Story of the Bollards… yes Bollards!
By admin | February 17th, 2010 | Category: Past Articles | 22 commentsWe’ve been contacted by the residents of Virginia Quay, in London Docklands who were quoted around £25,000 for the installation of a bollards system at their estate, which apparently actually ended up costing them £82,000!
Over 200% more for a bollard system!
They told us that the company who installed the system were called ‘Fortress Security Systems’ and it is a former ‘Peverel Employee’ that is running the operations for them.
The former employee’s ‘LinkedIn’ profile can be found at: [Link removed as requested by the former employee]
They told us that the Virginia Quay’s development manager (NP) was only allowed to approve works up to £5,000 in value, with his manager (SR), being able to approve up to £20,000 and anything more than this would need to be approved by SR’s manager.
However, allegedly – the only signature on the invoice was from NP and to make matters worse, the bollard system they installed is apparently not fit for the purpose and is disfunctional!
The contributor has then advised us that apparently…
They overspent on the budget (£877K) by a massive 29% (£250k) meaning they had dip into reserves and everyone to pay approximately 25% over and above their service charge in the depths of recession.
One of our resident has lived there for 9 years and after 6 bouts of water damage to the communal carpets and was asking to have the carpets replaced, because of stains left (he been unfortunate enough to have had 5 lots of damage) NP’s response to the 5 occasions was ‘thats unfortunate but I cant do a lot about it’, hence Oval pay for all the costs, and our premiums go up – and Peverel are getting kick backs from the premiums.
Still the same carpet, lays there untouched for nearly 10 years!
They profit out of use for additional fobs, over and above the free issue, which were purchased by residents. These were charged out at £25 each whilst the actual cost was £11.69 (inc vat) – and no accounting of this income can be found.
We’ve been copied into numerous correspondences, between Virginia Quay and Peverel / Consort, yet still no answer from them!
As always, we hope that once again – by bringing this story to the public’s attention, that it will spur a response from our Peverel / Consort – or whoever!
[ADMIN EDIT]
We were contacted by the person who we had linked to their LinkedIn profile, who told us the following:
Just for clarification I had nothing to do with Virginia quay whilst at Peverel, i worked for an entirely different region and indeed a different company within the group when the works were carried out and joined fortress having been approached (head hunted) by the owner. The works had already been completed and indeed invoiced, when i joined fortress and therefore nothing to do with me at all.
We apologise for any inconvenience that the former employee has encountered.
It does though, go to show how risky the Internet and Social networking websites can be – by revealing details about people that can easily be misinterpretted.
LVT’s aside (whilst highly important) – surely the situation must now be taken seriously by the law and potentially the professional governing bodies, the members of which must be the auditors, involved in signing off the corporate accounts and procedures?
“Bollards” – that’s one word for it. I can think of others…!!!
Am I right to assume that these “bollards” are the hydraulic type, placed in the roadway, to prevent un-authorised access…??? The ones that lower into the road when a code is entered / remote control used, and then rise back up once the vehicle has cleared…??? If so, I know of another one (in a public highway, not on a residential development) that has been a constant problem since it was installed a few years ago, and spends more time fully retracted into the road (and therefore not serving the purpose it was installed for) than actually being in full working order….. In other words, a total waste of money (tax-payers, in the example I know of)…..
If nothing else, this example of a chronic over-spend at Virginia Quay (on an installation that – apparently – isn’t fit for purpose…) appears to have breached the rules on getting works signed off. If the original quote was £25k, then the 3rd tier manager should have signed it off (if what is reported above is the correct procedure). It seems – allegedly – that the property manager (1st tier management) has actually signed it off, despite only being allowed to sign off works up to a maximum of £5k. Some sort of explanation for this is due, surely…??? “Andy”…???
Although this is somewhat dwarfed by the fact that the works actually cost £82k against an original quote of “only” £25k. I’d love to hear the explanation for this…!!! Perhaps “Andy” can comment…??? Even more so considering the works (that are over 3 times the original quote) are “not fit for the purpose and is disfunctional”…??? Do I take it (if they are the hydraulic type bollards) that this means they simply don’t work…???!!!
