How Are You Treated By PPMG?
By admin | August 31st, 2010 | Category: Past Articles | 58 commentsTTAS Contributor ‘Nirmal’ raised a very important point in a recent comment of his, when he raised the point of whether anyone had noticed a change in the way they were treated, having highlighted a complaint via TTAS?
When TTAS was first setup, we found that when residents referred to the website, their concerns were acted upon and is it possible that now the site is so popular, PPMG have given up trying to ‘protect’ and ‘surpress’ these complaints and are more than happy for them to be in the public domain.
Posting on TTAS is at the discretion of the contributor and if you wish to use your full name as a username – you can do, but most people prefer to have an alias that is difficult to identify by PPMG.
When complaints started to grow via the website, ‘Andy’ asked visitors to contact him direct so that he could handle your enquiry, to which we then started asking contributors to use their client reference number on their postings to help ‘Andy’ identify them – thus revealing the identity of the contributor to PPMG / SPM.
If you feel you haven’t been treated in the way that you deserve to be treated by PPMG, all because you contacted TTAS to help fight your cause – let us know, because if this type of ill-treatment has occured – it should not be allowed and PPMG should be a lot more professional than resenting a resident for publicly highlighting their failings.
I am not sure if OM know who I am on this forum, but they certainly know of your website and that I read it, and I have pointed them toward it when making complaints, telling them that others are in the same boat so don’t fob me off saying it was a one off kind of thing.
Now there is also no way I could prove that they are treating me any different either, but these past few months I have found it harder and harder to get some answers from OM and they have a tendency now to be very “awkward” in their timing of responses, and have even accused me on the phone of “wasting too much property managers time” and therefore they would no longer respond to my complaint. I told them that I was pretty sure that this was why I paid them (so much!), so that PMs would be there to assist me, and I was told “No, it isn’t”.
Read from that what you will, but I would guess that it doesn’t take much for OM to put 2 and 2 together and work out who are posting here and match it to the complaints received, hence the huge amount of views from Peverel towers? I have never contacted “Andy” though, why bother when he will just re-word the same template emails I already receive?
I use my real name and my postings on this site have been referred to in communications with me from Andy, Andrew Bilson, IS and FB – the attitude has not changed for the better, but no worse either, because it was at rock-bottom already – there merely seems to be an acknowledgement of my/our complaints, but no attempt to remedy them
Admin, Thanks for highlighting my question!
Bushbrother, when I asked if anyone was being ‘treated differently’ what I should have clarified was: being treated differently NOW that Solitaire / Peverel / E&M etc. know that they use TTAS either by contributing online or even just reading and referring to TTAS in their communications directly with Solitaire (etc.) compared to the treatment they received from Solitaire (etc.) previously, before TTAS, when Solitaire (etc.) might not have known that particular person was even aware of the existence of TTAS site. Obviously you would have to have some idea of when you first came about this site, maybe started posting and when that would have been relayed to Solitaire (etc.) either via “Andy” or to your PM but rather than be specific about dates and times what I’m trying to get is a more holistic view of how people perceive their treatment from Solitaire (etc.) in recent times and particularly in the last couple of years that TTAS has been about!
Of course “there is also no way [you] could prove that they are treating [you] any different” to other people in your Development unless you could for example compare letters received by Solitaire (etc.) to different people in the same Development regarding the same issues and note any undue differences between individuals – something that Solitaire (etc.) probably regard as being a highly unlikely comparison that would be made!
All I’m saying is that in recent letters I have received from Solitaire (etc.) they seem to be getting much more confrontational in their approach, a little like “Andy’s” recent post that Admin has kindly highlighted has also been observed by lots of other people too as being a bit ‘frustrated’ and ‘annoyed’ (…so it’s not just me!)
Bushbrother, I would regard being told that I am “wasting too much property managers time” and therefore be ignored by the company I pay to look after my home to be a perfect exemplification of what I am trying to get at!
PS Admin, If it exists and we’ve established would be hard to unconditionally prove, this kind of “ill-treatment” I agree “should not be allowed” but how could this be ‘policed’? I would not want to deter ANYONE from posting their story on TTAS and if anything this post should encourage people to ‘face up to the bully’ and not feel alone in their situation!
