It’s That Time Of Year
By admin | February 23rd, 2010 | Category: Past Articles | 121 commentsWe anticipate that in the next few weeks, we will start to see an increase in visitor numbers to TheTruthAboutSolitaire for the simple reason, that it’s that time of year, when Solitaire / Peverel / OM Property Management / Consort – send out our forthcoming bi-yearly service charge invoices.
Cue, the shock of new homeowners when they see the increases in their charges, the lack of services that have been provided!
The best thing about this is, now that TheTruthAboutSolitaire is firmly established amongst the internet search engines, everyone will logon and see that they are not alone!
We’ve already started to receive e-mails from concerned residents and the only way to reduce these charges is by invoking an LVT or RTM.
Peverel will be very quick to put people off of RTM and tell you that even after RTM, homeowners have come back to Peverel! Trust us, that isn’t the case!
In the meantime, we welcome any new sufferer of Solitaire Property Management, Consort Property Management, OM Property Management, Peverel (any of the Peverel Group), County Estate Management to TheTruthABoutSolitaire.
I just thought I’d post this so it’s at the top of the list and therefore easy for Andy to spot.
I raised the question in February as to why the bills/invoices we receive are not more detailed, ie instead of ‘Maintenance £ ….’ why couldn’t we have the details of what we’re actually being charged for, eg ‘Repair of car park lights £…..’
From what Archangel has posted, I’ve read it to mean that Solitaire are currently providing the minimum that is required legally and if we want/need further information then we have to go to their offices to find out the details (I hope I’ve understood this correctly).
I would be interested to hear Andy’s comments (or those of the Senior Managers of Solitaire) about introducing a system whereby instead of giving us the minimum that is required, give us a comprehensive account of where our money is going. This information is obviously held on the systems anyway as it is needed to feed the report which provides our invoices. By utilising a transparent system it would go some way to reassuring your customers that what we are being charged for is correct and reasonable. If the ‘new brand’ is eager to rectify things which have happened in the past and show us that they are improving things then surely this would be a good place to start?
Andy – please could you feed this into the relevant departments and let us know the feedback?
With my (extremely…) cynical head on, I suspect the reason why we only get the bare minimum financial information is because of what is potentially revealed when somebody delves deeper, and uncovers the truth. The recent LVT tribunals (the numbers of which seem to be steadily growing…) seem to confirm this.
Recent LVT tribunal decisions against Solitaire / Peverel etc. have openly criticised the accounting for the affected developments. Why should the accouting therefore be any different for our developments…???
Hi All,
Well Hope all are well , I have e mailed ‘Andy’ and suprise suprise no reply , I’m rather intrigued to who ‘Andy’ is ?? does anyone have any idea ?
I think if Solitaire spent a bit less money on flashy websites/on-line ‘Andys’ and more on actually looking after properties and being a proper firm , as I always say I’m happy to pay for a service , expect a company to make a fair profit , but just hate being ripped off – how funny that as soon as you say NOT PAYING the advise is so polite , when they can’t even answer the phone……..
Weekend was embarrasing as we trudged through the dirty hallway ! letter to the Times on it’s way,
Regards to all,
Paul
Hi Paul
Thanks for your posting.
I’ve checked all the emails I have received before and after the date of your March 8th posting and unfortunately I have received nothing from you.
I had in fact emailed you last week on March 3rd using the email address that was on your postings of February 28th and March 5th but I am sorry that I haven’t had anything back from you in reply. I’ve also double checked that I got your email address right so is there a problem at your end? We also checked the emails received via the Solitaire website and again nothing has been received.
Just to let you know that my real name is Andy and I work for Peverel Property Management who have been responsible for Solitaire since mid 2008. I have being posting on this site since May last year.
My job to put your concerns and constructive feedback in front of the right people in the Solitaire property management team, or other senior managers, whenever possible. I don’t have all the answers myself, but every blog post and comment is taken seriously.
If you would like to send your email again the address is andy.solitairepm@peverel.co.uk.
I do hope you will get in touch.
Many thanks
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
Well I have replied again Andy,
Will wait if any of the many Solitaire e mail adresses deem it important to reply to me , I have to be cynical because strangely being a ‘customer’ of Solitaire is hard work ….. I am a Car sales Director , love my customers because they pay my wages !! how could the leasehold business have gone so terribly wrong as a business model I wonder.
Regards to all fellow ‘customers’
Paul
Paul,ho
Sadely, they still havn,t caught the thread that their
tried and tested methods to bogg us off are out dated,so it is time
they start to pack thier bags as the company is also out dated and
no longer know how to serve thier customers.
