Views of TTAS
By admin | April 23rd, 2010 | Category: Past Articles | 12 commentsThose of you that have requested the contact information for Peverel’s Client Accounts Team Leader and the Lost Schemes, should be aware that the ‘Clients Accounts Team Leader’ address has changed to being @consortpm.co.uk and not @peverel.co.uk.
The name before the @ symbol remains the same and we apologise for any bounces you may have received.
We believe that this address was changed following our publication on Tuesday.
Insurance Requests
Many of you provided us with details of your current Zurich Insurance Policies that Peverel / SPM have kindly organised for us all, whereby we were going to obtain competitive quotations for these.
Unfortunately, due to the sheer amount of enquiries, our broker has advised that the amount of work involved for merely a comparative basis and no real business, has resulted in them declining our requests for quotations.
They did mention that within the industry, the Zurich 500 is well known and that they are slowly replacing many of these policies and saving money for the residents.
The company that we contacted were called ‘John Lampier and Son Ltd, part of Jelf Group plc’ - whom one of the Admins development are now using for their insurances.
TTAS Helping You
It’s always welcoming to hear words of support from visitors to TTAS and none more so than the following e-mail that we received:-
Dear Admin
First I would to thank you for your hard work and dedication in exposing Solitiaire/Peveral for the crooks they really are. You have given me the information and inspiration to go down the Right to Manage route. I never thought I would manage to get the support from the leaseholders on our development as we are like many, who have lots of absent landlords.
We are at the very early stages (I am about to send our money to RMTF to start proceedings) and I have 12 out of 18 leaseholders in agreement. Some I was unable to contact as they are landlords and the leaseholders were unwilling to help.
The info from your website has been invaluable.Thank you again for your help
Hi
I am so pleased I have found your site.
I am a Parish Councillor and member of the residents association on Fernwood, Newark, Nottinghamshire.
We are unfortunately on an estate ‘managed’ by Peverel. We are keen to remove Peverel and have been looking to contact the residents of City Heights who are in the process of doing this – we saw them on the BBC local news.
How are you able to assist us – any advice would be greatly received?
We’d like to think that TTAS continues to help residents and we’d like to thank those of you that continue to contribute to TTAS for making it such an essential place to visit for information related to SPM / PPMG.
More Resident Views
Another resident from Park West in Nottingham has contacted us in regards to their views of SPM / PPMG
More terrible service here. The company is a total scam.
We get bill after bill, adjustment after adjustment. They effectively double their bills every year by claiming to have underestimated. What can we do to get these amateurs out?
An all too familiar story and our only advice would be to get the support of neighbours and commence RTM / LVT proceedings to reclaim funds that are duly yours and get rid of PPMG for good.
It amazes me that ANY company in this day and age can get away with such poor quality in general, in their operation, the work they do (when they can be bothered to do any!), in charges, administration etc. etc. (…we all know how much this list goes on!) In most other industries anyone operating like Solitaire / Peverel and co. would VERY QUICKLY go out of business as customers leave but with the way things are Leaseholders are just at their mercy…
The fact that as Leaseholders our only real way to recompense our situation is to commence RTM (or go to LVT) – which is a process though supported by current legislation is still an arduous and lengthy road to travel down! It just all seems wrong! Surely there is a better way to do this? If I think of all the man hours that go into this. Just the amount of time I have had to waste chasing Solitaire up. Admins time in starting and maintaining this site (I can’t say it enough but THANK YOU Admin!) The people behind City Height’s claim taking time off work to progress ‘their rights’ at LVT and ALL the other individuals seeing redress and ultimately just to be treated fairly! The waste of time Andy’s responses are on this forum (though he continues to post the same robotic responses but seems to be more interested in new visitors than the ‘old crowd’ nowadays?) Put all that together and surely it would just be easier and save a LOT of time to just resolve the problems in the first place rather than continue to point fingers as Solitaire seems to do and manage our HOMEs properly and cost effectively in the first place? The way things are at the moment JUST HAS TO STOP!
I believe that Solitaire / Peverel and co. have had ample opportunity ‘to do the right thing’ and yet the same problems persist. I am dreading June when our next statements are due (…if they are sent in time?)
Well put, Nirmal.
If we don’t like what’s on the shelves at Tesco, we can go to Sainsbury’s. If we think our utility bills are too high, we can switch providers whilst we check our emails. If we don’t fancy the rolls in Greggs, we can pop into Subway instead.
Yet the management of the properties we live in is – for the large part – not within our control at all. But we are paying increasingly high costs for no control. Yes there are mechanisms available to sort things out, but they are extremely long-winded, and don’t therefore offer a great deal of incentive to long-suffering leaseholders to pursue. Plus of course there is currently bu&&er-all meaningful regulation of the industry – let’s hope the No. 10 Petition has some effect, in due course…..
