Keep Sending Us Your Stories
By admin | August 27th, 2010 | Category: Past Articles | 9 commentsA big thank you to those TTAS visitors that have spent time to document their experiences of Peverel and sent them to ‘research@thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk’.
The stories so far are a perfect example of what the publicist has been looking for and demonstrates a common theme that we are all too aware off!
However, those of you that may be reading this and thinking “that’s okay, they’ve got enough stories, so I don’t need to send mine” – think again!
This is possibly the best opportunity that we have had in the last two years to try and expose Peverel (& associated companies) for ripping off not only retirement property owners, but also ourselves as leaseholders / freeholders! So now is the time to have your say and make it count!
Therefore, send us your stories to research@thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk to help build a comprehensive list of Peverels failings to prove that the issues are nationwide and that they are to blame.
Let’s also prove that it’s not simply a case of “serial complainers” as Mr Rapley of Consensus Business Group once quoted.
It’s time to crank up the pressure on Peverel Property Management, just like when they threaten us with debt collection and give them something to worry about, because they must be concerned as ‘Andy’ has been rather quiet of late!
Has he been told to stop posting by the powers that be??
Ohhh to be a fly on the wall in Peverel towers right now!
I am glad that you posted this Admin, I did actually think that you may have enough stories already, but as you say this is an unmissable opportunity! I have composed my “history” and sent it off …
Same here. I am doing all I can to get rid of them and the latest stumbling bock I find out is that they are a triparty (ie, written into my lease) and the only way to remove them is to have them removed from the lease – is a new low by Peverel. Only the freeholder can remove them see the catch.
They are a tri-party in my lease too. Does that mean we cannot RTM without freeholder consent? that would be a massive problem considering that Fairhold (peverel) are the freeholder.
Hammer,
There are many “experts” who contribute to this site – one at least of whom will be able I am sure to quote the appropriate section of the appropriate Act.
In the meantime, if my my “non-expert” memory serves me well, than as RTM is a right in law irrespective of your satifaction or otherwise with your existing manager, then it follows that irrespective of the freeholder being “Peverel by another name” you can go ahead. When you submit your RTM claim notice you do so to both the manager and the freeholder/landlord.
Also, Peverel doth protest constantly that their many company are independent of each other.
Dear Hammer et al,
Archangel is indeed correct, the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 provides for the Right to Manage (RTM) irrespective of the identity of the Freeholder or landlord. The only criteria is that your scheme qualifies and satisfies the various sections of the Act in terms of the building(s) and tenants that are there. For a detailed view of that visit the Lease Advice site RTM page found at http://www.lease-advice.org/publications/documents/document.asp?item=21.
ps
I stated building(s) with (s) as currently the Act only deals with one premises or building at a time, but there is more and more previous cases to take multiple buildings into account…which is a whole subject in itself…
regards
Admin,
We have Peverel written into our lease but the lease also states if more than 50% of residents agree, we can then remove Peverel as managing agent and appoint another for the princely sum of £1.00.
We are working furiously to appoint another managing agent asap.
We have just received our year end accounts and the overspend is ridiculous but what is also worrying is the fact Peverel keep dipping into our sinking fund when is many instances this is unnecessary.
Foxy Lady,
From what you say, your lease includes a clause that states 5 years (or some other period) after the sale by the developer of the last leasehold property on site, you can appoint another manager to replace the original by a simple majority of all leaseholders (by my reckonimg that is 51%). I believe that you require to give proof of the votes cast.
Your “case study” would be a very interesting one to include in TTAS research, as it appears to me that this clause is common in may leases. There will be many sites that cannot invoke this clause yet, but many others that may be unaware that it is in their lease to use of they so wish.
Clearly when this approach is taken, the leaseholders (& their Residents Association if they have one) need to be very careful when approaching and appointing a new manager. There is also the issue of the leases and restrictions that are written into them regarding needing the consent of YT (with big fee attached) before sales can go through etc. An area where I guess sound legal advice is desirable.
Forgive me if I am wrong but didn’t the new government just get rid of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002?