Good Luck
Hi Berni
Thanks for your posting. In supplying details of expenditure at a development our aim is to provide the information in a format that gives all property owners what they want in terms of the make up of actual service charge expenditure without ‘information overload’.
Where people would like more detailed information we can supply copy invoices on request, using the new property management IT system that we implemented for Solitaire last year.
If a customer would like clarification on particular invoices relating to their development our Property Managers would normally respond firstly in writing and then go and meet the customer as requested, either individually or as part of formal Resident Association meetings that our Property Managers attend.
Our aim is to work towards providing the information that people want to receive about how we are managing their development or estate. We appreciate how important this is for our customers and we are looking to both improve and enhance our systems to meet this goal.
Thanks
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
Andy,
I do not know your exact position in the company, but your really must have some clout! Since you promised to speak to Dean Rochester to solve the many problems at Ravenscroft i cannot believe the transformation that has taken place.
Nothing! No contact! Zilch!
I have heard your email address is changing to Andy P45@dole office.com Can’t wait!
Andy,
You write “our aim is to provide the information in a format that gives all property owners what they want in terms of the make up of actual service charge expenditure without ‘information overload.”
Is your striving to avoid overload the reason why over 25% of our total service expenditure in the year before last was lumped into ‘other’? After three or four requests of being ignored I still have no explanation. I’ve now followed Bella’s advice and requested an audit trail.
Andy,
I too pick up on your paragraph above (as Neil has), and therefore I again request full details of the “trust” account specific to my development (as I have done again in an email I have sent you this morning). This account – according to your previous comments – only holds service charge money for my development, and is used exclusively for expenditure for my development only. And the same applies to every other development you manage – so that’s an awful lot of accounts that somebody is (apparently) managing…???
You have advised that I can visit your offices in Luton to “meet members of the team” and “discuss how service charge ‘trust’ funds are managed” – how about all leaseholders do this so that we can all learn the details of our development-specific “trust” accounts. Will you pay our travelling expenses to Luton…??? Oh, and I suggest you load up on tea/coffee, and biscuits…..
In my email to you this morning, I commented “Recent LVT tribunal hearing reports have heavily criticised Peverel’s accounting procedures”, and also “You could really help yourselves by being totally open & honest about the status of the accounts for each & every development you manage”. So, how about it, then…???
Your accounts department could really help themselves to repair their somewhat tarnished & battered image by letting us have details of our “trust” accounts. Obviously we don’t want full access, but it would be nice to know where the account is held (i.e. which bank / building society), details of the current balance, details of payments in, and (most importantly) payments out.
You tell us that the “trust” account for our developments are ONLY for our developments, but frankly we only currently have your word for this, and with the increasing bad press your accounting procedures continue to receive (notably through LVT tribunal decisions), we have to treat any comments related to accounting with a very large amount of scepticism.
Help lift the heavy veil of suspicion over your accounting processes, and give us some open & honest reports on the status of the individual “trust” accounts for our developments, to back up what you have previously told us. In my eyes, if you don’t do this, you further add to the suspicions…..
Mat I totally agree with you as we need to know where our funds are invested. CBG surely would have invested our funds in interest bearing accounts which would be credited back to our accounts. I know all the bank statements are forwarded to the accountant to balance. Furthermore, I believe we have the right to see the bank statements to confirm the amounts that is the only way CBG can be held accountable.
Andy I have also requested for accounts It seems I have been ignored too.
Andy, thank you for replying but to be honest this answer doesn’t really cut the mustard. Everyone I’ve spoken to on our site has said the same, that the accounts sent out do not give enough information about the expenditure. Far from being ‘information overload’, I would’ve thought a comprehensive breakdown of expenditure is the minimum of what we ‘customers’ could expect and deserve to get. To use the excuse of ‘information overload’ is patronising towards residents and not acceptable.
I note your comments about requesting additional information but we shouldn’t have to do this. We pay you to provide us with this information, we shouldn’t have to badger our PM/accounts department to get this. I personally believe that your company do this in the hope that most people simply won’t bother, unfortunately for Solitaire I can be like a dog with a bone and I have chased up this information with interesting results – I’ve identified nearly £2000 of costs which are being recredited to our accounts due to mischarges etc. However, this has taken up a great deal of my time, I’ve even had to take annual leave from work so I can meet with my PM – there’s no chance of being reimbursed by Solitaire for my time though is there?
Whilst Solitaire continue to provide the bare details of expenditure information, then residents will continue to think that Solitaire are hiding something. Give us a transparent system and show us that you have nothing to hide.
