Is Lace Market to be the next City Heights?
By admin | March 8th, 2010 | Category: Past Articles | 32 commentsTheTruthAboutSolitaire contributor ‘Geoff’ has brought to our attention the following report, from ‘thisisnottingham.co.uk’ - that raises yet another story of Solitaire story of owe.
Residents to take flat management company to a tribunal
Friday, March 05, 2010, 07:00
8 readers have commented on this story.
Click here to read their views.RESIDENTS of a Lace Market development are taking their freeholder to a tribunal, claiming the books have been left unbalanced following “historic mismanagement”.
Last month, 126 families from a block of flats in Mapperley won £180,000 after taking freeholder Holding and Management (Solitaire) Limited and property management firm Solitaire Property Management Ltd to a tribunal.
Now, the Evening Post has been contacted by other people in Notts complaining they are paying increasing service charges to the same company without any explanations.
In April last year, Stephen Holden, who owns two apartments in the Weekday Cross development in the Lace Market, took their case to a tribunal, which ordered new management for the building.
The respondent, Holding and Management (Solitaire) Limited, was forced to accept new management of the premises under Central Management Holding and Management (Solitaire) Limited (UK) Limited.
The decision report of the Midland Leasehold Valuation Tribunal stated: “It is perfectly clear to this tribunal that serious and multiple failures of management had gone uncorrected for a long period of time.”
Dr Holden said things were not being repaired but his service charge had jumped from £900 to more than £2,000 in 2008/09.
He said: “The building became a really severe crime hotspot after the entrance system and security systems weren’t maintained. We had four arson attacks in two months.”
But now Dr Holden says the accounts books do not make sense and residents have been told they owe money. So next month he will be taking Holding and Management (Solitaire) Limited and Solitaire Property Management to a further tribunal, with the support of more than 40 residents.
But it is no easy feat trying to get to the bottom of it all.
“This has been going on since 2008 and it’s really tested my patience to the limit,” said Dr Holden, a consultant at the QMC.
“It’s been a huge amount of work, I’ve had to take days of annual leave, it’s become almost like a second job trying to deal with this.”
He is not alone. Dino Romano, who lives at Riddles Court in Watnall, also managed by Solitaire Property Management Ltd, says they have been given bills back-dated to 2006.
Mr Romano, who said the situation has been complicated by the sale of the freehold and a previous change in management, added: “[We want] to sit down with them and actually agree what needs paying. We have at no time ever refused to pay, we just feel that the works in which they are trying to charge us have not been undertaken.”
The company said it was willing to meet Mr Romano and explain its position. A spokeswoman for Solitaire Property Management said she could not comment on the situation at Weekday Cross.
She said: “The LVT (Leasehold Valuation Tribunal) is due to take place in April. Until this time we cannot provide any further comment on the case.”
Philip Bazin, who runs the Leasehold Advice Centre in Surrey, receives phone calls from residents across the county experiencing similar problems. He says people looking to buy leases in such buildings should do their homework.
“What does surprise me slightly is that with the power of the internet why people don’t do a bit of research about who their future landlord might be and look at service charge bills from previous owners,” he said.
It may be of interest to those TTAS contributors that live in the East Midlands to contact Delia and bring SPM yet again into the spotlight.
The ‘thisis’ range of websites are part of the Northcliffe Media Group, which is one of the largest newspaper publishers throughout the UK and covers the South West, Midlands & North and South East.
Why not logon to their website to find details of your local paper and refer them to other stories that their other publishers have produced.
Look forward to reading more about the Lace Market LVT tribunal, once it’s been completed…..
Re. the situation at the “Weekday Cross” development, it states that the tribunal “ordered new management for the building”, and that “The respondent, Holding and Management (Solitaire) Limited, was forced to accept new management of the premises under Central Management Holding and Management (Solitaire) Limited (UK) Limited.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but the NEW management company is still Solitaire, just under another guise…??? And if so, is NOT new management at all…??? How can this be…??? If true, then the “new” management ordered by the tribunal hasn’t been put in place at all – in which case the rulings of the tribunal have not be adhered to…..
