Grim Update From Fortune One (City Heights)
By admin | June 28th, 2010 | Category: Past Articles | 48 commentsIt’s the morning after England were dumped embarrassingly out of the World Cup by the Germans – things can’t get any worse surely?
Well for the residents of ‘Fortune One’ or ‘City Heights, Nottingham’ it appears that it can!
Over the weekend we were contacted by City Heights to bring us up to speed with developments and despite the victory to replace Solitaire Property Management, it appears that Consensus Business Group of companies are still able to influence proceedings.
Here’s the updates as quoted by City Heights:-
Solitaire’s Revenge against City Heights, Nottingham (Fortune One) has sparked ’All Out WAR!’
City Heights reports that Solitaire have still not paid a single penny of the over £200k refund due to City Heights owners! The latest twist is a dispute over the lease start dates for each of the 165 properties as Peverels legal team supplied a list of lease start dates which did not match owners records. Peverel were asked by the City Heights owners legal team, so we are told, why they were not using information from the ‘Ground Rent Register’ as the obvious best source of information and were told the records were not fully available…………. meaning they have failed to keep proper records! (Breach of the companies Act???? Ummmm). Peverel have asked every owner who disputes the lease start date to provide written evidence in the form of legal documents! At present 68 of the 165 owners claim the date Peverel state they are going to use to calculate their apportionment of the refund is wrong. What a mess! The resident at City Heights states deadlines and agreements made by Peverel’s legal team for work they promised to do, are being blatently breached as they stall to make payments!
If things could not get any worse…. the current NEW property manager at City Heights [Co Name Removed at their request] (installed by Solitaire) has turned on leaseholders and under the instruction of Estates & Management Ltd has begun a process to enforce the collection of all arrears despite the LVT refund back to 2003 has not been applied at all!!!!! The new property management company state they are doing what they have been instructed by Estates & Management. The new property manager agreed with residents to cap their management fee and has since revoked this and introduced a Service Charge much higher in some blocks that any year under Solitaire!!!! (PUNISHMENT) Add [Co Name Removed at their request] to the names of companies to avoid as they financially abuse leaseholders with high service charge then don’t even cut the grass (sounds familiar).
To make things even more worse the City Heights legal team have now been forced to make an Application for a further LVT as their glorious Freeholder Solitaire is disputing the City Heights RTM Company Ltd’s right to take over the estate. Residents on City Heights say, there is no genuine valid legal reason, that has not be determined before at an LVT, as to why City Heights owners cannot activate their ‘Right to Manage’. Solitaire is simply very bitter towards us and is trying everything to keep their flagship estate! The relationship between owners at City Heights and their Freeholder, the Solitaire Group (administered through Estates & Management) is said to be at a record all time low as the Insurance commission scam continues and the management of the estate is suffering once again because of a poor property manager. Some residents are back in the communal areas hoovering!
A City Heights owner says, ‘I just cannot believe what is happening. Solitaire and Peverel drastically under estimate us. They think this continual harassment and financial abuse will wear us down, never! We will keep fighting until they pay us what we are due and until their abusive involvment in our estate is brought to an end through RTM. Neil Healey and Greg Press are doing an amazing job fighting these parasites who will just not pay up and walk away and allow us to get on with our lives; they treat us as never-ending cash machines as Peverel’s flagship ’portfolio’ and this has sparked all out war’.
It is interesting that the point of incorrect leases has been raised, because other contributors who have contacted us have reported the same thing, whereby the owners lease states one thing, the lease with Land Registry states another and when compared to the information that Solitaire work from, everything is incorrect.
We’d like to know, how is that possible? Surely the developers have a responsibility to issue correct leases to all parties?
We’re looking forward to hearing the advice of the ‘professionals’ on this case, because it would appear that SPM are fighting strongly to not pay a penny of the £200k back to the City Heights residents…. could that be because they can’t afford to pay it back?
[UPDATE - 09.35]
We’ve just received further emails from residents where they were able to replace Solitaire Property Management, but couldn’t get rid of Estates & Management.
E&M apparently apply a lot of pressure to the ‘new’ PMC companies and don’t allow many of them to provide the Buildings Insurance and ‘order’ the PMC to quote increasingly high premiums into their budgets, despite the fact that the new PMC can get the same insurance for less.
Is this an example of profittering by the Consensus Business Group of companies from ‘hidden commissions’ – Fortune 500 anyone?
Other correspondence has brought to our attention that many of the PMCs aren’t allowed to take instructions from the residents (despite them being the ones living there) when improvements are required (e.g. plants here and there) – because E&M have told them that the PMC is their client and not the residents!
Seems like you get rid of one ‘bully’ and an even bigger ones comes along because you stood up to the first one and won!
We’ll post more updates when we receive messages, but this post has certainly caused uproar amongst you, judging by the emails we’ve received!
So, dirty tricks are being employed by Solitaire against City Heights – no surprise there. Did anybody really think they would simply roll over, cough up the £200k and make life easy…???
