrected Tchenguiz)
(No response received)
2. Peverel response to my defence presented to their allegation made by Nicola Holmes and Lee Middleburgh- mediation is not an option.
(No response received)
3. Compass point – full response to my queries:
I am still waiting for full reponse
RESPONSE from Holding & Management (Solitaire) Limited: dated 17th November 2009 from Cla… John… was received (as listed underneath) which ignored first 4 questions and only replied 5th question partially.
See my entry response above ( entry 3RD DECEBMBER at 3.50 pm) under N.V says ( full name posting problem, however, inserted underneath full name Nicky Vogg ) which should have been dealt with but simply was ignored.
I list my 5 questions again. I HAVE PUT CLA.. INFRONT OF Holding & Management (Solitaire) Limited letter AND in front of MY REPONSE Nic so there is no confusion what has been answered by your company and what else still need to answered.
1.Nic: Was there any exchange of money to buy the Community Centre lease from the landlord, LDDC?
NO AWNSER RECEIVED
2. Nic: How much is the peppercorn rent paid in a year by Solitaire and to whom?
NO AWNSER RECEIVED
3. Nic: How much money has been collected from the Mortgage Company/ies against the Community Centre for Solitaire Company funds?
NO AWNSER RECEIVED
4. Nic: Why the community centre was left in such disrepair which could easily put some of the community life in danger?
NO AWNSER RECEIVED
5. Nic: Is the communal area and grounds of the Compass Point is also leased which Solitaire manage or they own the freehold through one of their own Company.
(PARTAIL AWNSER RECEIVED as you can see from the letter listed from the Company below denoted by Cla… )
Cla..: “Holding and Management (Solitaire) Limited are part freeholder and part rent charge owner of Compass Point.”
Nic: Please disclose who do you pay “rent” to and how much?
Cla..:, “Holding and Management (Solitaire) Limited purchased the freehold/rent charge of Compass Point which included the leasehold interest in the community centre in 1992.”
Nic: Could you please send me a copy of the full dead/lease on the Compass point. How much did you pay to buy the “freehold/rent charge”.
Only interest we have is to pay for Solitaire the maintenance work to make money in commission. We are losing the valve of our properties and rental income and making us live in fear from the anti social intruders who likes to make use of it.
Cla..: “We agree that the Community Centre being vacant and in a state of disrepair whilst also continuing to incur management costs is not viable. Therefore we are very keen to deal with this issue.”
Nic: I am confused as I understand that Solitaire, your sister Company, have been managing the Compass Point from the start (20 years ago)who were responsible to maintain it so why they let it “run to state of disrepair” while at the same time kept charging us for the repair. Then in 1992 your company bought it as a “disrepair” property. Please disclose how much money was raised on the Compass point and for what purpose? Who has been paying the interest on it – your Company or out of service charge? Why it was not resolved 7 years ago when we agreed for conversation.
Cla..: “As you will understand the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC), the current freeholders of the Community Centre, and their successors have the ability to seek possession of and demolish the Community Centre or replace any structure with just three months notice. 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.”
Nic, “Who is the current “successors” of LDCC as I take it they no longer in operation, are they? I do not seem to have papers to check that they have authority to demolish the whole building. My understanding was that to repair the river Thames they have access in front but they will put it right after the work is finished. Please forward the documents so I can grasp the concept.
Cla..: , “We wrote to residents on 17th August seeking a mandate from the service charge contributors to allow us to negotiate a change of use for this area and convert it to residential use, you have very kindly agreed and signed this declaration. Assuming we can change the use of the Centre and convert this into a residential unit we would look to make a one off payment into the service charge fund in the order of £25,000 and naturally this additional accommodation will also contribute to future Estate costs.”
Nic: You wrote the date 17th August but no year when I signed it. As far as I remember it was about 7 years ago. You offered us peanut 7 years ago while making money and even raising cash on the community centre. Could you explain you are offering “25,000 to service charge but will charge us the money to convert to residential? Who is going to live in that property and for what propose. Are you selling out right after the plans are approved or explain if there are any other motives? Is there any truth to the rumour that the Community Centre is going to be used for children crèche for the borough and we will have to pay for its maintenance?
I would like to see to sold it as a leasehold/freehold residential property and let the new leaseholder/freeholder maintain it.
Cla..:, “I hope that this answers you queries.”
Nic, It only answer one of the question partially. To save us the time if you can answer all the questions in one go of past posting and questioned raised in this posting that will be great. Do send copies of the documentation I mentioned so we can all move forward.
It is high time, ALL MY QUESTIONS ARE AWNSWERED to resolve the issues.