Peverel Group Still Yet To Pay A Penny
By admin | May 16th, 2010 | Category: Past Articles | 31 commentsOn the 13 February 2010, TheTruthAboutSolitaire reported on City Height’s LVT Victory against Peverel Group, which awarded the families a draft amount of £187, 573.53 to be paid back to them by Peverel Group.
Three months on and we’ve received an update from City Height’s, which is listed below:-
Update from Fortune One (City Heights)
Since the Judgement in Feb 2010 the team leading the City Heights LVT report they have not yet received one penny from the Peverel Group in settlement of their case. Following the first judgement a dispute arose of Reserve Fund monies held on Trust that had been spent by Solitaire on items of repair which did not form part of the initial LVT case. The City Heights Team has had to go back to the LVT and second judgement was issued in April 2010 concerning these Reserve Funds. Aprroximately another £8k has been recovered after both sides were given the opportunity to make representations about the reasonableness of these items of expenditure.
At present the Solitaire Group has agreed to meet the City Heights team on Weds 2 June 2010 to agree the application of the decision to all the City Heights Apartment blocks from 2003 to 31 March 2010.
Strangely the Solitaire group tell City Heights they have reduced their Insurance Commission they take from the buildings insurance policies from 33.05% to 17.5% from April 2010; evidence requested to prove this has not been received at City Heights as yet.
Also another issue has come up. During the LVT hearing the Solitaire group stated Insurance Commissions taken in 2003 and 2004 were to the tune of 26.4% but since the hearing and following an investigation by the City Heights team it was establishes (with evidence) this was not accurate and the Insurance Commissions taken in 2003 and 2004 were 42.5%.
On a separate issue the whole of City Heights has commenced RTM action and the whole estate is due to move from Solitaire control on 1 Oct 2010 once and for all. Insurance Commissions will stop from this date!
We have also heard from another regular visitor to TTAS, who has informed us that they are also due to go to an LVT in the next few weeks and will be accompanied by members of the press.
They have told us that they have some very interesting information to share following the tribunal – so stay tuned!
It would also appear that Peverel Group have written to residents that are / were managed by County Estate Management, to advise that Stonedale Property Management have now been appointed to manage their estates.
The correspondence that we have received, is pretty much identical to the letters residents of Solitaire Properties received in March 2009, when we were advised that Peverel were being appointed to manage their properties.
Is it possible that Peverel are trying to distance themselves from all the negative online publicity that is targetted at ’County Estate Management’, ‘Solitaire Property Management’ and ’Peverel Property Management / Peverel Group’, by using ‘another’ alias of “Stonedale Property Management” – which so far, when searched on Google, doesn’t report too many complaints.
Peverel haven’t registered the domain ‘thetruthaboutstonedale’ as yet, but I’m sure it will be soon.
Maybe ‘Andy’ could explain why Peverel are now using another alias to replace another of it’s brands and do not just consolidate all of their estates to be managed by ‘Peverel Group’?
Hi all and thanks again and respect to the owners of this site !!
We have all just recieved a bill for between £90 and £110 – ref re-dec !
No forwarding letter or explanation and when I called the Solitaire office I was told in broken english to e mail in and ask ……….
Needless to say I truly am distressed by this company , our development is totally shabby , we had a visit by a senior property manager and a great e mail promising the earth , surprise nothing happened .
I understand they have a credit rating of 10/100 so hopefully will go bust soon and I’m writing to the MD of Barrats who built our flats to see if they know who they instruct when selling , or just don’t care – I really don’t want to lose my 75k deposit and liquidate the flat because of a cowboy outfit.
Has anyone successfully managed to get rid of them ??
and wonder if possible to sue for loss of money due to pathetic management , seems silly but apart from solitaire cowboys our flats are really nice , our bin shed door was painted ……. think kids did it !! I’m repainting it myself next weekend , just embarrasing !!
Had hi hopes when Ms French sent a report , needless to say nothing happened
Enough is enough !!!!!!!!!!