To quote Berni:
“Whilst Solitaire continue to provide the bare details of expenditure information, then residents will continue to think that Solitaire are hiding something. Give us a transparent system and show us that you have nothing to hide.”
Totally agree, 100%. As my previous post (above) confirms.
So Andy, you need to be talking to the right people in Peverel’s accounts department to make it happen. A refusal to do so (or general ignoring of these requests) will be seen as obstructive & suspicious.
Admin – please can you create a new Post to highlight this. Let’s put pressure on Peverel to provide us – as a matter of course, rather than on (often ignored…) request – with fully detailed open & transparent details of the accounts for our specific developments. After all, these mystical “trust” accounts Andy tells us about contain OUR MONEY, for use exclusively on OUR OWN DEVELOPMENTS. Or so we are told at the moment, but with no current evidence to back this up…..
Andy you seem to be in my thoughts rather a lot.
At the suggestion of Bella and Jon Dyson I asked my estate manager for an ‘audit trail’ for the last five years. The 2009 one arrived yesterday, titled ‘Review Notes’ and has every invoice for the year. Not only that but it is possible to see all the accruals. Perfection. It answers many of my questions, although sadly raising a few new ones.
As for information overload this is two pages instead of one page for the accounts. By volunteering this when I ask every year about the accounts, your accounts department would have gained brownie points instead of obfuscation points. Just a pity another letter is off to Luton tomorrow to ask for the other four years.
Dear Michael Epstein
Thanks for your posting of March 4th. I have now heard back from the OM Property Management team who have asked me to respond to the points you have made.
Following your original complaint last year, your Property Manager and Regional Property Manager from OM Property Management have met with you and a neighbour at The Woodlands to identify and discuss the management related concerns you have had. A development issues summary log was immediately established and gradually the majority of points raised at our initial meeting have been addressed.
On the more recent points raised in your posting we can confirm that all information from the previous accounts has been collated and passed to you for comment, with an offer for you to meet your Property Manager again to discuss these in detail. The Regional Property Manager for the estate has also recently contacted you to offer his attendance if necessary to discuss any specific invoice concerns you might have in further detail.
The Estimated Service Charge was issued to the residents of The Woodlands in advance of the service charge year with a digital aerial upgrade provision included within it for £4900. Once this unfortunate error was identified, the amount which had been levied, but not spent or shown in annual accounts, was reduced and the relevant amount credited to all residents accounts.
Kingsborough Insurance were advised of the information that you requested relating to the buildings insurance cost on the development and they have provided the information you required.
We are not aware of any contractors appointed on The Woodlands contacting us regarding late payments.
In view of the management related issues on the development, the Regional Property Manager agreed to place on hold the credit control processes relating to residents accounts at the Woodlands until the majority of issues were resolved. As advised previously to you, ground rent related matters are not included in this process so are not on ‘hold’ status.
As the management issues are shortly to be concluded, this will allow the accounts to be released from the credit control ‘hold’ status and residents responsibilities to contribute towards the communal trust fund will re-commence.
Please be assured that the Property Management team for The Woodlands are committed to resolving all the matters raised at your development.
Many thanks
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
Dear Andy,
You say the accounts are on hold at present. Dean Rochester says only mine and one other is on hold and everyone else must pay. Dean’s summary log in which you claim that the majority of matters have gradually been resolved. look at the log. Look at the entries with to be done in 21 days. this is 4 months later we still have many issues unresolved. So keen is Dean to solve our problems look at his email record. Have the bottle to publish the date he last made contact with me. E&M are part of the problem. look at the log and publish the last time Dean was able to make contact with E&M.
You mention the aerials and the £4900 charge. You forget that before this we had not resolved aerial charges going back 3 previous years. You say once the unfortunate error over the £4900 charge had been identified you credited a sum back to the residents. Was it not us who identified the error and had to fight tooth and nail to resolve it? With reference to kingsborough they have not answered my questions. no one has explained what they do for their 30%. As regards the “snow-job” with invoices sent all i will say at present is that we now know what a court thinks of your invoices! With reference to contractors being paid late, you must have a guilty conscience. Can you tell me in my post where i made any mention of contractors in Ravenscroft?
Going back to E&M, perhaps you could explain why it was denied they were part of your group. perhaps you could explain why the response as to why a valuation was backdated by 23 years instead of 21 years was a threat from a debt collection agency,( yours as it happens).Perhaps you would like to explain why every request to see the survey which was carried out is refused or ignored. Perhaps you would like to explain what is so unreasonable about seeing any sight of the survey? Perhaps you would like to explain why E&M staff have been banned from speaking to me?
You wish to seperate the issue of E&M and management issues. This despite the fact you are part of the same group.
