E&M Proposal to Strike Off
By admin | April 28th, 2010 | Category: Past Articles | 66 commentsIt’s come to our attention that yesterday Estates & Management Ltd (Reg No: 03244100) had their Companies House listing changed and there is a proposal to strike off the company (screenshot below taken this morning)
We are also in receipt of the GAZ1 document entry that details that the Registrar of Companies gives notice of three months, that the company will be struck off and dissolved! (This document is freely available for you to purchase from Companies House)
Click here for the GAZ1 Document
It’s possible that this proposal is because the accounts for E&M are overdue for submission to Companies House and were due on the 31 October 2009 – over 6 months ago.
At present we are not aware of the reason for this proposal, but there must be an underlying reason why 1) accounts haven’t been submitted and 2) If E&M is proposed to be struck off and dissolved suggests something a lot more serious.
E&M have been given 3 Months notice that this will happen and it’s likely that E&M will get this proposal removed, but we thought we’d publish it, especially as many contributors have raised concerns about what ‘may’ happen if E&M, Peverel, Solitaire, CBG were to go out of business.
What would happen if E&M are struck off? Would another CBG company buy up the freeholds and take over? Would an independent company finally have the opportunity to buy the freeholds?
Bushbrother,
Buy a copy of the “freehold title” from http://www.landregistry.gov.uk to check name of current freeholder. When you enter your post code, you will be offered choice of “freehold title” or “leasehold title” which is yr own property.
Is your lease a 2 party ( Lessor and Lessee ) or 3 way party ( Lessor, Lessee and Management Company ? If this applies to you, what is the name of the Management Co. ? Does it say OM Property Management? If not you can ask for a copy of the appointment letter to confirm OMP is entitle to collect ground rent.
Check if previous ground rents demands show name of freeholder and address for serving legal Notices ( should info be shown on all ground rent demands)
This is quite a useful resource:
http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=27060
Specifically for ground rent demands see COMMONHOLD AND LEASEHOLD REFORM ACT 2002 Section 166 (which is observed in post number #39 on page 4 of the above link)
Hope that helps?
Bruce – not sure I understood your question, please don’t snap !
The lessor/freeholder used to be OM Limited and became Peverel Properties Ltd. The Manager written into the lease is OM Management Services Ltd which became Peverel OM Ltd and now OM Property Management.
Ground rent demands became separate on 1 Mar 2007, but still payable to Peverel OM Ltd (the Manager). We were then written to on 30 November 2007 stating OM Limited had appointed Estates and Management Limited to administer its interest – this was not a transfer of title, just appointing E&M to collect ground rents. In the same letter it announced OM Limited had sold its freehold interest to Peverel Properties Ltd, who had been an associated company for more than two years so the tenants’ rights of first refusal did not apply.
I did not understand this at the time, and still don’t. But I do know E&M are not the freeholder/lessor, they just collect rents.
Charles Johnson,
I found this report on the FT website :
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2007/06/08/5071/vincent-tchenguiz-breaks-new-ground/
Your freeholder and my freeholder ( both UK Peverel subsidiaries) were owned by Holiday Retirement Company ( US company) which sold “UK Peverel Group” to Consensus Business Group in June 2008.
The freeholds belonging to UK Peverel Group were transfered to a company called Peverel Properties Ltd owned by Consensus Business Group . There is obviously a CHANGE in control of the Group in June 2008 and to claim they ( “Peverel Group companies” before June 2008 and “Peverel Properties Ltd” ) are “associated comapnies” for over 2 years is just NOT TRUE.
You will note that this June 2008 FT report mentions “Merrill Lynch” as providing the finance . Please , can you buy a full copy of the freehold Title from “Land Registry” to check transfer date and identify the name of finance company ( Merrill Lynch ?)
Hey Guys – All of you – Don’t take what E&M tell you as true.
Check your freehold title and find out which company is the freeholder of your block and if Merrill Lynch or Royal Bank of Scotland is financing the purchase .
Bruce – now I think I understand you. Peverel Properties Ltd are not or were not an associated company, it is just a trick that they have used the Peverel name when in fact it is a new CBG company and they were unrelated to OM Limited/the Peverel Group.
So the letter in November 2007 stating I did not have right of first refusal was a lie ? If I can confirm the facts using the freehold title, this could give me (and the others on my estate) the right to acquire the freehold. I wonder if that also gives me the opportunity to get rid of the estate Manager who are written into the lease.