They can spend 25k min on a website , but make our flats look like sh=t – fed up of working hard and coming home to what looks like a council grade 2 estate !!
thanks for listening , who owns solitaire ??
kinds regards,
Paul
p.s. please do not e mail me ‘ANDY’ thats just patronising ok !!
I wish them luck. I hope they have started the formal recovery process.
Knowing our PMC I would not waste too much time. They may have
to appoint baliffs,if need to then I can recomend Marston.
Hi everyone,
There’s always two sides to any story so I felt it important that you heard back from me on our position regarding the City Heights LVT determination.
I posted on February 16th to say that the initial LVT application was for a service charge determination as to whether the service charges, charged by Solitaire Property Management, were reasonable for the 6 years from the initial year ending March 2004 through to the year end March 2009.
Just to make it clear, the Peverel Group was not responsible for any Solitaire development until mid 2008, when Peverel Property Management took over management responsibility for Solitaire Property Management, the managing agent arm of the original Solitaire Group plc. In accepting the findings of the tribunal we did so recognising that no Peverel Group employee had any involvement with the management of this development for all but the last 9 months of the 6 years that the Tribunal assessed.
Our focus in taking over the Solitaire business, as stated in previous posts, was to implement a number of fundamental management and operational changes.
In my February 16th posting I also said:
“We accept the findings of the tribunal as determined so far and are now calculating the apportionments due to property owners for their period of ownership. This will take 10-14 days to complete as our aim is to credit the relevant service charges to all property owners in March in line with the tribunal determination. “
As you will see from the account below, decisions taken by Mr N.H. & Mr G.P., the appointed representatives of City Heights residents, have delayed the credit of service charges back to all qualifying property owners.
So, in the interest of balance, I hope that I can explain why Admin’s headline doesn’t tell the whole story. Here is an update of events since the Tribunal’s determination:
February 12th 2010
*The initial City Heights LVT determination is received. The LVT decides to make a further secondary determination relating to the specific issue of Reserve Funds once both City Heights team and ourselves have had an opportunity to comment further on this area.
February 26th 2010
* Our Group Managing Director writes to Mr N.H. suggesting a meeting at which the reconciliation and apportionment of service charge credits (from the initial determination) to qualifying leaseholders could be agreed. Mr N.H. agrees to this meeting which is arranged to be held on Friday March 12th at 10.30am at a conference room in a Nottingham hotel that we organised and paid for in advance.
March 11th
* Mr N.H. confirmed his attendance by email at the meeting planned for the next day.
March 12th
* Members of our legal and accountancy team who were involved with the LVT case travelled up to Nottingham and accompanied the Group MD to meet Mr D.H, Mr G.P. and Mr J., who we understand is the solicitor of the City Heights team.
* Note that the team had travelled to Nottingham with the sole intention of constructively resolving all outstanding issues so that we could carry out our commitment to credit property owners in March as we had promised.
* Only 30 minutes before the meeting was to take place, we received an email from Mr N.H. & Mr G.P. saying that they had decided not to attend having taken legal advice.
* The team was not informed of the nature of the legal advice, which has resulted in further delays that now total 3 months since our acceptance of the tribunal’s initial findings.
* In the first City Heights LVT determination the issue of Reserve Funds was not concluded by the Tribunal, who confirmed that they would make a separate determination within 28 days.
* Our Group MD wrote to Mr N.H. on the afternoon of March 12th saying how disappointed we were with the ‘no show’ of the City Heights team. He also stated that as far as we were concerned the Reserve Funds issue would make no difference to our agreeing the credit repayments to property owners from the first determination. Unfortunately, the City Heights team took a contrary view.
March 17th
* The head of our legal team made an offer to Mr N.H. & the City Heights team of a mediation service so as to resolve and agree the credit of relevant service charges to move matters forward. Mr N.H. confirmed that he would agree to mediation but only after receipt of the second LVT determination on the Reserve Funds.