There’s certainly no doubt that the Operations Manager (CJ) at “Fortress Security Systems” is ex-Peverel, as it states his “past” as “Estates Manager at Peverel” on his own “LinkedIn” profile. So presumably “Andy” won’t be denying the apparently obvious connection…??? And please don’t waste our time telling us that the link is purely coincidental, as we simply won’t believe you…..
“Jobs for the (old) boys” is a phrase that springs to mind.
Sounds to me like “Virginia Quay” might want to consider a similar course of action to “City Heights”….. Perhaps they already are?
Surely this work breaches the Section 20 regulations of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 ?
Hi Admin,
Firstly, I should say that the Virginia Quay development has an active Residents’ Association who we meet with to discuss any issues that cannot be dealt with by the Development Manager and his on-site team.
A resident at Virginia Quay – who as far as we are aware has not been involved in Residents’ Association meetings – contacted our Property Manager recently as well as emailing you. We are happy to provide the facts here.
The installation of the bollards system at this development was driven by the leaseholders who were very concerned about anti-social behaviour on the estate. These additional security measures were considered necessary, especially as, in one case, there had been a serious assault on a resident.
The initial contract for the installation of the bollard system was placed with Fortress Security Systems, after communication with the local authority in relation to the permissions required [this may sounds like it was not competitively tendered to three companies]. The employee referred to left our company in 1st August 2008 and was not involved in any way – either in the management of the Virginia Quay development or during the installation of the bollards for Fortress. We now believe he has left Fortress Security.
We are in regular dialogue with the Virginia Quay Residents’ Association, and over fifty residents attended a meeting in late November 2009. Our next meeting with the VQRA is currently being finalised for the first week of March to discuss the issues that they have raised regarding the bollards, and all other resident concerns.
Discussions with the elected members of the VQRA will also focus on the future plans and actions in terms of the service charge budget, as well as the ongoing management of the development. I will certainly keep you all updated in regards to the meeting in March.
As always, I will endeavour to respond directly to as many posts and comments as possible.
Thanks
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
Andy, that is a lot of words used without actually saying anything at all.
Anything to say about the dubious nature of the financial arrangements between Peveral and Oval? Or that various members of the Peveral team have (and I am being generous) seemingly tried to shield themselves and the organisation from crititicism by using questionable information? Or that the supposed “protections” Peveral have in place through graded spending authority cannot be evidenced as being adhered to?
No? Thought not.
Oh, and Andy – have you exposed yourself with the “[this may sounds like it was not competitively tendered to three companies]. ”
Evidence of having your reply vetted by your lawyers, per chance? If so, what have you got to hide or worry about?
Hilarious.
“Andy” – what you haven’t explained is how a job originally quoted at £25,000 ended up costing £82,000…??? And what about the claim that the installed bollards are “not fit for purpose”…???
How can a job cost more than 3 times the original quote, and still not do what it was intended to do – which appears to be to offer protection to the estate & it’s residents…??? So they’ve paid £82k, and still haven’t got the protection the bollard system was intended to provide.
How can that possibly ever be considered money well spent…???
Gentlement, I was the person who provided the bollard information to the admin.
Further to this story I would like to provide their totally fabricated excuse for this additional cost. It boggles the mind that they put this in a letter to the residents, which may be used against them in legal proceedings.
“As has been discussed at the Residents Meeting in November the principal Contractor had originally been contracted to deal with the entrance at “The Lodge” end of Jamestown Way. During the course of the works hoardings were removed at The Explorers Court end of Virginia Quay which opened up a second entrance which until that time was not an issue. Remembering the urgency felt for security to be improved we were left with only one end of Virginia Quay now secure. With the contractors on site it was agreed to deal with this matter and meet the Residents/Leaseholders and House Owners wishes to increase security. The outcome of this has been an increased cost to the works overall, reflected in the Service Charge Accounts for the year ended March 2009. Having chosen the most competitive Contractor for the initial works, the second set of bollards were installed with the same Contractor who had proved to be the most competitive in the first instance. ”
MY RESPONSE TO THIS WHICH PROVES THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN:
> From: noreply@avenue-peverelom.co.uk
> Subject: CUSTOMER ALERT – Virginia Quay (Ref. 39874) – Rising Bollards
> Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:28:28 +0000
>
> Dear Mr P A Dawson & Miss A C A L De Sousa,
>
> I am pleased to announce that we have finally been granted permission to install automated rising bollards at both ends of Newport Avenue.