Also very interesting to read that the report of the Weekday Cross LVT decision states “It is perfectly clear to this tribunal that serious and multiple failures of management had gone uncorrected for a long period of time”. So, standard Solitaire form, then…??? Be interesting to read Andy’s defence of this, should one be forthcoming…..
Although I’m slightly confused, as it says (towards the bottom of the report) that the Weekday Cross tribunal is due to take place in April, and therefore the Solitaire spokeswoman was not prepared to comment further. So what is the exact situation re. Weekday Cross – are there two tribunal cases…??? Or is the report inaccurate…???
Perhaps we should all email Delia Monk @ Nottingham Evening Post, so that she gets a real impression of the world of Solitaire, and can see that it’s a national problem, not just confined to Nottingham…???
The article is slightly inaccurate in that I only own one apartment, and also the new company is Central Management UK (not CM Holding &M etc reported here by mistake).
The initial case for Appointment of Manager took place last year but the further tribunal in April is for determination of service charges as we are still in major dispute over that. Fortunately, we no longer have Peverel / Solitaire managing the building. The Appointment of Manager was by no means easy but it can be done and was most certainly worth the effort. I will be able to provide more information once this case is over.
Steve
“it’s become almost like a second job trying to deal with this.”
I can relate to that.
Hi Neil
“it’s become almost like a second job trying to deal with this”
I can relate to that as well
….and all I am doing is living in my “own” home
Does anyone else think that Philip Bazin’s comment about ‘researching on the internet’ is possibly aimed at bringing TheTruthAboutSolitaire to the attention of people??
Philip Bazin’s comment may be a veiled reference to this and similar campaign sites. A little research goes a long way.
I think it’s fair to say if I knew about Solitaire beforehand, we would never have purchased our property.
So perhaps his comment is also aimed at the developers? If Barratts, David Wilson, Wimpey etc continue to get into bed with companies like Solitaire, the simple truth is they’re going to lose sales.
They put warnings on cigarette packets
perhaps they should put a warning on \for sale\ boards
………..warning this property is managed by …………….
Franescc I second that.
It should be included in the 10 Downing street petition.
Steve – thanks for clarifying some of the details. So, inaccurate reporting by your local rag, then…??? Happens in my local tomorrow’s-chip-paper as well…..
Mr. Bazin’s comment about using the internet to do a bit of homework is very good advise – it’s open to debate whether it’s an innocent comment, or a thumbing great hint…!!! Continued exposure of Solitaire / Peverel etc. will only serve to further harm their already-wrecked reputation, and at some point the big housing developers must surely take note, and look elsewhere for managment of their lovely new developments.
The house-building market is starting to pick up again, and the big developers are all sat on sites, so the potential number of new residential units requiring management within the next couple of years could be huge. We all know that Solitaire / Peverel shouldn’t get a sniff of these units – how long before the big developers agree with us…??? Perhaps if they start to realise that their sales could suffer, then they might act…..?????
I say,
1.the builder should create a fair lease with built in limited Company for the leaseholders to manage (No need for RTM).
2. Due to conflict of interest no Management Company should be awarded the Lordship of the land.
3.The land valve automatically be included in the sale price.
Builders sooner or later are going to get the message when their properties sale started to affect due to TTAS and our effort. It will be an idea if some of us to write to these big builders referring this site to give them the wake call and tell them what the market needs.
If someone has not read my pathetic story then you may put my name in Google. I assure you the real horror is still not out yet.
“Response to Andy’s Comment from Yesterday” (February Tag)
is further revealing company position on as a listening management Company.
On March 2nd . 2010 I served formal notice to Peverel and freeholder. Up to that time Nicky Vogg was not worthy of any response from Andy or his superiors for long time. On 5th
2 postings from Andy were put. One can read my response on the same day exposing some of the lies which they think is the truth and applying the tool to defend themselves.