March 25th
* In an email to Mr N.H. we offered to pay all mediation and meeting venue costs in our efforts to convince the City Heights team that our intentions are purely to meet the commitment made back in mid February.
April 28th
* The Tribunal’s determination in relation to Reserve Funds is received. (Note the recoverable sum is, in comparison to the original service charge determination, a far smaller amount and less than quoted by Admin in his posting.)
May 4th
* The head of Peverel Property Management’s legal team emails Mr N.H. and asks if he would still like to meet with a mediator as well or whether City Heights representatives would prefer just to meet the original Peverel team who travelled to see them unsuccessfully on March 12th. In his response, Mr N.H. confirms that he is happy to meet our team without a mediator present.
May 10th
* The meeting is scheduled and agreed by both parties for Wednesday June 2nd at 10.30am.
I hope that this gives our side of the story for everyone to see how hard we have tried to resolve matters in an amicable, efficient and professional manner.
Admin is incorrect in referring to the ‘’Solitaire Group” – it no longer exists.
Solitaire Property Management ceased to manage the City Heights development on 1st April 2010. The decision to transfer the management of the development was instructed by the Freeholder, in agreement with Solitaire. The consultation process that resulted in the appointment of a new managing agent, in accordance with Landlord & Tenant Act legislation, took place in March. The Freeholder is responsible for commenting on historical insurance issues.
Finally Admin comments on a development that is now managed by Stonedale Property Management which is a separate business within the Peverel Property Management division. Stonedale was founded in 1995 and it specialises in exclusive developments – primarily in Docklands and Thameside areas of London.
Given the legacy problems of Solitaire and County Estate Management – as we openly described in the letter to fellow ARMA members earlier this year – it was determined that we could best deliver the necessary service standards through Stonedale for selected County developments in these areas of London & Kent.
Many thanks. As always, I welcome your feedback.
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
Andy, Andy, Andy! It’s good to see that the spin continues to come from Solitaire / Peverel / CBG! (It’s at least ‘something’ we can rely on from you consistently!) You must be quite dizzy by now!
Indeed if you are still the Same ‘Andy’ that initially started responding to posts on this web site – as you have decided to remain anonymous even as the ‘official’ representation of Peverel on this web site how are we to know if indeed there have not been many “Andy’s” that may have come and gone in all this time! Believe me if I was doing your job then I would have left a long time ago!
Re. the City Heights Meeting on 12th Mar to agree “reconciliation and apportionment of service charge credits (from the initial determination) to qualifying leaseholders…” if this was to be such an informal meeting then why did you need the full weight of your legal and accountancy teams to be there? Surely the determination had been made and the terms already agreed then why the need for such a ‘big’ presence at a relatively informal meeting? To be honest I can fully understand Mr N.H. & Mr G.P. position on legal advice not to attend as I’m sure that YOUR team would still be looking for points to exploit from them even though the decision had already been made.
I can’t be bothered wasting MORE time responding to you on this matter as I’m sure you’d be able to ‘weasel out’ without giving any concrete answers to any questions!
And also how about this for you to deal with: On 4th May I tried calling Solitaire ‘Customer Services’ number – after 10mins on hold I hung up (my policy on call waiting!) I then emailed Customer Services and my PM (H.D.) to notify them and her of a broken boundary fence on our Development that was not only a Security Issue but Health and Safety one too as it could allow anyone into the supposedly secure Development and also there were nails sticking out of the fence posts that pple could easily have injured themselves on. I was emailed by my PM that very day saying that Customer Services would sort this all out. As this was a VERY SIMPLE matter for a ‘property management’ Company to deal with then I thought it would be quite easily resolved.
