Approached by the Media
By admin | July 21st, 2010 | Category: Past Articles | 5 commentsWe’ve been approached by the media who are looking into issues with property management companies, in particular people who wouldn’t mind being interviewed about problems they have had selling their property due to the 1% exit fees and they have asked us to send contact details onto them, so that they can interview people about problems they have had.
If you are happy for your details to be forwarded, please e-mail the usual address stating your name, phone number and email address and we’ll forward them.
We will not reveal any further information on this approach, apart from this request and you can be assured that your details will only be forwarded on to the media who have contacted us.
[ADMIN EDIT @ 13.50 to detail 1% exit fee]
Admin – you may wish to alter the article, the media are looking for something more specific than just general problems with the management company.
Would they be interested in the massive insurance commissions that are being charged?
I imagine that the insurance overcharging will be of *great* interest to the media, particularly in light of the City Heights LVT judgement and Peverel’s subsequent attempts to wriggle out of it.
My feeling is that we need to link the poor service, unfair fees, near monopoly of the sector and profiteering to a simple, powerful idea that is now gaining ground in Westminster.
I’m not usually a cheerleader for David Cameron, but I think there is some merit in his ‘Big Society’ platform – from the point of view that we need to reinvigorate and empower local communities to help themselves. Whilst management companies are not a ‘public service’, the reason they exist is because local councils no longer look after new housing developments / ‘private’ estates and streets. Into this vacuum stepped Solitaire / Peverel / OM.
Yet far too much power now rests in the hands of Tchenguiz and his ilk, who hold thousands of freeholds and management contracts all over the UK. We’re just a ‘revenue stream’ to these people. They don’t care about our homes. All they care about is adding as many leases to their portfolio, to be used as leverage on huge loans to then gamble on the stock market.
It’s obvious that a monolithic, centralised, capitalist entity such as Peverel posseses neither the ability nor the inclication to respond to our issues in a timely, cost-effective or capable manner.
So it’s high time this imbalance of power was redressed… time for leaseholders (and affected freeholders) to be supported by government with change in legislation. Perhaps the most frustrating thing about dealing with these jokers is that, for the best part, residents can manage their properties themselves, often more cheaply, efficiently and quickly. If this isn’t the ‘Big Society’, I don’t know what is.
Get to know your neighbours! Get together, unite, organise! Get rid of your management company!
Jon,
Well expressed.
You are not alone in connecting this “Big Society” political proposal (why does it make me think of “Jerusalem” and “religious revivalism”?) and the plight of leaseholders at this point in time.
I’d say that leasholders running their own affairs in an egalitarian and co-operative manner fits in exactly with “Big Society”. We could even turn our estates of badly kept lawns and scrubbery into allotments and grow our own vegetables and flowers and sell the surplus in the local market!!
On this thread, it may be of interest that we are currently acting for a client (retiree) who’s assignment charge is no less than 12.5% of the open market value of the property! This is by far the most exorbitant fee we have seen in our many years of experience.
Furthermore, surrender on bankruptcy, by agreement or by the executors of the estate on death incurrs a fixed equation enabling the Landlord to purchase the property back at 95% of the original purchase price. Indications at this stage is that this Landlord are making over £500,000 pa on one retirement village alone, from this extremely questionable practice and on the mysery of others.
It is our feeling that 1% should certainly be resisted and in light of the above case we are investigating a possible case under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Of course this is not our particular sphere of knowledge and we will be seeking advice in this regard.
We will of course let you know if we have any success.
Kind regards,
James Butler Esq – Director