Now I have received a letter from Peverel Solicitor stating there position remain the same. Even though my claim is justified, insured but they are going to deny me the right to claim my loss through insurance because they can.
There arrogance and denial is beyond belief at the time when the they are losing the market and legal battle but trying to defend with lies but will not negotiate to settle.
I am wondering if the enemy is within Peverel , who is helping our cause. Keep it on as the only way , as far as we can see, is down. However it is admirable to go down fighting rather then accepting your faults and make mends.
I have just sent an e-mail to INVESTORS IN PEOPLE.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I like you to invite to the website to read the truth about OM :
http://www.thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk/
Do you still think they are worthy of your reward?
Butterfly
Hi Butterfly
I will follow suit and add another web site for them to look at
http://www.allagents.co.uk/solitaire-property-management-ltd/
OM lordship is going down as they forgot to invest in the leaseholders.
Francescc well done.
I have also sent an email printed below and waiting to see if they respond.
Dear investors in people,
Your website states,
“Investors in People is all about business improvement. Our new approach can transform your organisation’s performance by targeting your chosen business priorities.”
I would like to know if you are investing in the leaseholders too and make sure your members provide honest service with integrity to their customers.
Last year your organisation awarded your logo to Peverel OM LTD which is now known as OM Property Management.
May I invite you to website: http://www.thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk to read Nicky Vogg true story which is only a part published. Real horror is not in print yet. You may put Nicky Vogg in Google search engine to access more information in one place.
As you will see I am not a “serial complainer” (“Dribbling Geriatrics”) as there others also suffering. In my case Peverel are simply ignoring the truth that my flat is not the source of flooding because they can and refusing to accept the facts. I have been made to lose since December 2006 and at the same time made to pay service charge in full.
Now I am selling my flat in the current condition and will let you know at what price it will go and finally how much I will lose on the flat alone. There are also cash losses around £75,000.
The whole lose is covered by insurance policy which is been denied to me because OM can not change their position and have the power to make me suffer and lose more.
Could you help?
Nicky Vogg
Now I have also sent an e-mail letter to ARMA. It will interesting to see if they respond.
Dear Arma,
I am long suffering Peverel OM LTD leaseholder which is now known as OM Property Management.
I like to know if your Member is within ARMA’s “reputable practice” and offered me “ the highest levels of service in the sector.”
May I invite you to website: http://www.thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk to read Nicky Vogg true story which is only a part published. Real horror is not in print yet. You may put Nicky Vogg in Google search engine to access more information in one place.
As you will see I am not a “serial complainer” (“Dribbling Geriatrics”) as there others also suffering. In my case OM are simply ignoring the truth that my flat is not the source of flooding because they can and refusing to accept the facts. I have been made to lose since December 2006 and at the same time made to pay service charge in full while the flat is inhabitable.
Now I am selling my flat in the current condition and will let you know at what price it will go and finally how much I will lose on the flat alone. There are also cash losses around £75,000
The whole lose is covered by insurance policy which is been denied to me because OM can not change their position and have the power to make me suffer and lose more.
There is a huge conflict of interest as the Insurance Policy is appear to be controlled by the Management Company as it is one their own insurance policy. The Underwriter keep referring me to back.
As they are your member so what can you offer that will make your member accountable. I have written formal complaint in April 2007 to head of the Legal Department and Company Secretary? There position is that my flat is the source flooding which they cannot back up and they have signed off contactors without knowledge or approval who caused damaged. They were suppose to clean it but that never happened.
This letter is on the website and here is the link: http://www.thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk/2010/03/08/is-lace-market-to-be-the-next-city-heights/#comments
Please put your comments on the site that will help not just me but also others so we know what to expect from your organization
Looking forward to favourable reply
Nicky Vogg
I was checking our Admin facebook link which is:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=134254152821
I have never been a signed member. Can anyone put any photos or text on it?
Can someone help before I join as I am too fragile?
When I bought my flat, I had no idea about service charges, no one in my family had ever bought a flat before and the estate agent didn’t tell me. First I knew was when a bill from County Estates arrived.