Today (18 Mar) 2 weeks later literally NOTHING has been done about it. Further vandalism of the fence has occured and destroyed the broken portion of the fence, that could previously have been easily repaired but would now need to be replaced completely. Also this weekend my car window was smashed, luckily nothing of value was left in the car but the mess, distress, expense and disruption that this has caused has been immeasurable. Now I can’t say for 100% that it was due to the fence being broken or not but I don’t think it’s beyond the realms of co-incidence!? Do you? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT????? Also the additional cost of REPLACING the fence rather than the initial requirement to repair it should be met from Solitaire’s coffers as it’s due to your lack of any action that this happened. Also should I send you the bill for the car window replacement too and what about my time in having to sort it all out? Can I send you the bill for that too? Appreciate your response…
PS I do hope I get one of your Solitaire Surveys!? Or will your ‘random’ selection process exclude pple who post on this site?
Welcome to the club Paul.
All your problems are the exact same as mine, and most other estates ‘managed’ by Peveral / Solitaire.
I wouldn’t mind a 2nd grade council estate level of service actually, that would be an improvement on none at all, and it wouldn’t cost a fortune every 6 months either.
re: Andy’s explanation – simply assume the opposite of whatever he has written is the truth, and you will be closer to understanding what is going on.
I actually think Andy has right on his side when he said their are two sides to every story. Their is the Peverel version and then their is the truth!
The Truth is Solitaire was taken over a year ago by CBG and Andy words will be quite plausible to the third Party to convince.
There is another truth that Millennium Drive is managed by OM/Peverel since 1998. Is it not true CBG took over in 2007 when my problems started?
Why Andy I have been treated so badly????
Is it because I am a women or Asian or old or could it another reason which is annoying the hierarchy??????
Am I not worthy enough for you to write directly and to apologise for making liable allegations you cannot support??????
One may say it is bulling, harassment…….?
I will present in my next posting of truth about Revival Tests/reports/certificates. My settlement is reduced due to Revival certificates/reports and my complaints are simply dismissed. There is no way I can sell my flat in the open market or tendering because I have to tell the truth otherwise I will be held liable for selling my property on false pretence.
Andy tell me what to do and where are the improvements that helps this old lady? I will carry on writing till your Company makes mends
Nicky’s right! Solitaire is acting like a ‘bully’ – taking our money and doing nothing for it! Just like a bully at school would threaten you and take your dinner money (Solitaire just choose to use Solicitors and Bailiffs for their ‘muscle’)
‘Andy’ I hope you liked my email cc’d to you today? Interesting that my PM, when she emailed me yesterday, said “Further to your posting on the TAS website, I have been asked to respond to you directly…” – I wonder who asked her to respond to me directly? Was it you? Was it Mr. Billson? Or was it Mr. Middleburgh? Just who make up the ‘Senior Solitaire Team’ that you keep refereeing to? Why don’t you let PMs respond to ‘customers’ on this site as that is where the problems have been raised?
The point is that Property Managers should not need to be asked (ordered…???) to respond directly to us when we post comments on this website.
Really we shouldn’t need to be posting on this website at all. It’s only because of poor service that we feel the need to post on here. It’s due to poor service that this website even exists in the first place – “Andy”, Mr. Billson, Mr. Middleburgh and whoever else is pulling the strings at Solitaire / Peverel / CBG need to bear this in mind…..
Property Managers should be dealing with issues on their respective developments automatically, without somebody higher up the food chain having to kick them into action, following negative comments posted on this website. But despite Peverel having owned Solitaire for well over a year now, the old habits still exist, and show little sign of being eradicated…..
And so it was ever thus…..
It’s like Peverel are pointing the finger at the ‘old’ Solitaire saying “oh how bad things ‘used’ to be!” in an attempt to justify things and that they’ve done so many wonderful things to turn this around (…new computer systems, field based PMs, closing regional offices, new Customer Services number, CareLine (sister company!) etc. etc.) where as in fact it’s the total polar opposite. ‘Old’ Solitaire was bad but NEW Solitaire under Peverel / CBG is EVEN WORSE! My PM used to be there under old Solitaire too and I’m not saying that everything was hunky dory then but after a bit of pushing things would get done,… eventually (we were of course still paying over the odds for this ‘service’!) Now under NEW Solitaire it’s even worse, something as simple as repairing a fence (my latest saga with them!) needs, phone calls (unanswered), emails, and over 2 weeks to sort out (and then only when highlighted on this site!) To be honest though I don’t think we can blame the PMs entirely? If Solitaire / ‘Andy’ make us ‘customers’ jump through so many hoops to get anything done then can you imagine the level of internal bureaucracy that PMs must have to undergo ‘back at base’ to get anything done!? Still though, as I said, this does not detract of the exorbitant fess we pay for the level of service we receive and also for the existence of this site, which I am thankful for EVERYDAY, to help highlight our problems and to hopefully get something done about them!
