Increase in Residential Associations being Setup.
By admin | March 11th, 2010 | Category: Past Articles | 5 commentsIn the last few weeks, we have been receiving hundreds of e-mails each week from residents who have been asking us for advice on how to deal with Solitaire Property Management / Peverel, Consort and any of the other Consensus Business Group property management companies.
It would appear the publicity generated by the City Height’s LVT has encouraged a number of estates to start establishing Residential Associations and gaining the support of fellow residents to turn the tide on Peverel / Solitaire.
From the contributors that have contacted us there appears to be an increase in research and planning, in preparation for LVT’s and RTMs against Peverel / Solitaire companies.
Getting Bored of ‘Andy’?
We are astounded that ‘Andy’ still claims that things are improving / have improved with the service from Solitaire / Peverel.
The reason we say that is, if anything, we are now starting to receive more complaints from developments in many of the area’s that he has advised, are meant to have improved. Althought, it’s interesting to hear that the property managers responsible for these sites – are the same people.
Obviously, we can’t name those PMs – because 1) they don’t like to be named and shamed and 2) They could take legal action against us… but those residents who have complained, be assured that, those PMs are not just ignoring you and letting your estate deteriorate – they are doing it to all of their other clients!
This makes a mockery of Peverel’s ‘Investors in People’ claim, when their employees aren’t doing their jobs right!
We heard a great saying today, which we have tweaked to make it even more apt for Peverel / Solitaire.
If we paid Peverel / Solitiare the same proportion of our service charges, for the same proportion of the services that we receive from Peverel / Solitaire – they’d be furious and demand that we paid the full amount.
Therefore, why is it fair, that they provide very little services for the fees that they charge – yet we can’t dispute this and still have to pay the full amount of our service charge?
Kind of makes it clear, that despite the claims from Peverel Towers – that they aren’t “money grabbing” – they aren’t fooling anyone!
It’s not a surprise that this fine website is receiving increasing numbers of complaints from more & more Solitaire / Peverel managed developments, as word continues to spread through various media outlets – and of course people finding this site when they Google (other search engines are available – apparently…) appropriate words & phrases…..
Yes, Andy keeps banging on about things improving – well, just how long does it take for REAL improvements to actually be seen, Andy? Peverel have had control of everything ex-Solitaire for well over a year now, but the same old issues keep coming up, again & again:
- un-explained hikes in service charges;
- lack of communication (including occasionally from Andy himself…);
- unacceptably long timescales in getting maintenance works done (if at all…);
- dubious accounting procedures – as picked up (on more than one occasion) by LVT tribunal hearings;
- the total scam / racket / call-it-what-you-will that is the buildings insurance policies for hundreds of developments;
- etc, etc…..
So just how long does it take to finally get rid of the bad apples in the basket…??? I’d say they’ve had more than long enough already – in which case why are the complaints continuing to increase…???
I’m not sure “bored of Andy” is the correct phrase. “Fed up with”, or “Frustrated with” or “Tired of the same old comments from” might be more appropriate. I suppose (slightly grudgingly…) that we should however be grateful that Peverel have given us “Andy” at all, or otherwise we would be banging our heads against brick walls even more than we are already. BUT, are we actually getting anywhere…???
Through Andy’s contributions to this website, what has actually been achieved / improved / resolved, that wouldn’t have been had he not existed…???
We know the very existence of this website is a thorn in Peverel’s side. Likewise the regular bad press – written & visual. LVT tribunal decisions against them are increasing (we wait with baited breath for details of the next – only a matter of time, surely…), and the reports from Admin about the increasing number of complaints they are receiving can only further concern (we assume…) the powers-that-be at Peverel Towers.
Or perhaps they don’t care, whilst they continue to rake in millions of pounds from the tens of thousands of residents living in Peverel-managed developments…??? It all must take an awful lot of counting…..
Andy – care to respond…???
What I find interesting is that the Consensus group thinks it is cheaper to employ a PR person to try to counter us rather than invest in the company to cure the problems. I did not respond earlier but Andy provided a perfect answer as to what should happen in respect of the annual accounts. The problem was that he ignored my post as I clearly stated that this is not what is happening.
I have not had the horrific experience of Solitaire victims. On the other hand, even though we have not moved, we have had three companies that have been our managing agent following successive takeovers. OM, Peverel, and then for the last three or four years Consensus Group. In OM and Peverel years service was borderline satisfactory. In the last three years service has plummeted while charges have rocketed. There are no ingredients in place within the Consensus Group for this situation to change.
Andy’s job is to prevent court actions, LVTs and other ways Solitaire could lose money.
His job is NOT to help any leaseholder to do anything, it is in fact precisely the opposite. His job is to hinder them and slow them down.
If Solitaire keep more profit after employing andy than by not employing him, then from their point of view he is worth employing. From our point of view, it is the exact opposite.
Talk to your solicitor, don’t talk to Andy.
My Spotted Statements!!!!!!!!
“Investors in People” on themselves, to Nicky (“Is Lace Market to be the next City Heights?” March 12th 2010)
“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.”
Neil on Peverel’s customer base, ( tag “CARLEX also on You Tube” March 12. 2010)
“It seems to me that Peverel aims its marketing at its customer base. No we are not the customers, we are the victims. According to its own web site the customers of OM Property Mgt are: Barratt Homes, Bellway Homes, Berkeley Homes,….. ..”
Matt on accounts ( tag “It’s That Time Of Year” 13March 2010)
“ 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.”
Nicky on accounts,
“..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.”
D E from Peverel on take over of Nicky Vogg’s Freehold Block,( tag “Peverel’s Involvement Within ARMA” October 26th 2009)
“The Landlord of the Property is Om Limited. Om Limited is a company which is part of the Peverel group Companies”
Andy on take over Nicky Vogg’s Freehold House, ( “Response to Andy’s Comment from Yesterday” 20th Mrach 2010)
“Mrs Vogg has previously asked her landlord about a redundant building at the Compass Point development that is not maintained through service charge funds. The landlord has responded some time ago to her queries.”
Archangel on Peverel finance ( tag “How Did PMC’sfor Come About?” March 13th 2010)
“As Neil says above CBG acquired Peverel in 2007, with finance arranged by Merrill Lynch again. Heaven knows how many loand have been raised against the same income streams?”
Andy do tell ………….
RE: RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONS AND CHANGING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY
I apologise if this has already been raised by A N Other, but I would rather duplicate info than withold it.
Have just been alerted to the fact that those leaseholders who have a lease that contains within the Agreements and Declarations section a clause that permits them (by a simple majority) to change management after a specified period of time, may do so without having to set up a RTM company.
I have this clause in my own lease, but it is not applicable until 2013 – hence the need to do RTM.
Am going back to the person who told me this to get clarification and confirmation that I have interpreted his e-mail accurately.
If a residents’ association alreadt exists then this is a much more straightforward process than RTM.