TheDoctor – how long have owned your flat, and how much have your annual service charges increased in this time…??? And what sort of service are you actually getting (or not…) from County Estates…???
To be fair to estate agents when selling leasehold properties, they can tell you accurately what the current service charge & ground rent costs are (providing the vendor has passed this information on their chosen EA), but they can’t tell you what these charges will be in the future.
I’m sure there are some people who wish they’d never bought a leasehold property at all. I’m not one of these, and will quite happily buy leasehold again, BUT only if the management company is in no way connected with Solitaire / Peverel / Consensus Business Group. Never again, no matter how great the property seems.
I nearly escaped them 2 years ago (only to be scuppered by the imploding property market) – I look forward to the day I am finally free from them. The sticking point could be if a prospective buyer is clued-up on Solitaire (although if they are, they probably wouldn’t be interested in my flat…), or otherwise if questions on the performance of the management company come up….. If I tell the truth, bye-bye buyer…..
So it’s not just our current situations that are messed up due to the shocking service provided by our management companies, but our futures (i.e. selling our properties) could also be affected, too. And do they care…??? Pah…..
Matt – County Estate Management (CEM) are part of Peverel. I’ve owned my flat now for 4 years. In Year 1 the service charge was £290 every 6 months (£580 per year) PLUS £190 annually for insurance.
After that things just went mad. Firstly, after analysing my lease I informed CEM that the insurance should actually be covered by the service charge and we shouldn’t be being billed separately. They gace me a bullsh*t excuse which I fell for but luckily another resident carried on campaigning and they refunded some money back to our accounts, though i’m sure that more is due.
The last bill I got was for around £430 for this 6 month period, though it seems to vary from period to period. But most people don’t pay now anyway. We’re going RTM to get rid of them and people would rather save the funds to give to the new company when they take over so that they actually spend it getting things done rather than doing magic disappearing tricks with it.
We’ve received basically no service at all. Add on to the above the fact that every flat owner paid over £800 for Section 20 works in 2007 which we’re still waiting to be completed (they actually breached the Section 20 rules and are being taken to LVT for this too – they contracted a different company than the one stated was chosen on the final Section 20 notice to do the works, saving £30k on the total cost of the works and have failed to pass any of those savngs back to leaseholders who’s contributions were paid based on the original estimate! Also, they have admitted using some of the Section 20 money to pay for other things, hence it has now run out without works being completed).
On top of this, we have accounts that don’t add up and/or make no sense. (For example, £3k spent on ‘health and safety’ – I expect more details than that!!), bearing ni mind that everything we report just gets ignored. I have reported that my intercom has not worked for 4 years, yet the account show thousands having been spent on it over the years. CEM finally explained that they hadn’t paid the bill for the phone lines that the system works on, and have no money to do so. Great. That is just one example of their incompetence.
I would never buy a leasehold property again unless it had goe through the RTM process and residents had control. Peverel, Solitaire, CEM etc and everything under the Estates & Management Vincent Tchenquiz/Consencus empire are (in my opinion) so corrupt and seem to own a hell of a lot of developments in this country.
Complaints get nowhere, ARMA are next to useless, and the only way for residents to take action to to go through the RTM process, which can be very difficult in large developments, and expensive, or take the problem company to LVT, which again is at an expense to the Leaseholder and very time consuming. My MP didn’t want to know, but the number 10 petition is gathering some support. The people at the LEASE advisory service are great, but there is no real protection for the poor people like us who cannot relax in their own homes due to these so called ‘managing’ agents.
There needs to be a law which states that a Freeholder cannot employ a subsidiary of itself as managing agent. It’s a massive confict of interests and a huge cash cow.
My first home – and no end of stress for the entire time I have lived there. I work full time and this is killing me. It’s so draining having to argue with them all the time. Hopefully, post RTM we can all be happier.
I did have a call from Lee Middleburgh (MD of Peverel – I had to complain to the top before anyone listened to me) and he said he wants to try and sort things out, but I am still waiting…
TheDoctor – thanks for your detailed reply. I think there are many of us who can relate to various parts of the issues you have endured with CEM over the years.