PS I’m NOT surprised that Solitaire s-t-i-l-l haven’t paid out on the City Heights LVT (regardless of how they are trying to ‘spin’ their way out of it!) Making a £187, 573.53 payback dependent on a second judgement concerning Reserve Funds (that had to be taken to ANOTHER LVT!) and whos value is significantly less at around £8k is just ridiculous! Are Solitaire going to be paying interest on the £187k since the LVT decision date???
Sorry, Andy I said on 19th May 2010 that the next posting would be about Revival. I am having problem as one of the link of the PDF files I received keep opening a box that it may contain virus and only open if one knows the source. I am a lay person so trying to work out what to do so the file is safe so others feel confident to open.
You may be interested to know what is taking place with my court claim in reference to my ex solicitor and his firm. As per his information your Company is his Management Company.
Do you think there is a conflict of interst?????
Do you know why a judge will pass his judgment before the court hearing?????
Here is the link I posted today.
http://www.thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk/2009/10/07/peverels-involvmen-within-arma/comment-page-1/#comment-18117
Admin I have been trying to be truthful with my posting above.
As the judgement has been passed, therefore, in my opinion there is no problem publishing the court papers and its contents.
Any problems feel free to do what is best to protect yourself and the site.
Thank you
In Response to the Andy’s comments about the City Heights case……
The reason the City Heights Team did not meet Peverel for the planed meeting in March was the disclosures made just the day before (after 5pm) about what had exactly been spent from the City Heights Reserves was so alarming the team wanted to try and get the 1st initial judgement amended to lower even further the amount of management fees still allowed to Solitaire. It is believed the Reserve expenditure was hidden during the main LVT so it could not be used to by the LVT to punish the Solitaire group further.
In any case the LVT are weak and in the second judgement for City Heights refused to revisit the agrred 50% refund of management fees for all 6 blocks at City Heights.
READ THIS!!!!! When you do an LVT remind the panel not to simply club all repetative issues together and make a decision based on all years (like City Heights 2003-2009 = 50%) tell the panel to treat every year individually as some yaers are far far worse than the next. Argue that by simply clumping all years together is not reasonable and does not take into account individual evidence for each year!!!
The night before the Solitaire v City Heights Team meeting they disclosed lots of information about where missing reserve funds were. This was clearly a tactic as the City Heights Team we due to discuss missing reserves at the meeting the next morning. It is only fair the City Heights Team have time to digest the information but Solitaire had hoped they would just turn up, unprepared and agree anything.
During the LVT first case which started on Dec 6 the Solitaire Group only disclosed the majority of the accounts with the previous 36 hours!!!!! That’s after the intial application was laid two years prior and the accounts were suppose to be submitted 9 months before!!! I know personally that Mr H of the City Heights LVT TEam stayed up and work solid at his desk for 36 hours straight prior to the first day of the LVT as he knew these last minute disclosures needed to be worked through! Mr H is an amazing guy and does not take a penny for anything he does. He is simply one of those very rare people who would fight to the death for what is right, true and fair. Despite Solitaire leaving us on 31/03/10 i know the whole City Heights Team are still fighting these parasites to get back what we should never have paid. Never mind interest on the late £200k Solitaire owe City Heights what about interest on the £200k which should never have been paid in the first place. City Heights goes RTM on 01/10/10 and everyone cannot wait. Even after our brilliant LVT the Peverel Group continue to scam us through their Insurance Commissions, something the law cannot stop. What a sad state of affairs. I praise Mr P and Mr H as without them my property would have been worthless and i would have broken down before now!!!!