The massed residents of City Heights are to be applauded in their stance against Solitaire to date, and they must not loosen their grip now. Instead they should go at them even harder, and the evidence mentioned here about the lengths Solitaire are prepared to go to will surely add to the residents’ case against Solitaire.
I would also suggest that the residents talk to every reputable media outlet they can think of, to further expose the nature of the beast they are fighting (obviously the residents need to be 100% sure of what they provide to the media, otherwise Solitaire will use even the slightest chink to dismiss the claims, or even file a claim of defamation).
The very fact that the LVT case brought by the City Heights residents awarded them nearly £200k speaks volumes, and the fact that Solitaire are trying to find any excuse to wriggle out of it speaks even more volumes. I hope the residents win a further LVT case against Solitaire, and are awarded even more money back. Perhaps the next successful LVT adjudication also needs (if it can, legally) to impose strict conditions on Solitaire for the repaying of the money to the residents, along with clear penalties for non-payment.
They are all bullies, and only interesting in raking in as much money, as quickly as possible, for the minimum levels of service in return. If we got this level of service from (say) a local garage, we’d simply go elsewhere next time. Sadly we can’t do so for our property maintenance, and Solitaire & co. know this only too well. They’ve got us over a barrel, and couldn’t give a damn.
It seems the only true answer is to get rid of ALL connections with them, which therefore not only means sacking the management company, but buying out the freehold. If you don’t, E&M (or whoever the freeholder is) still calls the shots. Problem is they probably don’t want (or need) to sell the freehold, so any attempts to buy it out will either be dismissed out of hand, or otherwise they’ll demand unrealistic sums (but even then will make it very difficult to complete the purchase…). So again, they’ve got us all-ends-up.
“Andy” – care to comment…???
This is horrible news; I feel sick just reading how Solitaire are attempting to wriggle out of the original LVT. I don’t know how I would have coped in the same situation – getting rid of Solitaire from our small development was difficult enough – and I applaud the residents of City Heights for pressing on against Solitaire.
However, the harsh reality is, with E&M as their landlord, that City Height’s problems may only just be beginning. Is there an equivalent of ARMA for landlords? Do E&M even have to maintain a veneer of ‘customer service’? We may now be looking at the true face of the beast, as it were.
Matt is absolutely right – to be truly free, ALL connections with The Concensus Group need to be cut. But this is no small task when the freehold is craftily passed to The Concensus Group once the developer has laid the last roof tile.
In effect, when you buy a leasehold property from Persimmon, David Wilson etc, etc, you’re not simply buying a leasehold property. YOU are actually being sold to The Concensus Group as little more than a credit worthy ‘sitting tenant’, tied to the property by a mortgage. Surely the legislation surrounding leasehold needs to be changed, to outlaw the freeholder and property manager being the same company, or at the very least to ensure that potential buyers are aware of these relationships and can make an informed choice before buying.
Yes Jon, we desperately need some new legislation, along with a regulatory body that actually has some teeth (and is prepared to use them….), to give us humble leaseholders some protection against the likes of Solitaire / Peverel / OM / CBG et al.
To a degree, wasn’t this what the No. 10 Petition was all about…??? Sadly the new administration looks like they will not be doing anything off the back of the now-closed petition (despite nearly 1,400 people having signed it), so we need to try again. As & when the coalition sort out their online petition system, I suggest a fresh one is submitted, and we try again. Alternatively, we all bombard our MP’s with cries for help, and make sure these are all copied to Mr. Cameron, Mr. Clegg & Mr. Shapps (Housing Minister) as well.
As leaseholders, we are powerless to decide who actually manages (or rather, doesn’t manage…) our developments – even those who buy brand-new leasehold units have no say (as I understand it), and those of us who bought “second-hand” properties certainly don’t. I’ve said it many times before – if I knew then what I know now, I would NOT have bought my current flat. No chance. I’ll know next time – if (big if…) I ever buy another leasehold property.
But again, unless you can wrestle the freehold off the CBC company as well, you’re effectively flogging a dead horse. And they continue to charge as much as the like for very little, and come up with various wriggles to get out of financial penalties imposed on them by LVT tribunals. Just imagine if the boot was on the other foot, and CBG had been awarded a settlement in their favour – they’d be sending in the debt recovery boys (their own debt recovery boys) before the ink was dry on the documentation.
We need a big case like City Heights to continue fighting them, to really show them up in public, and leave them with nowhere to wriggle to next.
Gents,
Has your Freeholder entered an appeal into the LVT?
If not then you touch upon a very interesting point regarding Debt collection. When we win cases we enforce costs immediately using a mixture of our in house and outsourced teams. The process is not difficult, it’s just a matter or having the right team in place. There are multiple other options which can also be employed which make debt recovery very, very uncomfortable for commercial entities.