The meeting with Dean Rochester concluded with the agreement that all matters would be resolved including E&M. It was agreed that our accounts would be on hold until we were satisfied.
Clearly, matters are a long way from being settled. Just to add to the fun, Andy, you poor sod, i bet you didn’t know that E&M put our account on hold as well! I am also willing to bet that they deny it! Unless my issues are resolved you will not see another penny from me. Indeed as you may be aware the number of people witholding payment is growing.
So you either get things right or as i challenged you before, take me to court and let a judge decide who is being honest.
Though Watford is my nearest court i fancy a day out in Nottingham Sadly my sat nav is not working so if you could give me directions to the court in Nottingham i would be grateful, i do believe you are familiar with it.
you say you are committed to resolving our problems. The only thing you should be committed to is to prison!
Michael – do yourself a favorer you will get nowhere at all dealing at this low level
Contact L.M. or V.T. otherwise you are wasting your time completely!
If you need help in this regard let us know how!
Hi Michael did not ever think I would find anything funny about Solitaire but your post made me laugh out loud – well done!
Hi Micheal, Iam thinking of using a court in Nottingham as the
chances of having a fair justice will be greater there then
around London.
I will give you a lift so tnink on joining forces.
I got no where complaining to the big white chief and hope you
are luckier then me.
Andy
When are you going to answer Michael Epstein questions?
Michael you are a ray of sunshine very well done, we should all have a coach trip to Nottingham
Michael Epstein,
Someone has already commented that you should be a comic on TV.
I’ve got another idea : whilst you are waiting for your “day in court” why not sit down and write a TV Sit Com. I was thinking along the lines of something like “The Office” – now I wonder who would play the Ricky Gervais role?
On a more serious note – you are aware of the fact that it is only an LVT that can pass judgement on the “reasonableness” of service charges? (This piece of information was given to me by a LEASE solicitor)
Archangel
The county court is the superior authority to the LVT in all respects. If a court has ordered you to pay Solitaire, the LVT cannot force them to pay you back, even if it finds that Solitaire’s charges are 100% unreasonable (I know from bitter experience). The county court can order whatever action it likes with respect to the determination of who owes what to whom, whether contracts / leases have been breached, and how to remedy such breaches.
However the statute of limitations applies so you can only go back 6 years. I think the LVT can go back as far as it wants.
Also if a county court orders your situation to be remedied, eg by carrying out repairs, then it will be Solitaire who carries out the work, unless you get rid of them quick by appointing new management or start enfranchisement.
An LVT can cost up to £500 just for a hearing, so you might well be better going straight to a court for breach of lease.
Having spoken with the Lease Advisory people (.org) again today – I remain somewhat confused as to the obligation Solitaire may or may not be under, to provide a full audit trail in regard to a development’s alleged expenditure/accounting etc. over time – when requested to do so by leaseholder.
Commentators on this site have suggested that, simplistically, leaseholders have a right to view all documents associated with the preparation of accounts as a right and encourage others to request this facility.
Anyone – What actually is the position in regard to leaseholder’s rights and Solitaire’s obligations in this regard?
Thanks.
Andy
I do believe you’re are the same as Solitaire and Peverel not fit for purpose, you waffle on about things you don’t know about, you really should do your homework.
I Hate Solitaire,
Your comments are noted. I was not commenting on the superiorty or otherwise of the County Court over a LVT. I believe that the comment I have made is accurate in a general context.
I am aware of a case very close to where I live where a Court has passed a case to the LVT because the issue in dispute is the “reasonableness” of the service charges.
I do not know the full details of either Michael Epstein’s or your own case; my comment was made in relation to the general not the specific.
However, the last thing I would wish is that any comment I add to this invaluable site were to confuse or worsen a person’s already dire and distressing situation. Therefore I would say to anyone – if in doubt seek bona fide legal advice.
Archangel –
Yes that is what the Court SHOULD do, because the LVT is the right “forum” for the case, but the court doesn’t HAVE to transfer it if the judge doesn’t feel like it as happened in my case.
I got ordered by the court to pay up and now, even if I go to the LVT, and the LVT decides the charges are unreasonable, everyone on my estate will get refunded except me for those 6 years – because the court’s order is superior to the LVT’s order. Annoying, typical of the stupid judge in our stupid judicial system.
Re – the summary of charges. I think the law says that Solitaire do not have to itemise expenditure under £250, which, in practice, is nearly everything in most people’s bills. So if they paid out to a gardener £200 every week, they wouldn’t have to prove that to you by producing copies of invoices for you to inspect. Again, typical of the crap state of the law in this area.