Good for you & your neighbours for heading down the RTM route – let us know when you complete, and therefore are in a position to tell CEM to get stuffed…!!! And good too for the LVT action you are pursuing – yet another example of questionable accounting….. How much longer before some higher power starts to ask some VERY searching questions of the accounts department at Peverel Towers…??? Should have already happened, in my view.
I agree with your comments on ARMA. Gutless, with no real power. Not helped by having no proper legislation (or regulation powers), which is what the No. 10 petition is asking for, but how many years away will any resulting new legislation be…??? And when you consider that ARMA board members include CBG employees (plus, I acknowledge, other industry professionals), then what hope is there? The regulatory board needs to be detached from the member companies they are overlooking, which simply isn’t the case (currently) with ARMA.
To be honest, why do we even now bother to continue to identify the specific company we have the misfortune to be “managed” by (i.e. CEM, Solitaire, Peverel etc.), as they are all part of the same useless outfit…??? Doesn’t seem to matter who the specific company is, the main core issues are the same. Which is no surprise, as they all the same company, at the end of the day.
“Andy” keeps telling us that progress is being made: under-performing staff have been removed; systems / processes are being revised / updated / replaced. Not got much actual real “progress” to show for it though, have you “Andy”…???
All,
Not sure where to post this really, thought here is best as its the most recent (and maybe most read?) post.
I thought you would be interested to know of more OM failings. We have been without our intercom system for 4 days now (it dials the landline numbers to each flat instead of a dedicated handset). When someone presses the flat number it dials out and the nice BT lady announces out of the speaker that the line has been disconnected! How pleasant!
No surprise that Cirrus manage this service, and when calling OM support line they state that they are aware of it, but reading the case logs it seems there may be an issue with payment! HAHAHA I am so not happy! God knows how long it will take them to sort out.
Another issue I wanted advice on is to do with contribution % changes to the various schedules. We were sent a letter a few months ago notifying us that the proportions set in the lease were wrong and that they had been adjusted (higher of course). Are they even allowed to do that?
My development also seems to be in the Insurance money making scheme. Yet another thing to add to my list of things to sort out with OM, wait till they send the next years estimated charges, I guess I will have to add a load more then! Joy. As others have commented, it really is like a 2nd job!
Thanks …
Dear Office of Fair Trading,
Referencre: Leasehold Property Management Company, Trading as OM Property Management ( Peverel OM LTD) hiring contarctors for mainatnce work who cause damage.
I am coming to you for help to see if you can investiagte.
I attch website link to:
http://www.thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk/2009/12/11/the-story-of-nicky-vogg/
The management company signed off the contactor without my knowledge or approval. No investigation was taken place.
The contractor even gave a false report by passing my flat as dry flat when the report itself contained reading contradicting their own certificate. My story is quite lengthy as the Management Company has been not providing a fair service. We pay them commission so it should come under trade.
Could you please respond if it is your domain to investigate Management Companies too?
If you wish to know a part story then you may put Nicky Vogg in Google to get full access to the story.
It will be appreciated if you could come on the site to inform us what you can do and what you cannot do as far as Property Management is concerned. The link to write is:
http://www.thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk/2010/03/08/is-lace-market-to-be-the-next-city-heights/
It will help us and you to may stop receiving unnecessary request for help.
Thank you
One very unfortunate suffering old woman
Nicky Vogg
Bushbrother,
If I am interpreting your comments about the proportions (ie percentages?) in your lease being changed because they were “wrong” then NO THIS CANNOT BE DONE at will.
Are you the original owner of the property? Do you have a copy of your lease? If not I would strongly advise you get a copy from The Land Registry. It costs £4 online. (I believe they are open until 8.00 pm ) The title deed summary will provide all historic details if you are not the first owner of the property.
Also I would recommend you speak to someone at LEASE (Leasehold Advisory Cente) – link to it is on the righthand side of this page. They should be able to tell you categorically whether this change to the “proportions” is a legally correct procedure.