Nirmal
Thanks for your ‘thanks’.
Your comment has got us thinking as to whether our ‘feeling of harassment / being bullied’ by PPMG (if TTAS has been involved / mentioned), was PPMG’s way of trying to force contributors to TTAS to not contribute, for fear of reprisals?
In turn preventing PPMG residents / customers from being to voice their opinions and seeing a return of residents complaining as individuals, who can then easily being ignored and the closure of TTAS.
Before PPMG think we are accusing them, we are not, we’re merely pointing out how some of your correspondence is appearing / possibly being misconstruded as threats.
What are others opinions of this? Are we looking into things too much?
Dear Admin,
At present my PM aka Dr do little has e mailed me to say that he does not want to deal with me anymore. I send too many emails and aslong as the majority of residents are satisfied that is ok.
Clearly, their is a risk to put your head above the parapet.
As such i understand those that do not use their full names.
I am very concerned that my quest for the truth may result in Peverel taking me to court.
So i hope they do not find out that i am really Michael Epstein, 37 Ravenscroft Garston Watford Herts WD25 9AE. It’s the block at the far end of the estate with the cracks in the brickwork.
Andy, All the residents have ever asked for is for work to be done in an acceptable manner, for all invoices to be accurate and honest, no deception over service charges or insurance charges.
Where an estate has wanted to change let them. Stop all the tricks to force them to stay. Have you even considered that if you offered a decent service estates not only might not leave but new estates might actually appoint you.
Instead you have built your business model on what appears to be evasion and lies.
If you put a fraction of the money you must be spending on trying to defend what cannot be defended into doing your job properly you might have a company with a future.
Of course you will have the odd victory in court. In a war, which none of the residents ever wanted it is natural that in certain circumstances we will lose.
However our campaign is growing ever larger. New people are joining with fresh ideas. Most of us had never heard of section 166 section 20 or LVT’s. We know now! We know about how to challenge unfair charges, We know about Kingsborough. For all you know Andy, it could be the friend in your office giving us information. We can’t trust you, but who can you trust?
In your fight for the future of your company i see you have a few problems. Firstly, the pressure from us is going to increase, your income stream will decrease. It will not be long before your bankers will start getting nervous.
Already i understand their are several redundancies within the Peverel empire. I presume those made redundant will seek other jobs in the industry for which we will happily supply honest references.
The other pressure you face is from your boss. I understand that he is trying to hang on to his assets against the wishes of the receivers for the Kaupthing Bank.
I presume that Peverel will be on the list.
I think that your reaction to genuine problems shows by it’s aggression that PPMG are indeed feeling the pressure.
As an example i take the ground rent review, a copy of which we have still not seen since December 2008.
Leaving aside the legal side of how the survey should have been done, it is a simple situation. You wanted more money for the ground rent. We were prepared to pay for it. Their was a mistake on the demand which could have been a genuine error, ie, it was backdated to the wrong year. That could have been so simple to put right. We also asked to see a copy of the survey. Had this been provided no problem. Instead our request was met by threats and debt collection letters.
This made me think their must be something wrong. How wrong i didn’t know until later.
The more Peverel threaten the more they have to hide.
This is a fight that only the honest can win.
Finally Andy, The fact you have not replied to me does that mean that you accept that E&M committed [phrase removed by admin] over the ground rent and that the allegation made by CK that BB were crooked is fully supported by Peverel?
[Admin Edit]
This post has been moderated to ensure that some comments can not be misinterpreted by PPMG.
Nirmal,
I guess my response was not so clear either
I was agreeing with you by letting you know what I have been told on the phone, the hard part is proving that this treatment is because of OM tying posts on this site to emails we write to them …
Bushbrother – all clear thanks!
Just wish it was as easy as that in dealing with Solitaire, who should be completely embarrassed that perfect strangers can come to an agreeable conclusion via a web site when they with their fancy communications systems (paid for by us!) can’t be bothered!