Archangel –
Yes that is what the Court SHOULD do, because the LVT is the right ‘forum’ for the case, but the court doesn’t HAVE to transfer it if the judge got out of the wrong side of bed and doesn’t feel like transfering it as happened in my case.
I got ordered by the court to pay up and now, even if I go to the LVT, and the LVT decides the charges are unreasonable, everyone on my estate will get refunded except me for those 6 years – because the court’s order is superior to the LVT’s order. Annoying, typical of the stupid judges in our stupid judicial system.
Re – the summary of charges. I think the law says that Solitaire do not have to itemise expenditure under £250, which, in practice, is nearly everything in most people’s bills. So if they paid out to a gardener £200 every week, they wouldn’t have to prove that to you by producing copies of invoices for you to inspect. Again, typical of the crap state of the law in this area.
it would be nice to get an actual solicitor on here for the real answers, they could drum up a fair bit of business!
Sad story my friends,
I do not wish to identify the person. I must protect his privacy. I do not understand why but he was heard saying he thought OM were honest.
He has now been sectioned under the mental health act and after treatment for his delusions, provided he takes the tablets he will be home soon.
SaxonHero & Ors:
Any landlord or property manager has an obligation under Section 22 of The Landlord and Tenants Act 1985 (and associated Regulations) to provide documents and copies of invoices to support audited year end accounts and / or provide facilities to inspect said documents. This only applies to the last year that has been audited and any request for said documents must be made within 6 months of the audited accounts being presented to the tenant. They have 1 month to carry out this obligation and if they fail to do so they are breaking the law and can be fined. They are under no obligation to provide documents for any other year. The request for the documents can be made by a single tenant or the secretary of a recognised tenants association. The landlord is allowed to make a reasonable charge for providing copies.
IHateSolitaire:
The £250 figure you refer to is probably the figure which is set by regulations and LATA1985 to be the figure and limit that is allowed to be charged without going through a consultation process.
Audited accounts:
Section 21 of LATA85 lays down the rules for the preparation of year end accounts whereby accounts must be prepared and audited by a qualified accountant within 6 months of the year end. However there is nothing to say that the accounts have to go into depth and as is the case with Sol+Peverel those accounts are usually highly aggregated with no detail. You can circumvent this lack of detail by requesting documents and invoices as per section 22 of LATA85.
I hope that helps you all.
(I am not a solicitor but I have accrued a great deal of knowledge over the past 2 years.)
What is best The County Court or/and LVT
Thank you, IHateSolitaire you have given us a gem of the advice and let see if we can find a way so no one has to lose as you have done.
My understanding so far is:
ON THE COUNTY COURT:
1. The County Court has more powers then LVT.
2. It is cheaper to a file case
3. It can look at the breach of the lease and various other issues or Magistrate can transfer the case to LVT. It depends entirely on the individual magistrate.
4. The County Court due to statute of limitation can check the accounts for only last 6 years not more then that.
5. It has the right to implement its judgement to remedy and can order PMC and only PMC to carry out the repair work and no one else.
It can order to claimants or defendant to pay the costs which can be finally forced by appointing bailiffs to sell the goods to pay the debt.
6. PMC always files a case for non payment of service charge through the COUNTY COURT (not LVT). If the leaseholder is made to pay by the court order that order cannot be turned down later by LVT.
7. If a case is lost by the leaseholder in the magistrate court and the leaseholder has paid on order. Later PMC losses the case and proven guilty by the LVT. Even losing case by PMC, LVT can not turn down the Magistrate decision and make PMC to refund the money.
ON THE LVT:
1. The fees are higher as much as £500.
2. They are experts on the lease and know what the breach of the lease is and what is not.
3. They can check account as far as they want too.
(Usually the companies are only required to keep accounts for past 6 years, so I wonder if that would have any bearing on it?)
4. LVT know what is a reasonable maintenance service suppose to be provided by the PMC and can order to repair.
5. LVT can not force the PMC to pay the costs back even they are 100% unreasonable if they were awarded by the Count Court in the first place.
The whole procedure of LVT is a mockery if non payment of service charge is filed in the County Court.
THERE IS A HOPE that can be used in such cases. I do know if you are putting counter claim then you can REQUEST THE CASE TO BE HEARD BY SOME OTHER BODY( I forgot the exact words) At that time it may be useful to REFER TO LVT only on the lease issues, non payment of service charge so it has a fair hearing and more chances of winning. We mustn’t forget LVT has come to know our PMC now. Rest of the case can be heard at the court so PMC CANNOT GET WAY WITH LATER.