Reading these 2 reports of very late disclosure of vital information reminds me of an LVT case from last autumn involving one of the Leasehold Retirement Homes. Looks like a deliberate tactic.
Help requested please!
I returned from County Court yesterday having won a situation in which Solitaire has tried to obtain a C.C.J. for nonpayment of charges and I had convinced the District Judge without too much difficulty, through evidence of service deficiencies etc, that the case need be referred to LVA – good news.
However, will I be able to obtain a determination to cover all of the time that we had the misfortune to have Solitaire as the PMC and hence gain a determination ideally directing compensation for the whole period, or will I only be able to gain a determination in relation to the monies they claim are outstanding?
I did not counter claim against Solitaire in the first instance and if I had then the situation in regard to the scope of any anticipated determination would be clear – I suppose?
Does anyone know what I need to do to get a determination extending for the whole term of Solitaires tenure (10years) – ideally at the same LVT hearing?
Any assistance will be most gratefully received.
We did manage however to rid ourselves of these despicable people as of 01/05/2010 – needless to say the incoming PMC appears to be receiving nothing but hassle and difficulties in terms of handover, to an extent that exceeds Solitaire’s usual anticipated incompetence and lack of cooperation.
Many thanks
Well done SaxonHero
Long time ago, I did defend an unfair case brought against me by a letting agent. Just like you I did not put counter claim. I remember getting bashing ( real telling off just like you get from JUDGE JUDY on TV, PLS do consider to watch as it helps to know how the decisions are made )form the judge for not doing so as he could not award me anything because it was not listed. I tried to verbally add on which was not accepted.
I defended another case where I did not put a counter claim but later tried to add on prior to the court case with evidences which are submitted 14 days before the case. The judge simply ignored it and did not award anything even though I won the case.
In my experience the judge reads the first claim and deference statements and only focus on that. I think LVT will do the same. I would say write to LVT and see if they let you submit counter claim now or just submit counter claim and request if they accept it.
As we are all lay person but it does give the window to see how the forms are filled under the tag below under my entry dated 22 may 2010 as info.
http://www.thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk/2009/10/07/peverels-involvmen-within-arma/comment-page-1/#comment-18117
I think we need to learn how to fight CCJ or put one of our own claims in a methodical and proper manner so we are on the winning side.
I welcome Worth idea to fight as a team.
My proposals are:
1. Write down all the issues we have.
2. Chunk them in individually in a small package so it easy for the judge to handle and under stand.
Judge only interprets and follows the set and written law based on old
cases.
Our job is to present our cases using the same word as written in the law and in the manner so the judge can tie up and make his judgment on. That is what our PMC have experienced in doing so and winning. I am confident we can break the camel back.
3. Only pick where we have 100% back up to support.
4. Find Judge in the country who is known for honesty and integrity.
5. Fight one issue per claim which we can back up fully with evidences.
6. Just like City Heights we need to win and set precedence and then rest can follow.
7. We need a group of people with various skills so they can be used to bring changes.
8. Need one solicitor who is progressive and have vision and skills to look beyond the box into the unknown to make a reality. Other words someone like me who has no knowledge how to get where I need to be but have full confidence and expectancy that I will achieve what I desire.
Dawn is here for change
Let us embrace it
Walk the path leading directly to heaven
Andy – when organising these meetings did you with City Heights and the Regional Manager did as you did in the case of our development – which was to make disparaging remarks about members of our community, that you then claimed were ccd to us in error, meaning that your regional manager, FB, had to issue a withdrawal via email upon her return from holiday – is that standard behavior? Or did the City Heights have another reason for not wishing to attend the meeting with you – perhaps you refused to allow them to take minutes or any form of a record of the meeting – as you did with us – was that the case? Or perhaps you stated that you would dictate the agenda – as you did with us – and any items not on “your” agenda would not be discussed …
So, from David Miles’ comment above, it seems that when a face-to-face meeting with Solitaire can be organised, it is actually a one-sided affair. Solitaire set the “agenda” and don’t allow anything else to be discussed, and they don’t allow minutes to be taken.