Is the date June 2008 significant, is there a time limit ?
Perhaps I should write to Peverel asap (? who though ?) challenging the transfer of title to PPL and asserting my right to buy.
However, on further reading, I would be surprised if Peverel have made a mistake here, since it would be a criminal offence. I suspect OM Ltd and PP Ltd were indeed associated companies for 2 years, if necessary this could be checked. It might be useful to check the actual title and freehold tranfser too.
The tenant’s right of first refusal RFR only applies to a transfer of title, headlease or other interest by the immediate landlord. The fact that CBG bought the parent company Peverel Group doesn’t create a RFR situation. It would in any case only apply to a block and not the whole estate.
Whether or not an RFR situation occurs, a block of flats is entitled to acquire the freehold under Right To Buy RTB legislation. So if we wanted to buy the freehold we could do it even without RFR. If would only be interested if we could buy up the whole estate and get rid of Peverel/CBG completely.
The register shows Capita Trust as “proprietor for the time being” 30 Nov 07, and PPL as the new proprietor 12 Feb 08, with a restriction in favour of Capita Trust added on 19 Feb 08.
Not sure I fully understand that, but it sounds like Capita Trust financed the deal for PPL to transfer the freehold title from OM Ltd.
Don’t write to Peverel yet as they may tell you a load lies.
Best to check all the facts relating to the transfer of Nov 07 and then consult a expert leasehold solicitor. There clearly has been a transfer of freehold title from old freeholder (OM Peverel?) to Capita Trust ( is the address for Capita in Beckenham ??? – I know there is a “Capita Trust” which acts as Registrars for many listed companies ). Now why is this company lending to Consensus Business Group ?
Does your freehold title cover just one block or for whole estate ? It should list out all the leasehold units included under the title. Does the freehold title map show the “estate” includes garden around the building up to the boundary fences ? I ask because I know some freeholds can be just the footprint land area under the building and the garden area is owned by another company.
Bruce and Charles Johnson,
Please don’t build up your hopes in this direction.
My wife and I bought our flat around the same time as Matt from a large national builder. On our visit to the company to sign the papers the sales director told us that it had not been decided but we would ‘probably’ be able to buy the freehold and therefore control the managing agent. When the solicitor was nearly finished with the conveyance she told us that OM owned the freehold and had appointed itself manager. I have a letter from the developer, which I knew to be meaningless at the time, that we would have right of refusal if OM wished to sell the freehold.
It was meaningless because OM did not wish to sell the freehold but sell itself. The whole company was bought by Peverel. A few years later the Tchenguiz Family Trust bought Peverel. Exactly as Charles Johnson has said in Feb 2008 the freehold of our building was transferred from OM to PP which is a related company and had been so for many years.
With respect to Capita. This did not lend money to Peverel but is the Trustee for the Mortgage Holders, which I think is the Bank of Scotland-not the Royal Bank of Scotland.
If we go back quite a long time in order to privatise state industries Mrs Thatcher changed the Companies Act to allow companies to finance its own buyer. Manchester United is the best example where the Glazers bought the club and used the shares as security for the loans. ManU suddenly went from a cash rich club to one with massive debts. ‘Andy’ does not like us talking about this but this is exactly how the Tchenguiz Family Trust bought Peverel.
On April 28 Matt made a few calculations about how much the freeholds were worth. He way understated things. In 2007 Peverel Properties valued its freeholds (technically known as Reversionary Interests) as worth £898 million. No I haven’t mistyped this. Since then it has lowered the value to £843 million.
But the problem is that in order to finance the purchase the Tchenguiz Family Trust etc had to borrow £969 million. This consists of a large mortgage from Bank of Scotland and other bonds. A lot has happened in the financial markets since 2008. The man (idiot?) who lent the money is, needless to say, no longer at BoS and the bank itself was rescued by Lloyds in an act of greedy carelessness. We all own Lloyds now although we are making a profit on our investment.
PP collects just over £10 million in ground rents but has to pay substantially more than this in interest. It is not possible to really say the exact amount as there are lots of inter-group loans to confuse us poor souls and if I told you a wrong number Andy has threatened to sue me.
The mortgage of £343 million is repayable in a few years and I’m sure its new owners, you and me, will to quote Mrs Thatcher ‘want our money back’. Even if the mortgage is renewed the interest rate will be substantially higher.