If one loses the County Court case then one must appeal and request to be heard by LVT. I am not a solicitor but any judgement passed can be challenged but one has to follow the strict regulations to do so.
We need to be somehow be super human with our a crystal ball to predict what is the best way forward to clear the mess created by others.
Many thanks Arthur for you detailed and most helpful response.
I guess that any previous years details can only be requested subject to LVT proceedings or other formal process i.e. County Court?
SaxonHero
You are most welcome.
An LVT has no powers to force any party to produce documents other than in the context I alluded to in my previous post. The key thing is that a tenant or any court of the land has to work under the laws laid down. I am not sure under which law a court could force a party to produce documents. It is not data covered by the Data protection Act nor the Freedom of Information Act etc.Anything further than that is a question for a solicitor. In any case it is quite usual for a landlord not to produce invoices when requested and whilst it might put the landlord in a bad light an LVT is powerless to force matters.
Nicky & Ors.
In response to your post this morning I would like to offer the following comments:
1. It is almost irrelevant which court has the higher powers as they all must abide by the same Laws of Parliament. If an appeal is to be made in relation to an LVT judgement it is usually taken to the Lands Tribunal which is only answerable to the Court of Appeal. In relation to Leasehold matters the Land tribunal is the top dog. The LVT system was set up in 1980 when jurisdiction was transferred from the Land Tribunal. If there is a legal action which relates to landlord and tenant and probably the reasonableness of service charges then the LVT is the primary place to take that action.
2. Landlords usually go to the County Court or Small Claims court to seek payment for arrears of rent or service charges as it is simply an action to seek those of arrears and it is an amount that is owed pure and simple in the same way any person or company is owed money. If the tenant has simply not paid the arrears and does not dispute that they are payable then yes the court will make an order to pay and nothing else. If there is a dispute to the reasonableness of the charges then the court will in most cases refer the case to an LVT – where they are qualified to decide if charges are reasonable or not. Managers may go to the CC as it may be a quicker route when reasonableness is not an issue.
3. If you are going to county court for some reason then chances are you will need a solicitor whereas it is possible to go to an LVT without one as they are designed to be accessible by a person off the street and are less formal than a county court. It is therefore usually the case that any action in a county court will be more expensive as you should engage a solicitor who will eat up £500 in a few hours.
4. Limitation is not always 6 years and can be 12 years also – this depends on the action being taken and the circumstances of the case. A landlord seeking arrears of rent is limited at 6 years, whereas a tenant disputing service charges in some cases may go back 12 years.
5. ADMIN EDIT – Please see further Post – March 24th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
(Again I say that I am not a solicitor but I am in the middle of a fairly big LVT case myself and have had no choice but to learn myself as the solicitors that do know these areas of Law are not cheap. Most of the fairly priced solicitors do not have the knowledge in this area and most of them refuse to take such cases. It is not possible at this moment in time for me to divulge any details of my case, but in due course I will.)
Further to my paragraph 5 there are some subsections to LATA85 which discuss if a service charge has been paid and agreed or has being part of a previous judgement and that is where possibly the other poster has or would be denied the opportunity to dispute charges. Again that circumstance will be particular to each case and all of the circumstances. To make the general case is not so easy.
Arthur Dent & Admin,
Thank you for providing this easy-to-undertstand clarification on this important discussion that arose out of a brief comment I made specifically to Michael Epstein earlier.
The accuracy of what I stated has been confimed by your fuller explanation. I was not sufficiently briefed to be able to supply a fuller explanation myself.
ADMIN – as these 3 comments above made by Arthur Dent are so useful and easy-to-understand – could they be highlighted in any way that others in the future could access the information from a side link?
Arthur
We have a situation whereby, should Solitaire fail to provide audited accounts by the end of this month (March 2010), then they will have exceeded the statutory period to do so, being six months from accounting year end.
Do you know of the implications in this regard – I think Solitaire commits an offence, but how do we remedy?
Any insight and comments would be much appreciated.
Thanks
SaxonHero – if I was a betting man, I’d put money on you receiving your audited accounts from Solitaire in the last few days of March, thereby conforming to the 6-month period allowed.
Do keep us informed as to whether my hunch is correct, or if they fail to meet the deadline. If the latter is the case, then take them to the cleaners…!!!
SaxonHero,
If you want to get those audited accounts before the end of march then write a letter to them with something like this:
————————————————————
Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenants Act 1985 states that for each accounting period a summary of costs must be provided to qualifying tenants within 6 months of the end of that said period and must be certified by a qualified accountant. It is a criminal and prosecutable offence not to do so.
As of this date today we have not received the audited year end accounts for _INSERT_DATE_.