David – how did they stop you taking minutes / notes? Surely if you produce a pad of paper & start taking notes, what can they do? Or do they threaten to stop the meeting if you make notes / take minutes…???
That all seems very convenient, with no recorded version of the meeting, meaning that there is no come-back on Solitaire if undertakings given verbally in the meeting are not followed through. That might be my cynical view of why they refuse to allow meetings to be minuted, but I’m sure I’m not alone in this view….. Why else would they refuse to allow minutes to be taken…??? Perhaps “Andy” can confirm why this is?
In my experience, any party in a meeting who refuses to have the meeting minuted for future reference should immediately be viewed with suspicion, and not trusted…..
And I expect the reported incident of disparaging remarks being copied to residents “in error” will be another one of the regular “administrative errors” that seem to be common-place within Solitaire.
Seems to me that bully-boy tactics are alive & well within Solitaire. The format of face-to-face meetings is that Solitaire call the tune, and won’t play ball if the opposing side try to deviate from the regimented path dictated by Solitaire. They’ll do it their way, or not at all.
We asked to either record the meeting or to take our own meeting minutes – Andy told us in an email that Solitaire would take the minutes and circulate then we would be able to approve them – when this has occurred in the past with CF, the minutes bore no resemblance to the meeting that took place whatsoever … your \cynical\ view is exactly the same as mine … why else disallow records to be kept?
As for the disparaging remarks, what occurred was a conversation between Andy and FB (our regional manager) who took it upon themselves to make comments about myself and another resident – without checking who was on the CC list – as a result we saw the comments made – the only apology received to date was that we should not have seen the comments – when I suggested that the comments should not have been made in the first place, they did not agree, so one assumes that bad-mouthing residents behind their backs is acceptable behaviour in the eyes of Solitaire
All this resulted in an Open Letter that was sent to a large number of parties – listing our complaints about Solitaire – this was sent over 2 weeks ago – and no response has been received – not that that really surprises me to be honest – some of the questions may have required a little bit of honesty from Solitaire and that as we all know is asking too much
Thanks David. Presumably if you have any further meetings you will insist on minuting them yourself, as Solitaire’s minutes are only fit for an episode of Jackanory…???
Your further comments re. the disparaging remarks are remarkable. Instead of admitting that the comments should never have been made, they instead say you should not have received them (which I suppose is true). But it’s the implication that whilst they are doing such a sh1te job – which leads to our complaints – all they seem fit to do is to slag us off (and seem to think that this is acceptable…), supposedly in private – except when the subjects of the comments then get copied in…… The notion of actually getting their house in order and doing what they are supposed to do – i.e. manage & maintain our developments – seems to be completely beyond them…..
As a followup to this, it appears that if you decline the offer of a meeting on OM or Solitaire’s terms only and then write an open letter, including Andy and various other senior members of OM/Solitaire, after suggesting this as an idea to Andy and the Regional Manager FB; Andy nor FB bother replying to any emails for the residents of the development at all, do not reply to the open letter, refuse to return a phonecall from the local Liberal Democrat and generally pull the shutters down on anything to do with our development at all – bar issuing threatening letters about non-payment of service charges.
So it appear that Andy et al are the bunch of gutless fools that we thought and when challenged to actually provide some answers are incapable of doing so – and would rather batten down the hatches than admit that they were/are in the wrong.
I would invite Andy to comment but I guess he will not due to knowing that they have been caught out lying.