I think that you have done a cracking job in beating your Freeholder in this case but that you are being to easy on these companies when it comes to enforcement. There is very little wriggle room when an enforcement company enter into a companies offices and starts listing the value of their property for auction. Your freeholder and his agents will not hesitate to do the same to you, is there a good reason why are you holding off on these actions? Are you affraid of damaging the Landlord / Tenant relationship … ?
Enforce your hard work, do not allow your Freeholder to set the pace when you have the upper hand. Always happy to assist.
Kind regards,
James Butler Esq – Director
Yes Matt is right and I do hope they start talking to the local and, why not national papers. There is not much I can do to the help City Heights but I can send my sincere best wishes with their struggle.
I will write to Mr Shapps but fear that nothing will be done and who knows how long he will be in the job and does any politician CARE as all of this has been going on for far too long. If only one of their second homes was managed by………………….
I live and own an apartment at City Heights and I know the two guys here leading the lvt case are doing an amazing job still fighting Solitaire on a daily basis and the Estates and Management people should withdraw their Counter Notices to our RTM and do the right thing. Money is all they care about. Our estate is looking a mess again and no maintenance is happening either. Estates and Management (signed by Hilary Quinn) has sent all owners at City Heights a threatening letter telling us to pay all our arrears or they are going to sue us starting on 6 June 2010. They have not paid any of the LVT refund and i have always paid my service charge on time, everytime so they owe me thousands! Why have i got this blanket abusive letter threatening me when i owe them nothing! Also [CO NAME REMOVED] have also dropped letters in threatening us to. They are scaring my pregnant wife to death. Just why are you doing this to us SOLITAIRE! You people are pure evil! Anyone who buys a property managed by Solitaire needs their head examining. They must be Britain’s worst company! The BBC were here filming today and I told them that and they said , ‘We know thats why we are here’.
Hi,
I do not understand.
1. Why can the 1st LVT not be enforced?
The original LVT has found in favour of City Heights any claims by Peverel (solitaire) can be heard at other LVT’s. If they have a problem now then that is for a later date, this does sound like they are having cash flow problems.
Issue proceedings!!! or get a specialist to do it for you, force this awful company into a corner.
Worth – exactly…!!! Seems to me that they are trying every conceivable trick to get out of having to refund the near £200k the LVT tribunal awarded the City Heights residents. As to how you enforce an LVT tribunal decision, perhaps somebody “in the know” can comment…???
The comment from “resident at city heights” is very useful, hearing things from directly inside the development. It is interesting to read that the BBC have been on site filming (haven’t Solitaire previously tried to prevent filming there…???), so any updates on when something will be on TV would be most welcome.. Was it local Beeb, or national…???
Very concerning however to read the impact all this is having on the residents, particularly the pregnant wife of the above poster.
I suppose one option for the residents might be to pay all outstanding / withheld charges, to then clear all debts owning, thereby removing this as a get-out by Solitaire. Of course the danger of this is that they then find some other reason not to pay up, at which point the residents have shot themselves in the foot…..
Obviously the two residents who are leading the fight are doing a brilliant job, and have so far managed to make mugs of Solitaire’s experienced (and no doubt expensive) legal team. Keep up the good work, lads. You have beaten them once, so no doubt will do so again, and in the process you are exposing them further to the outside world, which is further damaging their reputation.
Hi everyone,
In mid-May I posted that there were always two sides to any story.
So in the interests of every resident at City Heights and other visitors to this site, I wanted to let you know how we have been working to resolve this situation in an amicable, efficient and professional manner.
To remind anyone who might be unaware, 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.
I would like to be clear on the fact that the Peverel Group was not responsible for any Solitaire development until mid 2008. This was 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.
We fully accepted the findings of the tribunal and set out to calculate the apportionments due to property owners for their period of ownership. Our aim all along has been to credit the relevant service charges to all property owners in line with the tribunal determination.
I posted in mid-May regarding the problems we encountered with the City Heights representatives in trying to carry out our aim to credit service charges as soon as possible after the LVT determination.
However, since then we had what we felt was a very constructive and positive meeting on Wednesday 2nd June with Mr N.H. & Mr G.P., who are the appointed representatives of City Heights residents. The head of our Legal department and our Group Managing Director have been in regular telephone and email contact with Mr N.H. and have built, as far as we are concerned, a good working relationship with him.
Despite what may have been claimed in this post, the only objective of Peverel Property Management is to credit service charges back – not just to each and every applicant at the LVT brought by the City Heights team, but every other qualifying property owner at this development.
Now that we have agreed with Mr N.H. the periods of actual ownership for all but a handful of properties, supported by documentary evidence from both Land Registry and that held by qualifying property owners, we have started the process to credit service charge refunds. We are also completing the accounts for the accounting period to 31st March 2009, also subject of our discussions with Mr N.H., which will be issued to all residents shortly.
To avoid any doubt, Peverel Property Management has always sought to complete its obligations under the LVT decision in a professional and timely manner.
Solitaire Property Management ceased to manage the City Heights development on 1st April 2010.