As such I formally request that the audited year end accounts for _INSERT_DATE_ be provided to myself and all leaseholders.
————————————————————
If they fail to provide the audited accounts then you might want to write to the OFT or Local Trading standards and ARMA.
SaxonHero, I should have been clearer in that once the 6 months are up then a letter such as that should be sent – seemingly you are still within the 6 months period.
Arthur and Matt
Thank you both for your the further inputs – It is good to know that this is indeed an offence with therefore a penalty.
I guess my question is though – what do we then do to make them produce the accounts? Is this a matter for an LVT? -don’t imagine LVT has the power to demand the account preparation?
So how do we get the accounts and therefore the means to request the documentation, invoices etc for that period?
Thanks
SaxonHero: Once they have produced and supplied the accounts, then you can request for documents and copies of invoices to support that accounting year as per section 22 of the landlord and tenants act 85 – as per my post on March 19th, 2010 at 10:40 pm. Again they have to satisfy your request. As soon as the accounts arrive then write another letter like this:
“Pursuant to Section 22 (2) of the Landlord and Tenants Act 1985 I formally request reasonable facilities and access to view invoices and all other documents or be provided copies of the same to support the audited accounts for year end _INSERT_DATE_ which we received __INSERT_DATE.
Section 22 (4) of the same Act also states that this request should be facilitated within one month of the request.”
Boys, to force Peverel to disclose accounts invoices if they are not coming forth after serving 2 notices quoting section 22 of the landlord and tenants act 85 (14 days and 7 days) as advised by Arthur. One need to apply for “ Court Order” ( very simple small form to fill) to disclose the invoices, which is a brief court hearing one need to attend where judge/magistrate decides on it. The hearing may be within 2 weeks or so after the order form is filed. In my opinion you will be granted to see the papers/invoices. It will help if one has majority approval to take to the court hearing. It is time the law is tested on it.
Look it that way if Peverel have to disclose paper/invoices on the court order then your case will be strengthen and their will be damaged before filling any defence or claim.
Just to point out this knowledge I picked it up from solicitors but never have attended a court myself so research on it is advisable.
wow thanks for this nugget Arthur Dent
….5. This issue of an LVT not being able to decide on charges for a tenant that has been previously ordered to pay them is in my opinion not true.
I will get back after them now, I thought there was no point since I wouldn’t get anything!
IHS: Ive asked Admin to pass my email to you, to see if I can help a bit with some detail, and if a useful conclusion comes out of it, then I can paste the conclusion on here for everyones benefit. rgds.Arthur
Further to my post of March 20th, 2010 at 4:09 pm here is a correction:
A LVT tribunal will follow the law in this matter (LATA1985 section 27A) very strictly. A tribunal will take the view that if a court order has been made for the tenant to pay the arrears, then the court would have considered whether the costs were reasonable and the tenant would have had the opportunity to state they were unreasonable. If there was any question that the charges were unreasonable then the case may have been referred to an LVT.
If a tenant is subject to a summons to County Court for the non payment of service charges and the court ordered the tenant to pay the arrears and subsequently the tenant agrees agreed to pay, then that tenant will not be able to make an application to an LVT for a decision of the reasonableness of those service charges.
Therefore if you are in that situation and you do believe that the charges are unreasonable or you know there may well be a future action at an LVT then you need to state to the court that your opinion is that the charges are unreasonable. The court will then decide if the case should be referred to an LVT but there is not guarantee – however taking that line is the best action – unless of course you think the charges are reasonable.
“the court will then decide if the case should be referred to an LVT ”
for the record, in my case the judge decided not to, so don’t assume he will. He should refer it but he doesn’t have to.
I hadn’t ticked the box on the court’s form saying I wanted to counter-claim, because I thought the LVT was able to take the case off him (the county court is superior to the LVT, so big mistake there) and I had to pay up plus costs (100% extra on the arrears, unfortunately).
Andy,
Your silence is deafening!
Hi Michael Epstein,
Just to confirm that the Regional Property Manager, who you have met, let me know that he has already emailed you on the 30th March and also provided further information for you.
I understand that an issues log that was originally created by the property management team to deal with the 25 items raised by you and a fellow resident about your development. On the 24th February your Regional Property Manager indicated that 19 of these items had been resolved or answered.
Of the remaining 6 points you raised: 2 have been completed in the past month (jetting of pathways and broken slab works), 1 awaits your response (pet measures), 1 was communicated on last week (overflows) and timeframes indicated for resolving this issue. Outstanding are issues relating to Ground Rent, the responsibility of Estates & Management Ltd, and your question on insurance.