Michael (and others) you may find useful the reading in the recent thread Will This Contributor Get A Reply From ‘Andy’ Now? particularly the LVT decision which again proves very interesting reading, like paragraph 11 “Mr. Asbury describes the ground rent income as ‘very attractive’ (paragraph 12.18 of his report). He argues that the rents are quite high by comparison to the flat values, that they are reviewed more regularly (every 21 years) than is usually the case with residential leases and that they are linked to capital values.” – it seems that everything we ultimately pay to CBG is a cashflow to fund their loans / debt (not to manage our homes!)
Plus all your comments struck a chord, particularly “All the residents have ever asked for is for work to be done in an acceptable manner, for all invoices to be accurate and honest, no deception over service charges or insurance charges.”!
Dear Admin,
I am sorry i may have given you cause to edit my last post. this was due to an administrative error. Be assured that quality of my posts are a priority. Post customer satisfaction is taken very seriously!
I actually think Peverel are doing a great job. The slightest complaint they sort it with no fuss. I think the service charges are reasonable as well. Now edit that Admin!
Check out the Institute of Residential Property Management. It provides professional qualifications for people working in property management – and it has a Code of Professional Conduct:
http://www.irpm.org.uk/code of conduct.cfm
If this link doesn’t work, just go to the irpm website. The great thing about this site – apart from the Code – is that it lists all the people who have achieved membership. And there are loads of Solitaire and Peverel people there.
There are a number of things members must do, and not do – for example: “No(member)shall associate themselves with any business which would ….. result in the reputation of the Institute being called into question.”
If you are having trouble getting professional service from particular individuals, why not check to see if they are members. If they are, and if they are breaching the Code, you could try complaining to the Institute. Who knows. It might just be possible to get improvements this way. Worth a try, anyway. Nothing else seems to work!
Good find, Sue. Your link doesn’t work though – try this:
http://www.irpm.org.uk/code_of_conduct.cfm
Also, the link to the search facility to find members of IRPM is:
http://www.irpm.org.uk/search.cfm
Allows you to search by name, or company. Very useful.
Arguably, if members are required within their Code of Conduct to not associate themselves with any business that would “result in the reputation of the Institute being called into question” then perhaps a mass resignation by IRPM members is required…???
Sue, well found! Though The Institute of Residential Property Management’s Code of professional conduct is a bit wishy-washy overall! Interestingly though “2.3 All persons in membership of the Institute shall undertake not to seek business by any practice that involves the use of deceit, subterfuge, misleading or defamatory material” is quite interesting for their members who work at Solitaire / Peverel / CBG!
To be honest though I think pursuing this institute would be similar to the situation with ARMA – in that the only, and ultimate redress by them would be removal from membership which at the end of the day doesn’t really do too much to help our situation. Regulation is the only way forward but we’ll have to wait until the Government pulls it’s head out of the sand for that to happen!
Of course the fact that the IRPM was founded by ARMA means that it will be completely independent, as we know that the Peverel Group has no influence at all over ARMA..
IRPM ? I wonder who else apart from themselves (who dreamt the “qualification” up) recognizes it. I have several letters that would be far more appropriate to put after their names.As for being a professional qualification well after dealing with two that had it I would not even call them amateurs.
A good qualification can be obtained from the Institute & Association of Managers of PRoperty And Tenants; the letters after the name just roll off the tongue IAMPRAT
Having been an interested reader of this website for sometime, as well as a property manager for a small independent managing agent, I feel that it is important to highlight that the IRPM qualifications are not as poor as the recent posts suggest. Many individuals who work in the industry have, or are working towards these qualification, in order to better their knowledge and experience. The qualifications are based upon study, examinations and relevant experience. I can only hope that by gaining these qualifications the staff at Peverel Group are able to move onto positions with firms of significantly better reputations and working practices!
Peverel.
The company that aimed low and missed!
Michael Epstein,
You always bring a smile to my face!!
I have spent the afternoon going through our audited accounts trying to make sense of them.
Having obtained water bills from Peverel the sums still don’t add up – I wonder why?