All current matters relating to the management by the local Nottingham managing agent mentioned in this posting (appointed by the Freeholder, in consultation with Mr N.H. and other residents in accordance with Landlord & Tenant Act legislation) should be addressed to the Freeholder’s agent Estates & Management Limited.
I want to clarify for all Truth About Solitaire participants that I work for Peverel Property Management and have always said I would help on matters relating to our company. Now that City Heights is managed by another independent managing agent, you will understand why I can’t comment on issues that we are not responsible for.
As always, I welcome your feedback.
Many thanks,
Andy
Solitaire Online Feedback Manager
Like it or not, “Andy”, any issues originated by Solitaire before Peverel took them over are now Peverel’s issues. Granted, Peverel were not involved with City Heights for most of the period in question, but when Peverel took over Solitaire, they inherited Solitaire’s immense levels of incompetence – maybe Peverel’s “due diligence” process ahead of the Solitaire acquisition should have dug a little deeper…??? I’m sure there are some at Peverel / CBG who would agree…!!!
The inference from City Heights is that Solitaire / E&M are being obstructive in sorting out the crediting of the LVT decision monies. “Andy” claims that this isn’t the case. So, who do those of us un-related to City Heights believe, because we seem to be getting conflicting “sides of the story”…???
Dear all,
I am sorry to be so blunt but we appear to be missing the point a little here … The Managing Agents should be inconsequential as far as the Leaseholders are concerned as whilst the LVT Claim was launched and won against both Managing Agent and the Freeholder, the buck actually stops with the Freeholder. Now it would appear that the Freehold has indeed changed hands from HOLDING AND MANAGEMENT (SOLITAIRE) LIMITED (2) TO E&M but this is inconsequential.
Do not allow the new Freeholder who are of course owned by the same company, to hide behind their Managing Agents, enforce against them as per the LVT’s determination. Peverel, Solitaire, Micky Mouse … it is irrelevant as your claim is with the Freeholder not their representatives. It is up to the Freeholder to seek indemnity from their Agents and if the agents can’t pay then the Professional Indemnity Insurers should be given a call. Either that or as Matt touched upon, the Solicitors for their failures in due dilligence could be called upon as any Freehold purchase brings with it the risk of a retrospective claim and any such matters must be disclosed.
The same actually goes for the Managing Agents in that the purchase of another firm does not preclude retrospective claims against the former company, in fact in most cases the purchhase of a company brings with it the liabilities of the former so in fact Andy’s statement “Peverel Group was not responsible for any Solitaire development until mid 2008″ may have very little foundation.
I am intrigued to see just how complicated the whole recovery process has become. Question … who is keeping the interest on monies whilst the calculations are dragged out and are any legal or professional fees being incurred during this process?
Please contact us if you want free advice.
Kind regards,
James Butler Esq – Director
Hi,
Matt,
“due diligence” process ahead of the Solitaire acquisition should have dug a little deeper…???
Very good comment but it seems that they obviously do not have the management skill sets to carry out their day jobs, let alone buying other companies!
Back to city heights plight,Peverel/Solitiaire (are one and the same thing) also should find the residence that have left in the last 6 years and pay them back. I wonder if they do? I forgot not their problem anymore!…..
Or do they hope that they will get away with only paying the present residence?
Should the full amount of money be held in trust while this goes on?
Andy,
Let me understand your explanation. you are saying that Peverel are the good guys Solitaire the bad guys and you have got into trouble as a result of the actions of Solitaire before you took over. You also make the point that you work for Peverel property management. does this mean you will not answer any question involving the freeholders or their agents ie Peverel or E&M?
is it not normal practice that before a company is taken over due dilligence is done so that you know the accounts are honest?
If as it seems gross overcharges were levied it must follow that Peverel must have benefited from the monies collected by Solitaire?
On my estate,you are aware that it never had a connection with Solitaire, yet we have a mountain of problems. mCan you explain why?
Since E&M claimed to have done a valuation on the freeholder’s behalf, which is Peverel, how come we have not seen it, neither have you seen it? Very Strange don’t you think?
It is such a simple request to see the valuation. Your lack of reply to me is very instructive.
Hey Andy
you are going to like this one
We got our “request” for even more money grabbing and the reason was an increase in the insurance. A revaluation had taken place which we did not know about and surprise surprise we have to pay more than the amount stated on the policy. We asked for the revised/amended policy which stated this new amount. We also asked the company who carried out the revaluation (bet you cant figure out how we found out but we have VERY CLEVER people here who know) Well would you believe the amounts stated by the company are VERY MUCH LESS than on the policy.As for your pathetic excuse about “we did not know about Solitaire when we took over” YES YOU DAMM WELL DID and were it not for this web site you would still be laughing all the way to the bank. Not so funny now is it!
Andy,
It seems some people on this site think you never quite tell the truth (I’m bring very polite here). Many of us know what happens when your company claims to want to help and make sure it only pays the correct people after an LVT hearing.