Some of the repairs took longer than first expected but your property management team hope that they are doing everything they can to progress and resolve your issues. If any of the areas remain a concern please do not hesitate to raise these directly with your property manager via email who will be happy to assist further.
Since your February meeting your Property Manager has also met Mr E, your fellow resident, and discussed several of the points you both originally raised prior to the next arranged meeting. Your Regional Property Manager continues to try and assist in resolving any of the remaining management related matters at your development.
I can however clarify some of the points for you that you raised previously.
Accounts on Hold: Residents are obliged through their lease documents to pay service charges on the dates specified. The managing agent themselves have an obligation to ensure the demands are raised and issued accordingly, again in line with the lease documentation. I understand the credit control process carried out internally which monitors and chases outstanding resident funds is currently on hold across the development until the Regional Property Manager is satisfied that sufficient progress has been made in resolving or responding to your issues. I understand this was relayed to you in email correspondence on the 8th December 2009.
Aerial Costs: The aerial costs was an estimated sum as advised in the last issues summary log provided to you and this amount was credited largely before the majority of properties had paid this estimated advance cost. Please advise your property management team directly if you have remaining concerns on aerial costs.
Insurance: The insurance policy is placed with insurers by Oval Insurance Broking, an independent insurance broker, with the assistance of Kingsborough Insurance Services, the insurance administrative team that works within the Peverel Group of companies.
Both are regulated by the FSA like all insurance brokers. Between them they provide a complete service on behalf of insurers – from issuing invoices and collecting premiums, to taking notification of claims, organizing contractors and getting final claim payments issued. These tasks cannot be undertaken by a Property Manager or other staff due to the restrictions imposed by the FSA in terms of competency as an insurance professional. For these services a commission is received.
Please be assured that the Property Management team remain committed to resolving all management issues that you have raised.
Many thanks
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
Dear Andy,
I hope you don’t mind me calling you Andy. Others are calling you a completely different name.
What a wonderful example your reply was in how not to answer my issues. Let’s look at the log you mentioned. Do you agree that a log was made back in october for matters to be resolved in either 14,21, or 28 days? Do you agree that it is now April and another log has been issued for matters to be resolved in 14,21, or 28 days? Do you agree that because a question is answered that means a problem is resolved, even if the answer is totally bonkers!?
The assertion that only 6 matters are outstanding is false. With regard to E&M can you confirm when the last attempt was made to get a response from them?
Thank you for your explanation as to service charges. I could never have worked that out myself! Not to make it personal, i will in future refer to the Estate Manager as DR as in Doctor, as in Dr Do-little, as in do-sod all!
He has refused permission for me to publish his emails on this site, yet he allows you to copy word for word his email to me. I trust, therefore, you would have no objection to the emails and both logs being published!
We have on ongoing issue stretching back several years over the aerials before the error which amounted to £4900, which we spotted and fought bloody hard to have put right.
Since we knew nothing about Kingsborough until DR let it slip i ask what assistance could possibly be needed to either phone an insurance company or broker. Everyone else can manage it, why not you?
Finally, why when the accounts on this estate were put on hold were residents told it only applied to 2 flats? and when did it change from matters being resolved to our satisfaction to being resolved to Dean Rochester’s (sorry, D R’s)satisfaction.
I look foward to your reply
Ps incase i ever take over from You, just how hard is it to do a job when you know that those who are complaining are telling the truth and your wages depend on you trying to defend what cannot be defended!
Michael, politician’s answers, WHICH HAVE NO IMPACT on us any more and hope no longer have on the cooperation world.
OM do not respond to me in full because if they do, they will implicate themselves, so it appears they rather discredit me.
You have read Andy posting on 5TH March 2010 to “everyone” (“Response to Andy’s Comment from Yesterday”) defending his company with liable statements and my response dated 24th March 2010. All the questions are unanswered accept one partially answered. What Andy is portraying that, if PMC has written to us once that means it has resolved all the problems? We are supposed to shut up, be grateful and accept our fate.
I think the punch line which Andy need to fill here is,
“Why Nicky should suffer further loss and must not sell her flat because we ……………!!!!!!”
I have lost faith in the company. What chances weak and vulnerable have if you and me are struggling, who have some knowledge of our rights, don’t you agree? Moreover, they are so confident or should I say arrogant that they do in front of everyone with assumption that their word will be believed.
I have fought with the thought of justice so victimisation can be stopped for those, who have/had no voice.
What the Owner of the Company is going to do to resolve my case? Is VT ready to see me now or is he joining his staff to keep the fixed “position” and all are participating to send me to my final box of resting.