Seeing as this information is freely and publically available from The Institute of Residential Property Management’s website at the following link:
http://www.irpm.org.uk/search.cfm
…then I do not believe that it would be improper or against any Data rules to list their current members working for Solitaire / Peverel / E&M on TTAS (so “Andy” even if Lee tells / orders you to, please don’t ask for this to be removed! Though it would be nice to hear from you again, just to make sure that you’re still out there!)
I’m not doing this as an exercise just to ‘name names’ but instead because I genuinely found this very interesting to read and identify the people that I’ve dealt with at these companies who do / don’t have the qualification (particularly after ‘Charles Roberts’ remarks with respect to such qualifications being gained through ‘knowledge and experience’)! Also it’s interesting to see the list of different ‘Peverel companies ‘ grow too (…hadn’t heard of “Peverel (6) Ltd” before?!)
So here goes, Names are listed in alphabetical order under each company with their level of IRPM membership and region (as per IRPM website today 02-Sep-2010):
IRPM Member: Region working for:
Company: Solitaire Property Management [27 Members]
Adrian Cummings MIRPM: Eastern
Bethan Willcocks: Eastern
Carole Lawes MIRPM: South East
Cassandra Ford MIRPM: Eastern
Dawn Ward MIRPM: Midlands
Denise Westbrook MIRPM: South East
Derek Strand MIRPM: Eastern
Diana van Aperen MIRPM: Midlands
Emma Beatty MIRPM: Eastern
Emmalise Welsh AIRPM: Midlands
Evelyn French MIRPM: Eastern
Hannah Dearing MIRPM: Eastern
Inci Hammond AIRPM: Eastern
Jemma Berry MIRPM: Eastern
Julia Brookes-Wilde AIRPM: North West
Katie Duffin AIRPM: Eastern
Louise Legg MIRPM: Eastern
Manoj Patel BSc HONS Dip. Est. Man. MIRPM: Midlands
Mark Chapman MIRPM: Eastern
Mehtab Mughal MIRPM: Midlands
Michael Mansfield AIRPM: Gtr London
Neil O’Connor AIRPM: Eastern
Rajkumar Shah AIRPM: Gtr London
Raju Kotecha BSc AIRPM: Eastern
Simon Cooper MIRPM: Eastern
Susan McQuillan AIRPM: Gtr London
Tim Hughes MIRPM: Eastern
Company: Peverel (6) Ltd [1 Member]
Andrew Todd MIRPM: Scotland
Company: Peverel Consort Properties [1 Member]
Graeme Richards A.INST.SRM MBIFM AIRPM: South East
Company: Peverel Group [2 Members]
Christine Mullen MIRPM: Midlands
Sandra Eadie AIRPM: South East
Company: Peverel Group Ltd [1 Member]
Emma Phelps MCIPD: South East
Company: Peverel Ltd [9 Members]
Andrew Prince AIRPM: Scotland
Angela Beattie AIRPM: Eastern
Beth Young MCIPD AIRPM: South West
Catriona Wadlow FIPD FIRPM: South East
John Herbert BA AIRPM: Eastern
Margaret Searle AIRPM: Scotland
Nigel Bannister FImgt FIRPM: South East
Sarah Seymour AIRPM: South East
Simon Willington BA (Hons) ACMA AIRPM: South West
Company: Peverel Management [1 Member]
Carol Parker AIRPM: South West
Company: Peverel Management Services [1 Member]
Christine Jones AIRPM: Wales
Company: Peverel Management Services Ltd [30 Members]
Andrew Halliday AIRPM: South East
Carol Crowe MIRPM: Midlands
Cynthia Gibbs MIRPM: Eastern
Deborah Bartlett AIRPM: Midlands