Bottom line: the property was transferred to PP legally and there is nothing you can do about it.
I am very thankful for your info from Bruce, Neil, Charles plus others.
DE, (the Head of Legal Department and Company Secretary ? ) did try with my story but did not succeed. I will remove any word that is offending them immediately but they must tell me in writing. The trick is to use the words such as :
I feel
In my opinion
Probably
Then we can express ourselves as they are not the truth but our assumptions, feeling etc. The court only deals with the truth.
I hope I am not offending you Neil by listing below as an example. Please do not threaten me to sue as I will beg admin to remove the offending statements immediately and ask your forgiveness.
Neil Statement:
But the problem is that in order to finance the purchase the Tchenguiz Family Trust etc had to borrow £969 million….
Nicky Suggestion:
In my opinion, in order to finance the purchase the Tchenguiz Family Trust etc had to borrow £969 million….
I hope that give anyone more freedom to express.
Solitaire/Peverel reported to Watchdog today.
Please all try and do the same
Nicky, Jon,
DE, DH is Head of Accounting, the person who is responsible for the accounts being ‘created’ on time for Peverel,Solitaire, Consort etc…..
She tries but is not very good, well poor lady, she is as good as the people who support her.
A few months ago I wanted to know how we are allocated our accountants at City Heights, I suspected they pay Peverel / CBG a fee for the work from our charges. De, Peverel / CBG did not confirm or deny this.
Imagine if Peverel / CBG got £40 fee for every account they passed to an accountancy firm? Quite a few thousands…….
I have informed watchdog and one of the papers as well.
Neil,
WOW , you are very knowledgeable about the Capita as “Trustee” of a “Loan”. Where is all this information held or accessible ?
My understanding about the RFR under the L&T Act 1987 , it applies if your immediate freehold transfers the freehold to another party which is not a related company for atleast prior 2 years. And CBG and Peverel were NOT related prior to June 2008.
According to the FT report which I ref’d in message to Charles Johnson, the sale of Peverel to CBG was done in June 2008 so we may have chance to claim RFR . But the sequence of events need to be written down and sent to local MP to formally raise the big question to Housing Minister.
Both Lloyds and Capita are listed companies and REGULATED by the FSA. We can start writing letters through our MPs to FSA giving details about the extortion/leasehold abuse we are all facing from CBG and to lodge objection to banks to lending such huge amount to unscrupulous BVI companies which engage the likes of E&M to make extortionate demands. Banks are supposed to do “Customer Due Diligence” and know their customers real business before offering loans under the Money Laundering Act 2007 ?.
As I am working away from home now , I cannot check my papers. But I vaguely remember seeing in footnotes of the annual accounts of Peverel Properties Ltd, mention of finance loan of approx 890 Mil pounds from Capita Trust but I was very puzzled how Capita can produce such a huge sum.
The sub-prime mortgages sold in USA were securitised and sold on others and this led to major failures in the banking industry . I wonder if this particular loan ( which relies on extortion of leaseholders ) has been securitised and sold on ???
So Guys – keep going and dig up the facts about extortion /lease abuse at your block . We all have a little bit of the jigsaw puzzle and by pooling the information we can expose “the truth about Solitaire” and Peverel / CBG.
With reference to my earlier comment (7th comment on this post) that RTM companies are subject to the same rules, I have discovered (to my dismay) that a RTM company for a block on my site received a notification on 16th March of proposal to be stuck off!
One can not be too vigilent in the leasehold world we inhabit.
I just checked the listing of E&M (Co.No. 03244100) at Companies House website ( http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk ) and the “proposal to strike off” has been removed and now shows “Status” as “Active”.
In 1978, I bought my first leasehold flat in London – intended part buy/part rent. Two years before in 1976, 48 prospective first time buyers had deposits down, while the Victorian houses were being refurbished by a housing association. But very close to the end of the 2 years the builders and the housing association went bust and all the prospective owners were in real danger of losing their deposits and their homes. I had the story published in the Kensington Times which resulted in a few of the prospective owners calling a meeting in the Town Hall where we were all invited and agreed to take over the freehold (for free!) and the management ourselves. The moral of this story is if the freeholder goes bust – great – then take it over yourselves. Also, a landlord cannot legally sell a freehold on without first issuing an ‘Offer Notice’ to all the Lessees with the right to buy first, and if the landlord does not comply with the law, it is a criminal offence with a fine of £5,000.