As a final thought – I would love to be able to write to my freeholding company to tell them I’ve decided to “change” the name of the Manager (Peverel OM) quoted in my tri-partite lease because I’ve decided they are “wrong”.
Interesting case and comments (and corrections!) made on it.
I personally think that Philip Bazin’s comments are slightly disingenuous; but I have taken his advice and looked him and his Advice Centre up on the web. It’s a private commercial advice centre with the trading name “The Leasehold Advice Centre” owned by “Bazin Estate Agents” according to the terms of business on the website.
If you give your website a name (“The Leasehold ADVICE Centre”)that is virtually the same as the government-funded “The Leasehold ADVISORY Service”, I would imagine that you will get a lot of hits from puzzled people seeking advice from the latter?
If leaseholders did not have the problems that are constantly being aired on this site (and many other sites) there would be no need for advice centres, be they privately or publicly run.
I have increasingly been pondering the fact that the government saw fit to set up and fund a free service for leaseholders – were they acknowledgeing that the new legislation passed (Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002)was drafted to favour the freeholder / landlord?
The point has already been well made by the Doctor and others that getting involved in what appears to be the inevitable problems and battles that go hand-in-hand with leasehold flat ownership (and some new freehold developments)requires an enormous amount of time, effort and perseverence. The psychological impact of having to fight for the right to a trouble-free and peaceful life IN ONE’S OWN HOME (especially in a culture that gave rise to the expression “an Englishmen’s home is his castle”)is profound.
However, the fight must go on.
@ Archangel
You are correct, I was talking about the percentages. As in in the lease it states something like Schedule 1: 3.76% or something like that. Well in the letter they say these were incorrectly calculated and should be 3.81% (these are not the exact figures, just an example).
I am pretty sure its not allowed, I will contact LEASE. I am indeed the original property owner (new development of 2 years) and I do have a copy of my lease.
Bushbrother,
I have just checked my own lease and the letter from my conveyancing solicitor advising me of the content of the lease prior to my exchanging contracts with the first buyer.
There are 3 “Proportions” referred to:
Part A Proportion……0.93% of Development Costs (ie the external site)
Part B Proportion……14.70% Block Costs
Part C Propoetion…… N/A Basement Car Parking Costs
In his letter to me that accompanied a copy of the lease, my solicitor drew my attention to 10 specific points in the lease, one of which related to these proportions in the. I therefore agreed to the purchase of my flat on the understanding that these were the percentages that I would be liabel to pay.
There is no way that this can be altered without going through a legal process.
Good luck with your dealings with LEASE. I have found them very helpful.
I have received a response from INVESTORS IN PEOPLE,
“Thank you for your email of 9th March to the Information line at our London head office. They have referred the matter to this Unit in confidence as we deal with enquiries and concerns about organisations throughout the UK which use the Investors in People Standard. We were obviously sorry to hear that you have concerns about Peverel Property Management Group which is an “Investors in People” organisation. The organisation was accredited against our Standard in November 2009 by the South East Investors in People Centre and will need to be reviewed during or before November 2012 to determine if the accreditation can continue.
Investors in People sets out to raise organisations’ performance by improving the way in which they manage and develop their people after they have been appointed and start work. It offers a practical, flexible and easy-to-use framework which delivers this improvement. Investors in People sets the standard for good practice in matching what people can do and are motivated to do with what the organisation needs them to do. The Standard represents the core of good practice, and organisations can use the Investors in People framework to develop further if they choose to. This extended framework allows organisations to work towards world-class best practice.
We should explain that Investors in People is a voluntary Standard. The trade mark term “Investors in People” only relates to the fact that an organisation has achieved and is maintaining all aspects of our Standard. It doesn’t imply any wider responsibilities in the relationship between an employer, its people, customers and the wider community it serves. An “Investors in People” organisation is one which has been assessed successfully by a registered assessor who has gathered a mix of verbal (confidential interview), documentary and observed evidence relating to the Standard. This process will then have been quality-assured by a third party. Finally, the organisation will have been recognised by employer representatives as having met all requirements of the Standard. Once accredited, “Investors in People” organisations undergo comprehensive reviews to an agreed timetable (always within a period of a maximum of three years) to establish that all requirements of the Standard are being maintained.