We know you own the company which owns the head leases or who collected the ground rent whilst sites were owned by the developer and that you know exactly who owned which flat and when. We all know you do not need proof of ownership and that this is all just a rouse to make sure you pay as few people as possible: those who have sold their flats, those who are dead, and those who do not know what’s going on either becasue they live abroad or do not understand the Law. Lets not forget those who do not want to pay their solicitor £150 to say when they owned a flat unless they are entitled to a lot more back from you – assuming you actually ever plan to pay a penny. I’d guess at most you hope not to pay much more than 50% of any LVT award. Heck if there is enough money for you to pay an LVT accountant so there must be a few bob running around.
Maybe one day your company, which you know full well has controlled Solitaire and Peverel and many many others for a long period of time (but you keep playing musical chairs over who is owned by whom), will work out you make more money by offering good customer service rather than making a fast buck on a headlease valuation or screwing tenants for as much as you can.
In the mean time for those who have asked why not just go to court (including you here Mr Butler of Landmark) things are never that easy. If they were then those people who have spent years of their own time going to the LVT would have run down this route already.
Perhaps Landmark rather than being vague would like to offer some specific advice and costings on this site as to how “with the right team in place” the city heights tenants could force Peverel to pay up.
Dear Jon,
I have on numerous occasions commended the City Heights Team for their tireless work and it is not my intention to criticise, merely ignite the fuse. Nor is it my intention to be vague although you will appreciate that we have a business to run and so I must try and tread a careful path between advice and actions. Furthermore, when it comes to matters such as these and this comment is not directed at anyone … a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. By this I mean that legal processes are often one chance saloons, get them wrong and it is possible to prejudice your position going forward.
That said I am happy to disclose recovery options for all to see:
1) A strong debt recovery team should enter the LVT determination into the County Court to change the debt from a tribunal decision to an enforceable court order. This can be further escalated depending on the costs involved and the weight one wishes to apply.
All costs are added to the sum demanded; the applicant should not incur costs during this process.
2) The Freeholder will be given a finite and clearly specified period of time to comply with the order before the next processes come into play:
a) Entry and listing of property for ceasure
b) Notice of Intent
c) Statutory Demand
d) Ceasure of goods
e) Bankruptcy proceedings
3) It is worth noting for anyone whose Freeholder is say a private individual that there are also options such as Garnishing orders or Freezing orders which can also be employed depending on the individual situation (may occasionally apply to large corporate also).
I hope that this helps and as ever, please let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Kind regards,
James Butler Esq – Director
Worth – I’ll revise my statement:
Perhaps Peverel should have carried out some (any…) due diligence before their acquisition of Solitaire.
Seriously, with the state that Solitaire has been in for countless years, why on earth would any other previously-unrelated company (i.e. Peverel) even give them a sniff…??? On the assumption that Peverel did actually thoroughly check out Solitaire before putting pen to paper, it makes you wonder what they did (or perhaps more importantly, didn’t…) establish?
Maybe the deal was simply too good to be true. The old adage \if it looks too good to be true, then it probably is\ might apply here…???
Back to City Heights – I would go with Landmark’s advise, and get the LVT tribunal changed to an enforcement debt via the courts, and then send in the debt recovery boys – let’s see how THEY like it….. It’s high time somebody unleashed everything possible (and legal) onto our dear friends at Peverel Towers, at which point perhaps – just perhaps – they might realise that they can’t have it all their own way. Until this happens, they’ll just carry on , regardless.
Give ‘em hell, City Heights…!!!
Andy – I have had the misfortune to deal with both yourself and your property manager Fb – you both go to pains to point out that you are not Solitaire employees – but since you, yourself, became involved the meeting that was setup went off the rails, since FB got involved nothing has improved whatsoever, even Andrew Bilson is involved – he answered our letter (or at least his name was on the bottom of it) – all three of you claim that you work in a no-blame organisation, but all three of you blame Solitaire and it’s employees. All three of you claim that you want to improve matters but make no attempt to do so, we have actually moved backwards since FB got involved and she has renaged on many promises that she made – even those that she put in writing have now been gone backwards on by Andrew Bilson – so, whilst the rhetoric that comes from your mouth is one thing, the actions that truly define you tell a totally different story, the phrase that comes to mind is …
A leopard can never change it’s spots
Peverel is Solitaire in all but name, you the individuals are capitalising on tne supposed name change to blame the other organisation and to attempt to deflect the damage from yourselves
I find your comment of “Peverel Group was not responsible for any Solitaire development until mid 2008″ amusing – in that we have been complaining about the management of our development since about then – and nothing has improved – we are now mid 2010, with no improvement, in fact we have gone backwards in most respects, so whilst I accept that you were not responsible prior to mid 2008, the period since then it totally down to yourselves and continues to be mis-managed by yourselves – on that score you cannot blame others – so what have you got so very wrong for the last two years, when it is down to Peverel, CF and FB
I’ll say it again – whilst Peverel / OM / ????? might not be to blame for what occurred on Solitaire developments prior to the buy-out, they purchased the Solitaire problems when they purchased the company. Like it or not (and clearly they don’t like it, but that’s business for you). I’ll say this again, as well – due diligence…???