Don Kennedy MCMI AIRPM: South West
Emma Nicholas AIRPM: Midlands
Fabienne Simpson AIRPM: Scotland
Geoffrey Fleming Schofield MIRPM: South East
Helen Young MAAT AIRPM: South East
Ian Frost BA FCIH MIRPM: Eastern
Jacoba Urgell-Tost MAAT AIRPM: Scotland
Janet Griffiths MIRPM: Gtr London
Keith Edgar F.Inst.LEX MIRPM: South East
Kevin Barr FMAAT AIRPM: South East
Kevin Bayfield-Hill AIRPM: Eastern
Linda Mainds AIRPM: North West
Lynne Shaw AIRPM: Midlands
Mary Daly AIRPM: Midlands
Michael Alloway MIRPM: South East
Patrick McEvoy AIRPM: Midlands
Paul Hockedy: South West
Peter Stevens AIRPM: South East
Rachel Dolacinski AIRPM: Midlands
Roger Cooper ACIOB MIRPM: Wales
Sarah McIntosh BA (Hons) AIRPM: Midlands
Simon Hernon AIRPM: South West
Susan Dovey AIRPM: Midlands
Valerie Jessett MCIH MIRPM: Eastern
Vere Osborne MIRPM: South East
Zuzana Sebestyen AIRPM: South East
Company: Peverel OM Ltd [106 Members]
Adam Cooper BSc (HONS) MIRPM: Eastern
Adam Sheehan BA MIRPM: South East
Akshe Uppal AIRPM: South East
Alexander Walsh AIRPM: Eastern
Amanda King MIRPM: South West
Amar Arif MIRPM: Eastern
Andrea Barnard Gregory MIRPM: South East
Andrea Wing AIRPM: Eastern
Andrew Billson MIRPM: Midlands
Andrew Fildes BSc MBA MIRPM: Eastern
Angus Bearn DMS MBA MNAEA MIRPM: Gtr London
Anna Cousins AIRPM: Eastern
Ben Jarvis AIRPM: Eastern
Brian Spedding BA (Hons) MIRPM: South East
Carla Russell AIRPM: Eastern
Cholakundil Muraleedharan BSc CeMAP AIRPM: Gtr London
Christopher Attwater BA (Hons) MIRPM: Midlands
Clive Greenwood BA Hons MIRPM: South East
Collette Keane MIRPM: Gtr London
Collins Eweka BSc: Eastern
Daniel Channon AIRPM: Eastern
Danny Foster MIRPM: Eastern
David Arthan BSc (Hons) MIRPM: North West
Davis Wandera BA AIRPM: Eastern
Dean Clarke AIRPM: Eastern
Dean Rochester MIRPM: Eastern
Debbie McLaughlin AIRPM: Eastern
Deborah Biggs MAAT: Eastern
Denisa Klcova AIRPM: Eastern
Dennis Cheetham AIRPM: Eastern
Dinendra Dharmasuriya AIRPM: Eastern
Dominic Gearon BENG (HONS) MIRPM: South West
Donna Reed AIRPM: Eastern
Elaine Horne MIRPM: North East
Emma Darch BSc (Hons) Cert CIH AIRPM: South East
Emma-Jayne Armstrong AIRPM: Eastern
Everjoy Zinyemba AIRPM: Eastern
Farrukh Shaikh BA MAAT AIRPM: Eastern
Felix Densu AIRPM: South East
Felix Keen MIRPM: Gtr London
Fiona Ducasse BSc AIRPM: Eastern
Gary Jones AIRPM: Eastern
Gary Tarrant MIRPM: Eastern
Gerry Fox FRICS FIRPM: Gtr London
Hazel Champion: Eastern
Helen Field AIRPM: Eastern
Hyncil George B.Com AIRPM: Eastern
Ian Scott BSc MIRPM: Eastern
Ifeoluwa Moyosor AIRPM: Eastern
Ingrid Clarke AIRPM: South East
Irfan Shahbaz AIRPM: Eastern
James Lang MIRPM: Eastern
Jean Jones AIRPM: Wales
Joanna Walker AIRPM: Eastern
Jomirul Islam AIRPM: Eastern
Jonathan Astle BSc (Hons) MIRPM: Midlands
Jonathan Davies BIIA AIRPM: Wales
Joseph Kenny: Eastern
Karen Mitchell MIRPM: Gtr London
Karen Wood BSc (Hons) AIRPM: North East
Kassahun Bereku: Eastern
Kingsley Ulasi MIRPM: Eastern
Lee Middleburgh BSc MRICS MIRPM: Midlands
Lilian Miller BA (Hons) AIRPM: Eastern
Lynne Goodwin MIRPM: Eastern