>
> Meetings are being scheduled with our contractors asap and it is hoped that the works will start in February 2008.
>
> Updates will follow in the New Year.
>
> Wishing you all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
>
> Nicholas Parojcic
> Development Manager
Before the works commenced you were well aware that bollards were going to be installed the at both ends of Newport Avenue. Your excuse about hoardings being removed during the course of the work is, to be frank, a lie. There were never any hoardings needing to be removed. Both ends of Newport Avenue were quoted to be £26 000.
Your credibility is now shot I’m afraid and I hope this will now make Consort / Peverel have a good look at the goings on at Virginia Quay. Unless they are in on it?
I think this needs to be escalated to your manager as clearly you are no longer a trustworth source of information.
To the Managing Director at Peverel – There is dishonesty written all over this now and I will certainly be pressing for legal action.
Further to this the original application for planning permission:
http://194.201.98.213/WAM/doc/Application%20Form-426538.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=426538&location=VOLUME4&appid=&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=6
As you can see the bollards were always going to be installed at both ends of virginia quay.
Paul Dawson
With regards to this:
—
A resident at Virginia Quay – who as far as we are aware has not been involved in Residents’ Association meetings – contacted our Property Manager recently as well as emailing you. We are happy to provide the facts here.
—
Peverel were given responsibility to notify residents about the meeting. Guess what?
–
The installation of the bollards system at this development was driven by the leaseholders who were very concerned about anti-social behaviour on the estate. These additional security measures were considered necessary, especially as, in one case, there had been a serious assault on a resident.
—
Scaremongering absolute nonsense. The assaults were not “drive by” assaults. The bollards were put there to stop cars from driving through into development. The public can still access the development on foot because it is on the riverside which forms part of the Thames Path. How do bollards prevent assault?
We were given a quote of £26 000. Beyond that it was driven totally by Peverel. We were never notified of additional costs. The antisocial behavior remains because the bollards don’t work!
Paul – good to read your further-expanded side of the story. I obviously have no connection with, or any knowledge of, the Virginia Quay estate, so can only comment on what I’m reading on here.
The planning application certainly does state that bollards were always planned for both ends of Newport Avenue, so the comment stating “opened up a second entrance which until that time was not an issue” does seem to be a load of old pony…..
As you state, the original quote of £26k therefore must have covered the bollards at both ends of the road – and the comment regarding hoardings and a previously-closed-off entrance therefore seems to be utter tosh – so an explanation on why the final figure (as reported above) ended up being £82k – for rising bollards that don’t work – still seems due from Peverel.
And I was wondering just how bollards were supposed to prevent assaults on residents, anyway….. It does seem that there is some degree of scare-mongering going on – perhaps this is some feeble justification for the otherwise un-explained massive overspend…..
The whole job seems to be an utter mess. You residents have asked for the bollards to improve your estate’s security, so Peverel have organised the work, which has then been cocked up, costing more than 3 times the amount in the process.
Back to you, “Andy”.
…and perhaps ‘Andy’ can also explain how the our “management” company manage their finances so tightly that the site manager can exceed his approval authority and sign off payments for 82k when his limit (we are told) is 5k. If I acted like that I wouldn’t be in my job for very long.
I’m sure Andy will be along once his boss or legal team have approved his next long and meaningless response…
sems like Andy hasn’t been along yet. Perhaps he’s struggling to give straight answers to a simple questions
1) how can an estate manager approve work and sign off payment way in excess of his authority
2) how can the extra cost be more than £50k over the original quotation of £26k when the extra work was not 200% greater than the original quote
3) given the above why should I beleive the Peveral/Consort/Solitaire are competant to do their job
….. why so long to answer ‘Andy’ ?