So, whilst many long-running problems pre-date Peverel getting involved, they are now Peverel’s problems, as Solitaire is now Peverel – especially as the move is now on to remove the very name \Solitaire\ from the records. You might be looking to lose the name, but the problems still exist, and are now Peverel’s problem.
To quote \Andy\ – \the Peverel Group was not responsible for any Solitaire development until mid 2008\. True enough. But since mid 2008 you HAVE been responsible for the Solitaire developments, and therefore responsible for any & all issues arising on these developments at the point when you took them on. You might wish you acquired the developments with a clean slate, but you didn’t – so get your heads out of the sand and accept this. We know it and you know it, but you don’t seem willing or able to accept it.
And we all know from comments placed on this website that it isn’t just the Solitaire developments. There are plenty of complaints from Peverel developments as well, which have never been connected with Solitaire.
In reality, Solitaire & Peverel were the perfect match, and it therefore makes complete sense that Peverel bought Solitaire out. Sadly this doesn’t help all of us who are stuck with them…..
Andy if you are so vehement that you don’t work for Solitaire – why is your email address in the format that it is? And why does it dspecifically refer to Solitaire in the email addres?
Your name appears as: Andy SolitairePM
and your email address is Andy.SolitairePM@removedbecauseelseyouwillaskforittoberemoved.co.uk
If you don’t work for Solitaire – why does your email address refer to Solitaire?
I have just received a letter from E&M stating that their client Rosleb Limited” have confirmed that the headlessor “Lockside Mangement Company Ltd” of the site on which I bought a flat have never collected ground rent since January 2008. They now intend to commence with collecting the ground rent directly from the Lessees.
They are asking for the following information:
Summary of any rents paid on the property.
Any information that will help them reconcile my account within 30days.
Having read some of the post, to be honest I am a little worried about what to expect, I fear that I am about to receive an over inflated, backdated request for ground rent.
My management agent is Labyrinth properties and I don’t think they are connected to Solitaire but who knows.
I will keep my post updated with what happens next but has anyone experienced this? What should I expect? And is there any legal stuff I can start preparing for?
Stuart – having looked on Companies House, I can’t find a “Labyrinth Properties” listed, but there is a “Labyrinth Estates Limited”, and their registered address is Molteno House, 302 Regents Park Road, London, N3 1JX, which is the same registered address as Estates & Management….. Join dot no. 1 to dot no. 2.
I’d be very surprised if your management agent is not connected to E&M.
Presumably you know yourself how much ground rent you have paid since you bought your flat, and who to. When did you actually buy – is it very recently, or have you been there a while (i.e. prior to January 2008)?? If so, presumably you did pay ground rent up to the end of 2007…???
If there is un-collected ground rent from the period you have owned your flat, then fair enough – providing the amount now charged is in line with the terms of your lease. If there is un-collected ground rent from before you bought the flat, then I’d say you should not be responsible for paying it. It’s not your fault if the previous owner wasn’t billed at the time (although your conveyancing solicitor should have queried ground rents, at which point the issue should have come to light…).
I’d fire back a question asking why this situation has arisen in the first place. I expect the stock answer will be because of an “administrative error”, which they do seem to suffer badly with…..
Talk to the other leaseholders in your development (if you haven’t done so already), to establish that they have been sent the same letter, and also when they last paid any ground rent, and who to.
Don’t just accept & pay whatever bill you eventually get sent (unless it’s for peanuts, which is unlikely…). Somebody has made a cock-up, which therefore needs to be explained & justified (although they won’t) before they slap you with a bill for over 2 years of back-dated ground rent…..
Stuart,
Following on Matt’s comment.
If you bought this flat recently ask the solicitor who acted for you whether he/she checked that all ground rent was paid up to date when you bought it.
With regard to the name Labyrinth Estates it looks as if someone in Peverel has a sense of humour. Wikipedia says “In Greek mythology, the Labyrinth was an elaborate structure designed and built by the legendary artificer Daedalus for King Minos of Crete at Knossos. Its function was to hold the Minotaur, a creature that was half man and half bull and was eventually killed by the Athenian hero Theseus. Daedalus had made the Labyrinth so cunningly that he himself could barely escape it after he built it.” Very suitable description of the fate awaiting our friends.
…..if the conveyancying solicitor didn’t enquire about ground rent – and this issue was therefore missed at the time – I’d be demanding a refund on my fees back from said solicitor. Surely on a leasehold property it’s one of the standard conveyancing enquiries…???
As for the description of “ladyrinth”, it is (hopefully) very apt. Time will tell – hopefully not too much time…..
Neil,
you beat me to it! I really couldn’t have explained the origins of the name better!
Stuart, having dealt with E&M for nearly two years, i know what you will have to face. Never ever take anything for granted. assume unless otherwise advised that anything from them will be a lie, an evasion or a trick.