Mark Elmore BSc (HONS) MIRPM: Eastern
Michael Wareham AIRPM: South East
Neil Taylor BSc (Hons) MIRPM: Midlands
Olivene Gregory AIRPM: Eastern
Patricia Cook AIRPM: Gtr London
Paul Atkinson MIRPM: South East
Paul Spavins MIRPM: Eastern
Peter Collier MIRPM: Gtr London
Peter Thomas AIRPM: South East
Phil Hubbard FCIPD MILM AIRPM: Eastern
Rebecca Bowler AIRPM: Eastern
Rebecca Burt BSc Cert CIH AIRPM: Midlands
Rebecca Wilson AIRPM: Eastern
Reginald Nyamusenga AIRPM: Eastern
Rhodri Phillips MIRPM: Wales
Richard Carpenter: Eastern
Richard Smith AIRPM: Midlands
Robert Howell BSc (Hons) MIRPM: Eastern
Robert Jones MIRPM: Wales
Robina Cousins AIRPM: Eastern
Sara Givian AIRPM: Eastern
Sarah Davenport LLB AIRPM: Midlands
Sarah Ledwidge BA (Hons) AIRPM: Eastern
Sarah-Marie Jessop AIRPM: Eastern
Sharon Brandelli BSc MIRPM: Eastern
Shenel Davis: Eastern
Siobhan Hurst BA (Hons) AIRPM: Eastern
Stephanie Blackie AIRPM: Eastern
Stephanie Mitchell MIRPM: Eastern
Susan McNamara AIRPM: Eastern
Susan Slade AIRPM: Eastern
Tera Miah BSc AIRPM: Eastern
Thomas Smith AIRPM: Eastern
Titilola Danso AIRPM: Eastern
Trevor Peck FIPD, MCMI AIRPM: South East
Vanessa Parkin AIRPM: Eastern
Vanessa Taylor AIRPM: Eastern
Victoria Beadle MIRPM: South East
Wale Ajana AIRPM: Eastern
Ying Li AIRPM: Eastern
Zuzana Vesela AIRPM: Eastern
Company: Peverel Property Management [1 Member]
Josephine Idowu AIRPM: Eastern
Company: Peverel Property Management Group [2 Members]
Callum Smith AIRPM: Eastern
Tobi Odumusi AIRPM: South East
Company: Peverel Property Management Ltd [1 Member]
Peter Mitchell AIRPM: North East
Company: Peverel Retirement [2 Members]
Edward Baxter AIRPM: South West
Elaine McKeown MIRPM: Eastern
Company: Peverel Retirement Ltd [1 Member]
Paul Reynolds AIRPM: South East
Company: Peverel Scotland Ltd [10 Members]
Carole Renton MA AIRPM: Scotland
Diane Bateman AIRPM: Scotland
Gil McGeachy AIRPM: Scotland
Gillian Short AIRPM: Scotland
Jonathan Cameron AIRPM: Scotland
Keith Murray BSc MSc MRICS MCIOB MIRPM: Scotland
Kirsty West AIRPM: South East
Lisa Miller AIRPM: Scotland
Richard Rogers AIRPM: Scotland
Steven Maxwell AIRPM: Scotland
Company: Estates & Management Ltd [1 Member]
Hilary Quinn MIRPM: Gtr London
Company: Estates & Management [1 Member]
Richard Sandler LL.B Solicitor AIRPM: Gtr London
What makes me wonder is that with so many supposedly ‘professional property managers’ working for them then how come Solitaire / Peverel / E&M (etc.) are so inept at managing our Homes
(…and hence the existence of this very popular website!)!? 
PS I didn’t have time to go thru each and every PPMG company (e.g. ‘Consort Property Management’ is listed on the IRPM website which I didn’t include in the above list though ‘Peverel Consort Properties’ is included.)
Foxy Lady,
It sounds like another bill from Peverel doesn’t hold water!
The list needs updating on the IRPM website, as one of the names listed above under Solitaire Property Management has left the company. I have been told this by the new Property Manager who is now looking after (on a temporary basis…) my development.