We did not ask too many awkward questions for a normal company, just ones along the lines of “why are you charging 50% commission rates on the insurance for the development, as substanciated by the documentation that you sent us previously?” or “why are their no fire and health and safety certificates displayed even though this is a legal requirement?” – obviously these are a little bit too close to the truth for OM and there is no reply that can be made that is even slightly credible
I still think we should org anise a meeting in the Midlands for all who want to, to attend. Andy with Solitaires complete focus on Customer care and their interest in the concerns of clients, I am sure you would be happy to organize a venue and lay on some tea and biscuits wouldn’t you? We could then have a Q&A session from the floor in two sections – supplied questions and then general questions. It would all be controlled and orderly and the admin (minutes etc) I would be happy to do. This is what i do with my clients and is fairly standard practice when you want to correct errors in perception and show the truth and the way forward. September is generally a quite month with holidays out of the way – so how about it. We could even invite the press and you could come out of it with some great PR? In fact why not set it up properly in conjunction with TTAS and we could have some guest speakers, politicians etc?
Nice suggestion Petition – will be eager to see Andy’s – obviously positive – response on this and his proposal for a date and venue
It’s been reported recently on here (see comment above from David Miles, 28th May @ 10.10pm) that meetings with Solitaire are somewhat one-sided, with Solitaire (apparently) dictating the agenda & not allowing anything else to be discussed, and not allowing minutes to be taken (and when they “produce” their own minutes, they bear no resemblance to what actually occured in the meeting…).
So, whilst I support the idea of a large meeting (and would certainly want to attend – Villa Park has previously been suggested as a venue….) I do feel that should Solitaire be prepared to face up – which I think is highly unlikely – they would try to dictate the running of the meeting, and would therefore set the agenda, and refuse to discuss anything “off agenda”. But perhaps somebody could minute the meeting (and/or even record it), as how would they stop everybody from taking notes…???
If Solitaire feel that they are making progress & heading in the right direction (somewhat disputed by the rest of us…), then they should agree to a large meeting as is suggested. I agree also about the press being invited – after all, if they were to deny this, then suspicions would be raised.
So, “Andy”, talk to the powers-that-be, and let’s get something arranged. We await your proposals for venues & dates.
come on Andy – if not one big one why not say 3 or 4 regional meetings. With everybody being happy with the service these days apart from posters on TTAS, it would be like a big love-in with everybody pointing at the people from TTAS and then you could rightly dismiss us all in one fell swoop
I regularly get the impression that Solitaire & co already have dismissed us TTAS regulars….. They’re certainly very good at ignoring us – and the issues we continue to report. But they are very good at sending out service charge invoices – my next one is now due…..
“Andy” – I’m still awaiting a reply from CL / MP / DG in connection with the numerous un-resolved (many of which are long-running) maintenance issues at my development. Or might I find a letter when I get home tonight…??? I’m guessing I won’t…..
Useless.
I agree that Peverel/Solitaire words cannot be trusted as they shift and change. I have of over years of that. Only a small part is on the line.
Just read below Revival contractor did not let me record which in my opinion was harassment.
http://www.thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk/2009/12/11/the-story-of-nicky-vogg/
Just read number 1 and 2 that gives the indication:
http://www.thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk/2009/09/18/the-times-newspaper-coverage/
I even got in writing from ED or is it DE ( too long ago and that is what stress and loss has done to me) ordering not to record. My answer was then only send those people who are willing to be recorded.
Andy, meeting is an excellent idea as it will prove there are improvements. If your directors have no problems of recording or asking questions as the Company is the truth, the whole truth nothing but the truth so we all can sleep in peace.
I will be the first one give glowing report and be proud to present your Company sadly there are the same people doing the same job with tunnel vision.
Prove me wrong , is the company up for a challenge???????
Dear City Heights,
I have tried to follow your thread as far back as possible but you will appreciate, the nature of a forum such as this makes it quite a difficult read. I wonder if one of you would give me a call as I believe that we may be able to assist you in driving home the original LVT Judgement.
Worst case, we offer a genuine No win No Fee litigative product which tends to have a real impact when it comes to enforcement.
If you have managed to resolve in the mean time then well done you.
Our advice is free, I assure you that our tricky minds can rival those of CBG and all.
Kind regards,
James Butler Esq.