The one bright thing in your situation is this site. You are not alone and you will get tremendous help and very good advice.
welcome to the club
This may be of indirect interest to Solitaire/Peverel/Concensus Group customers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/02/anna-chapman-russian-spy-mi5
—-
It was during her ‘London years’ from 2002 to 2007 that Chapman underwent her meteoric evolution from callow girl to the sort of sophisticated young woman who moves easily across the most influential and wealthy echelons of society.
Nicholas Camilleri, chief executive of the Mayfair-based hedge fund company Navigator Asset Management Advisers, said when he first met Chapman in 2005, she was, he said, “a ‘green, wet behind the ears’ type of girl”.
But less than two years later, Chapman was being wined and dined at Annabel’s and Cipriani in the company of Vincent Tchenguiz, a private equity billionaire.
—-
I wonder when the CIA and MI5 will be looking at our accounts?
Linked to an alleged Russian spy – not what I’d consider to be good publicity. I wonder what VT thinks of it…???
I’d like to second the suggestion that the CIA & MI5 have a look into our accounts. Could be interesting.
Jon,
Well spotted.
I do not want to get involved in all this spying stuff. i admit that is way out of my league.
However, If anyone from M15, The CIA, KGB or Mossad has a copy of the valuation survey carried out by E&M i would be very grateful!
I hope i am not getting boring, but i just had a thought given the alleged russian connection.
I thought as a result of years of political pressure the Berlin Wall came down. I now think that it fell as a result of a Peverel contractor using a too heavy cherry picker resulting in the brickwork cracking, as has happened on the Ravenscroft Estate.
Ps if the boss of peverel is reading this, of course you are not a spy!My message to you is The strawberries in vienna are a little firm this year, you will find the ripe ones at the usual place!
Morning all,
Can you imagine if Peverel/cbg/E&m managed the above spy networks…….
1. They would start by gathering the wrong information
2. They would leave invoices for their spying time!
3. No mission would ever get completed on time, without problems or extra charges!
4. Then when everything goes wrong and they are found out they would be excellent and quick to deny all knowledge of any situation!
I am surprised Andy has not been asked by Russia to make a statement on their behalf, deny all the facts but still want to be best friends with everyone!
The problem about being a dour presbyterian is that it’s impossible to enjoy life. For instance reading
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1292035/Russian-spy-Anna-Chapman-charmed-Lords-lawyer-echo-Christine-Keeler-scandal.html?ITO=1490
and in particular
“Vincent is a very generous and consummate entertainer who hosts fabulous parties here and abroad for seriously powerful people.”
I just can’t stop thinking that this is why my already high service charges need to be raised again.
It’s all rather murky, isn’t it…???
You decide whether I’m referring to:
a) (alleged) Russian spies in the USA (is if the Yanks haven’t still got some of their own in Moscow…..);
b) Vincent Tchenguiz being linked to Ms. Chapman (seems clear that they have met & socialised);
c) the whole CBG / Peverel / Solitaire set-up;
d) all of the above…..
Well done E&M. I am proud of you!
You do not know it, but you have just dug yourself in a hole so deep BP might want to borrow it to clean up the gulf of mexico!
Sorry i can’t give any details but i am smiling.
Intrigued – best of luck with your endeavours and keep us posted when you can Michael.
I am more than a little concerned about the forcing of the new PMC to arrange insurance to be highly disturbing – after many months we finally got hold of insurance documents from Solitaire – which clearly show a “Landlord Commission” column in the spreadsheets – not at 5%, not at 10%, not even at 15% – heck let’s jump forwards and tell you really how much E&M are creaming off, between 45% and 55% – for doing what exactly? And now it appears that they force the new PMC to arrange their insurance with someone who E&M are happy with – assuming this is so that the ridiculous insurance commission column can remain a high percentage.
How on earth is this legal – this is nothing more than holding a gun at your clients heads and saying “pay up”
Thankfully, we have a meeting with our local MP for later this week – and I am trying for an article in the local newspaper – to get some momentum for exposing this appalling scam!
Good work, David. Please keep us informed on how your meeting with your MP goes. And getting some serious press exposure of the insurance rip-off would be good (for us victims).
And to answer your question about what E&M do for their 45 – 55% “Landlord Commission”, the answer is quite simple: f**k all.
Bit like the myriad of different CBG management companies, who also seem to go out of their way to do as little as possible, for as much financial gain as possible.
Wonder if “Andy” will pop up now, to dispute my comments…??? Or perhaps he’s too busy sorting out the repeated illegal parking at my development – “Andy”, is that what you’re doing, because nobody else seems to be……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Morning,
I am going to pass my details to Landmark.
They are going to look at the payments I have made Solitaire / Peverel/ CBG over number of years.
Hopefully the charges will be unfair/unreasonable and then with help from Landmark take them to an LVT and reclaim monies that I feel are owed to me!