I don’t know where this particular member is now working, but I’m pretty sure he’s left the OM / Pverel / CBG family altogether, although presumably has retained his IRPM membership…..
No wonder with so many managers that the annual management bill far exceeds the value of the service charges: £1 for the light bulb; £25 for a man to change it and £4500 to manage the event.
Foxy Lady,
I spent years wondering why our accounts did not make sense, even after the Property Manager sent invoices I requested. Then contributors to TTAS alerted me to something they called the ‘Audit Trail’ which, never volunteered by any of our multitude of PMs, when it arrived from the PM was called ‘Review Notes’. If you have Excel on your PC you should ask for the last five years. Not only will this show every invoice but also the opening and closing accruals which will be the differences as to why your accounts do not make sense.
Following Sue’s posting I too looked at the IRPM web site including the exam syllabus. While acknowledging Charles Roberts comments I couldn’t help noticing that there is no part of the exams devoted to ethics, which is where some companies in the industry seem to go wrong. And I’m not sure that a single one hour 100 multi-part questions paper to be awarded AIRPM fills me with confidence.
I spy 5 names I recognise
My Property Manager is not listed though … maybe he is still training 
Hi Matt,
As with most ‘professional’ subscriptions these will usually be paid, annually, by the company the person is working for at the time it’s due (I believe it’s more tax efficient that way?) As such if someone leaves a firm and unless they inform IRPM then they may well still be listed under their ‘old’ company name. Unless they of course register through their ‘new’ company (if they are still in the same industry) though more than likely this would usually occur (in the real world) as an when that person’s subscription was next (annually?) due?
Hence there may be changes to the list as as provided by IRPM though I have clearly stated the list was taken “as of 02-Sep-2010″ and as such even if there are subsequent changes I do not believe this point in time list should need to be changed or updated in any way as it is a reference as of that particular date. If subsequent updated lists need to be published then sobeit but in my opinion the list in my posting should not be changed or amended or updated (thankfully I think Admin shares my opinion)
I sincerely hope it proves useful to others reading this site!
PS What I am trying to say is that having an ‘out of date’ list is not irrelevant (as “Andy” would try to have us believe!) – as long as it’s taken in the context of the time when the list was compiled – I hope that’s perfectly clear! (“Andy”?)
Actually just trying now to access the search facility at IRPM results in an error! “The web site you are accessing has experienced an unexpected error. Please contact the website administrator. File not found: /search.cfm” – so I think either they’ve been inundated since the link was published on TTAS or ‘somehow’ “Andy’s” managed to get it pulled directly from the IRPM site!!! And seeing as it’s already been claimed that the IRPM was helped to be setup by ARMA (who are ‘sponsors’?), in fact they BOTH have the same registered address:
IRPM: Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England and Wales Number: 6207464
Registered Address 178 Battersea Park Road, London SW11 4ND
ARMA: Company Limited by Guarantee. Registered in England Number: 5128635
Registered Address: 178 Battersea Park Road, London SW11 4ND. VAT Number: 707 3118 58
So rather than being sponsors I do think they (ARMA and IRPM) are part and parcel of the same organisation! (…which to me just adds further weight to the ridicule so far given to these ‘professional exams’ by others on this site – particularly Neil’s comment – “a single one hour 100 multi-part questions paper to be awarded AIRPM fills me with confidence”!)
Yet AGAIN an I see an ‘incestuous’ link (i.e. being so close or intimate as to prevent proper functioning) between these companies involved in ‘Property Management’ and you can see how they move to protect their own – where is the transparency? In my view PPMG should be proud to show that their employees have these ‘qualifications’ yet they are trying to suppress this? Can anyone think why???
ARMA have no ‘teeth’ to do anything – we’ve all seen and experienced that! By the looks of it these ‘professional’ exams carry little more weight than the ‘diplomas’ you can download from the internet. A lot of the senior members of ARMA were / are Peverel (etc.) employees too so is there little surprise that when “Andy” (or his boss!) says ‘jump’ they all whistle to the same tune!??
Also seeing as they might pull the link to their Membership Details too that I’ve previusly referenced above I am also providing these details here:
IRPM “Membership
The are 4 grades of membership of the Institute: Affiliate, Associate, Member and Fellow (refer to the Criteria for grades of membership).