I was so intrigued that I flowen see £85,000 worth bollards myself and took photographs which I will be sending to admin.
While I was standing to take pictures, a van man was struggling to lower the bollards which took a while to come down.
The concierge informed me that there is nothing wrong with the bollards as they can only be operated by her, who checks the security of each driver to stop the intruders. I said if you are in toilet or involved in emergency then what happens. She said that never happens because she has mobile to lower them. I spoke to the resident, who said no one stops the intruders as they just wait for the bollards to go down and they follow. What a waste of concierge time or is it to have more concierges to provide such a worthless service?
The concierge blamed the residents who are too impatient to wait for her to lower the bollards and cause trouble.
The residents and visitors it is all your fault, learn to have patience then you will be rewarded by lowering the very expensive bollards so you can get in or out of the Development. Got it!!!!!!!!!
To tell the truth it would be like living in a prison, so I will not be flying my expensive wings to live in one of the bushes of Virginia Quay. Got it!!!!!!!
Perhaps a resident of Virginia Quay would like to respond…???
As a resident of Virginia Quay I’m happy to respond.
I fail to understand the relevance of the pevious posting to the issues we are raising inthis forum. Whether or not the concierge can open the bollards whilst using the lavatory is an irrelevance (as is whether or not Butterfly believes the concierge, or would chose to live in Virginia Quay)
The issue at point is that Peveral/Consort/Solitaire grossly overspent on a job quoted as £26k and had a site manager exceed his approval authority. We have had no answers as to how such a job can over-run, or how an invoice can be paid without proper checks and authorisation.
Please try to keep this message board on-point and do not swerve off. The issue here is to unite in sharing concerns and examples of Solitaire’s (et al) inability to do the job they are paid for.
Jenny
You’re quite right, let us not take our eye off the ball, we are getting to know all the devious tricks they are coming up with, as long as we can block them every which way they move.
Jenny & Paul – thanks for your further first-hand comments, as residents of Virginia Quay. I was mildly amused by the comment from “Butterfly” – my cynical side almost wonders if “Butterfly” is a Peverel employee…???
Whilst – as previously mentioned – I have no connection with Virginia Quay, I too am still awaiting an explanation on the huge over-spend on your bollard works, and also how the Site Manager could have signed off the works, when he/she only has authority to sign off works up to a level of £5,000.
Presumably “Andy” is still drafting his further reply…???
Hi Jenny,
You are so clear, focused and to the point to high light the cause which is a lesson to me. Thank you.
I have also similar problem of the work signed off and the contractors were paid but have not been made accountable. I hope Andy respond to you as well to me. I am waiting for months but no response.
(Just a concern, if 24/7 for bollard operational service is going to be offered to you all free ( good luck if that is so) or are you going to be forced to pay a hefty increase in the service charge later?)
Jenny, Paul and other Virginia Quay leaseholders / residents.
This case sounds horrendous. Have you sought independent advice from LEASE (The Leasehold Advisory Service)?
I very recently attended one of their regional meetings and one of their solicitors (Donald Ideh) gave a very intersting and detailed talk on “S20 Consultation”, which it strikes me (and at least one other who has commented above) this matter falls within.
If you have not already done so, I would strongly recommend a phone call to Donald at LEASE.
The Leasehold Advisory Service
31 Worship Street
Tel: 020 7374 5380 Email:info@lease-advice.org
Website : http://www.lease-advice.org
interesting to note that NP (the development manager who signed off approval tp pay invoices grossly in excess of his delegated authority) has left Virginia Quay to take up another opportunity.
When/if we find out where it may be opportune to flag to the residents so that they can take away all his pens .
Be afraid….be very afraid
Dear Leaseholders of Virginia Quay,
Please find below link, Schedule 4 part 1 should serve you well.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031987.htm
If you require our assistance in pressing this matter home we will be happy to assist you.
Advice as ever is free if you wish to discuss.
Kind regards,
James Butler Esq – Director