The only way to get back at these people is to eat away at any ‘profit’ that they make from us.
Just think that based on 100 LVT claims of around £1000 each Peverel/Solitaire/CBG will have to pay back £100,000 but also carry their own legal costs and internal costs……….
The way I see it is very simple, I have given this company my hard earned monies and any percentage of that back is better than nothing! The worst case is that it causes Peverel/Solitaire/CBG time and efforts in defending themselves!!!!
A bit of legal information for those worried about the costs of going to LVT;
Commonhold and leasehold reform act 2002
‘Each party is normally responsible for their own costs of appearing before the LVT.’
‘In addition, the LVT may determine that a party to the proceedings shall pay another party’s costs incurred in the case. The amount that the LVT can award is currently limited to £500 and only applies in the following limited circumstances;
1. where the application has been dismissed by the LVT because it believes the application if frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process
2. where a person has acted ‘frivolously, vexatiously,abusively,disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in connection with the proceedings’.
In my opinion TTAS has a lot of people who have genuine complaints about the fairness of many of the unreasonable charges that we have paid to Peverel/Solitaire/CBG and these legal points are of no concern if an application is based on genuine grounds.
Worth – good luck to you. Are you acting alone, or are other leaseholders on your development joining you in your proposed LVT case…??? Surely if it transpires you have personally suffered with unfair/unreasonable charges, then so will have the other leaseholders on your development…??? How many units are there on your development?
Of course, we already know that when an LVT decision rules against CBG / Solitaire / Peverel, they don’t simply refund the money as a lump sum, instead they credit it to accounts. So you won’t ever see a cash refund, but I suppose a credit on your account is better than nothing. Unless of course you are a City Heights resident, in which case you haven’t even seen this yet (or has it now all been resolved – I’m guessing not)…..
Your comments on the legal points regarding costs incurred in going to LVT are noted. I agree that these should be irrelevant, as anybody who does actually go to LVT (particularly if they have sought advise first) will have a valid case.
Keep us posted.
Thanks Matt,
I will not be seeking a credit from Peverel/Solitaire/CBG and if they mess about after determination of the by the LVT then I will ask Landmark to pass back through the courts to enforce their findings.
They have had a long time to give us credits or refunds but like all greedy companies will only act if they are forced.
For all those who have acted so far, good for you but it needs all of us to do something about companies such as Peverel/Solitaire/CBG.
Be very careful before going to the LVT. I have filed two cases against Peverel/Fairhold, and in each case I have had to pay towards the respondents legal costs £3,000 at the first hearing and £9,000 at the second. The first case we were awarded in excess of £20,000. I filed the second case on advice from the LVT, when I asked them to enforce the respondent, to fulfil the LVT’s decision in full, only to be told by the LVT that they had already made their decision at the first hearing, and awarded the respondent the full amount of legal fees they asked for. At both hearings I filed for Section 20 c. I am now being guided by Landmark
Norman – were your Section 20C applications successful? It is most unlikely that a Section 20C order would not be made if your case was successful. Following a LVT case, applying excess service charges is the only way Respondent(s) can claim legal costs, should the Lease permit this, from the Applicants, save £500 in costs if you have acted “frivolously, vexatiously or unreasonably”.
If a Section 20C order is made excess service charges cannot be made to cover legal costs and no other methods are left available to the Respondents. I would be interested to know what happened in your case. If your case was substantially successful but a 20C order was not made, you may have grounds for an appeal.
Steve
Stev. You can get full particulars of both of my LVT cases by downloading CHI/OOHC/LIS/2009/0030 & CHI/OOHC/LSC/2007/0108; I tried to condense my Comment/Warning. To give all the facts of the two cases would take forever. The £12,000 legal fee was taken by Peverel (who where then our Management company) from our contingency fund. We have since obtained RTM and find it difficult to build the contingency fund back up, but with the savings are new Management company have made to our service charge it won’t take long. Should you wish a more personal contact I am sure James Butler (Landmark) will give you my contact details.
Norman, thanks for the warning.
I will take advise from Landmark on this matter.
The fact that Peverel lost the case and still took fees, no morals……..
Did you get a Law Costs Draftsmen to go through the legal costs? They will check that the Solicitor has been fair with the charges, hourly rates, travel,phone calls made etc…….. I will use this option via Landmark in my case.
£12000 in legal fees vs a win of £20,000 so the net effect is only £8000? Did they pay you?
Question, did Peverel receive any referral fee’s from the Solicitor acting for them? they have to disclose this to you if they did, ask Landmark to ask them.
Norman,
I believe I’ve read somewhere that “Reserves” (you refer to Contingency Fund which I assume is the same) were “ring-fenced” and could only be used for the purposes specified. If so, could Peverel legally help themselves to reimbursement of their legal costs at LVTs from these monies?
A Welcome Break from the Mata Hari.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/7882237/Vincent-Tchenguiz-faces-6m-claim-from-brother.html
look up pickle properties ltd, NF is the scam behind Labybrinth properties