If only it was as easy to change your management company as it is to change your electricity supplier. If it was, Solitaire / Peverel etc. would be out of business within a matter of weeks…..
Good Afternoon Fernwood Parish Councillor,
Guess what? I have s copy of the minutes of the meeting of Fernwood Parish Council of 11th August 2009 which I found during my “key word” internet searches.
I found it most interesting to see that a Parish Council had invited Peverel representatives to one of their monthly meetings.
The minutes have the contact details for the Clerk to the Council -is it OK to contact you through the Clerk? As all these issues were discussed in an open forum by the Council I am assuming that this matter is legitimate Council business and that it would not be “ultra vires” (in expenditure terms) for this externaal connection to the Council to be established.
With very best wishes.
Admin,
Appreciate that things are manic, but any chance of me getting the info regarding the London-based direct access barrister that “Anon2″ said they would pass to you for onward transmission to me?
With regard to the change of e-mail address for the Peverel Clients Accounts Team Leader – can’t be helped or as the French say “tant pis”.
Moving on to the Insurance brokers mentioned above – have checked out Jelf Group plc and noticed that there is no company registration number on their website. Seem to recall that contributor “Neil” said that this was a requirement of the Company Act?
With best wishes.
Re- Summary of Buildings Insurance Cover.
1. Any leaseholder can make a WRITTEN request to the freeholder or its managing agent for a summary of buildings insurance cover and get a reply within 30 days as failure to do so , it becomes a criminal offence. So note- very important to send your request letter by recordered delivery to have proof of posting.
2. The summary of insured cover for a block of flats will show information including “policyholder name”, “policy cover date” , “building declared re-instatement value”, landlords furnishings incommunal areas , public liability, employee liability, subsidence cover excess, water damage excess and alternative accommodation etc and the premium paid for entire period. ( The premiun paid will be affected by the address post code and past history of claims ).
3. If you take the premium paid sum and divide by the building insured cover , you get a rate X pds per thousand pounds of insured cover. e.g If your block pays 4200 pds premium for a policy to insured building for 3 Mil pounds. Then your block has paid for insured cover at rate of “1.40 pounds per 1000 pds of cover”
If your insurance rate is charged higher, then you should be investigating why?
4. The “brokers” offering buildings insurance cover should be registered by the FSA. So check if the broker is registered and regulated by FSA ? You can ask the broker to disclose the amount of commission taken from the premium .
Amendment to my comment above re Jelf Group plc:
The relevant company names and compnay registration numbers are given on the web page entitled “Regulatory” which also provides outline information about their respective FSA status.
We have been in our property just 12 months on the Hadzor
Hall development near Droitwich. I think Solitaire are a complete
disgrace and seem to shark any responsibility whatsoever for the
running of the development. I think every resident would gladly see
the back of them,they don’t deserve to be in employment. In fact
with any luck they will be a victim of the current economic mess in
this country and go into bankcrupcy, I hope so,tossers.
All Resident / Non Resident owners can get rid of the so called rotten to the core SOLITAIRE>PEVEREL>OM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT once and for all if you get together and buy the leasehold – this is your legal right and they cannot stop you but you must have a majority for this to go through
One can only buy the communal areas if it is leasehold. If one pays
“rent corn” and ones property is freehold then one can not get rid off of money
scamerhungry PMC/landlords of this earth. As this company fighting back, therefore, they are planting
thier people on the leaseholders association and on the development to bully
the one who seek reforms.
The ring of e. v l L need to be smashed, will be smashed. lets beleive it
is smashed……!!!!!!
Don’t you mean “buy the freehold” or have I misunderstood?
The Freeholder.
The Head Leaseholder.
The Under Leaseholders.
The Management Leaseholder.
The Terms of Engagement.
The contractual structure sometimes involves all the above components but not always.
The freeholder usually owns the land unlimited, possibly your local council.
The head leaseholder leases a plot to build on from the freeholder, for say 999 years and later sells to a Prop Co.
The under leaseholders lease a flat from the head leaseholder.
The management leaseholder leases the communal areas from the head leaseholder so they have a legal right to enter the premises and insure them, they pay about £1 a year or from old times literally a pepper corn.
The terms of engagement is a management contract between the head leaseholder and their managing agent, setting out the managers duties.
I’m not sure what legal rights you might have to buy the freehold, head lease, etc. I think it depends on a lot of factors. There might be more info here:
http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=16
http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=11
Or you could give The Leasehold Advisory Service a ring.
Thank you for interesting clear information on ownership. I have always been confused reading the lease understanding who owns what!