All Investors in People assessments and reviews of accredited organisations are conducted in full accordance with the guidelines we issue and we have confirmed with the South East Investors in People Centre that this was the case for Peverel Property Management Group. The assessor selected a representative sample of the organisation’s staff at all levels, in all job roles, various sites and work patterns [importantly, it is the assessor's choice of sample] for confidential and non-attributable interviews. The overall sampling is done on a set scale as a percentage of the total numbers employed. The types of questions asked by the assessor would not have been known to interviewees in advance. Interviews of this nature give interviewees every opportunity to express concerns they might have in relation to matters which are covered by the Standard. Our assessor also gives confidential verbal and written feedback on areas for continuous improvement to the organisation’s senior manager at the conclusion of the assessment process. The feedback report is commercially confidential. The role of the assessor is not to tell an organisation how to conduct its affairs, but to assess what the organisation actually does – and seek its people’s confirmation of it – against the Standard’s 39 mandatory evidence requirements. In the case of Peverel Property Management Group we have very recent confirmatory evidence of this.
We are fully aware of critical comment on the internet about this company and the situation will be monitored. We can and do formally note in confidence any relevant written information that people provide to this Unit. Your information has already been brought to the attention of the South East Investors in People Centre so that their file can be noted. This has been done with your anonymity protected and will assist the assessor at the next review to focus on any related people development needs which are covered by our Standard. Our aim is to assist the organisation to continue meeting the requirements of our Standard fully for the benefit of its clients. We hope this information answers your enquiry and that you will be able to resolve your issues with the company either directly or through the regulatory organisations dealing with that sector. Thank you very much for taking the time and trouble to get in touch with us. “
MY REPONSE TO THEM
Thank you for explaining in details your Company role as an organization.
I am very disturbed with the role to enhance the business profile rather then investing in people. I would have thought most appropriate name would be investing in business.
I accept your company conducted confidential l survey. In my opinion that could be fixed and shown want any Company wants you to see.
If you’re relying on the subscription and no way can make anyone accountable then I am very afraid and sorry on behalf of the people living in Peverel managed properties.
Content of your letter will be on the website, however your name will not mentioned so others
Know where we stand.
Nicky Vogg
I received the exact same email, word for word. I guess at least they are aware and the complaint is logged. It can’t hurt I guess.
As a side note I have been in touch with LEASE and they inform me Peverel cannot change my proportions without going through a section 35A? So they need some legal action to change it, not just a letter.
LEASE also mentioned that although they were not supposed to mention it, it appears some staff may have been called into a meeting where they have been informed not to comment on the volume of complaints to Peverel … food for thought!
Thanks for that update.
Further to Bushbrother’s comment about LEASE and the number of complaints they are receiving about Peverel:
When I first contacted LEASE back in the autumn of 2008 with a general enquiry about RTM, the advisor I spoke to immediately assumed I was complaining about Peverel!!
Just a little note regarding P.Bazin’s as in Bazin Estate agents or any other company he calls himself !! Mr Bazin is your usual landlord, Managing Agent, Insurance agent and gone by names such as Judeglen (landlord) Malborough Holdings (MAgents) as well as others and has also been taken to the LVT himself.
Just a word to the wise !!
This is all very interesting. Im about to buy a flat in Nottingham and I notice that Central Management UK are the managing agents (nothing to do with Solitatire thankfully) Can anybody tell me what their experience of them as agents is? The person selling me the flat says they are good – but then he would!
Thanks!
Central have done a good job at Weekday Cross in very difficult circumstances. They are a smaller local business and the MD is personally involved with the developments they run. The small team of surveyors are also very competent and helpful in my own experience.
Steve, Weekday Cross, Nottingham.