Joining fees
There is a non-refundable application fee of £50 for all grades of membership.
Annual subscriptions
Affiliate £55
Associate £80
Member £110
Fellow £110
For a prospectus and application please contact us
Examinations
The non-refundable fee to sit the IRPM Part I Examination is £50
The current fee to sit the IRPM Part II Examination is £295 (N.B. This examination is run by the Chartered Institute of Housing for the Institute and the fee should be verified on booking via their website / IRPM Part II Examination Entry Form)”
The Chartered Institute of Housing confirms how IRPM came about: “The Institute of Residential Property Management (IRPM) was launched by the Association of Residential Managing Agents (ARMA) in early 2002 as a means of delivering a portable professional qualification in residential property management, available to anyone working in the sector, and one which would be accepted by all those working within it. The Association of Retirement Housing Managers (ARHM) became a sponsor in July 2002 and the Property Managers Association Scotland (PMAS) joined as a sponsor in November 2002.”
Certainly seems like “Andy” – or somebody within CBG Towers – has had a word with IRPM. The search link is indeed broken as Nirmal states, and if you go to the homepage, the search link on the list of options has mysteriously disappeared…..
By getting this previously free-to-view information removed, all CBG has done is to further raise suspicions. I wonder what non-CBG members of IRPM make of it all…??? But of course if they aren’t employed by CBG, then they aren’t any good, are they…???
Admin – can you make a “Freedom of Information” request to IRPM, to make them reinstate the members information on their website…???
Well done, “Andy” & co, you (seemingly) have got your way, again. Presumably having thrown your toys out of your pram. Again. Or perhaps you just had a word with ARMA, who in turn had a word with their chums at IRPM upstairs, and hey presto the info is pulled…..
But at least CBG haven’t found a way of taking this website down…!!!
I actually am pleased that Peverel are part of IRPM. I am pleased that so many of the staff at Peverel have letters after their names.
Remember, these are thoe only letters anyone from Peverel ever seems to receive!
Matt,
Well spotted, indeed on the homepage, the search link on the list of options has ‘mysteriously disappeared’ which I guess means that its not due to weight of traffic from the links posted on TTAS but that the search facility has been deliberately pulled down! So it seams that “Andy’s” managed to actually do something useful for a change! (…useful for Peverel I may add! Noting that his/her ‘usual’ postings on TTAS aren’t very useful to ANYone!)
…if only our property problems could be sorted out (for which we pay a handsome amount for!) by Solitaire / Peverel etc. as quickly as they can arrange for a ‘supposedly independent’ website (as ARMA and thus I assume IRPM claim to be!) to be part shut-down!? As I said before where is the transparency??
Still though the membership list might not be there but there’s still a whole heap of useful info. available, for example:
On the IRPM Welcome page:
“The Institute’s aim is to meet the following objectives:-
• Raise standards in this professional sector
• Provide individuals with independent accreditation as to their professional skills
• Provide a career development path for individuals
• Aid in the process of recruiting new entrants to the sector
• Assist practitioners in assessing job applicant capabilities
• Provide opportunities for Continuing Professional Development
• And generally improve the standing of the sector in the eyes of the public
The Institute is intended to be a self-governing body funded by membership contributions and other revenue deriving from its activities.”
…the last sentence, particularly the “self-governing body” bit being the telling phrase! I think we all know now to look out for anything ‘self-governing’ in the future! (…and to avoid it!) Also notice in general the aims, they are all mainly to do with the property management sector itself and VERY LITTLE to do with leaseholders (who don’t figure at all!) or their rights! The fact that they even have to mentioned to “improve the standing of the sector in the eyes of the public” means that (at least!) they realise they are already starting from a low opinion in the public’s view in the first place!
And also “ARMA’s Objectives
ARMA was founded in 1991 with the aim of bringing together professionals involved in residential block management.
Its principal objectives are to…
…promote the highest standards of management.
…create and maintain an awareness amongst property owners, developers, residents as well as national and local government of the proper role of – and indeed the need for – residential managing agents.
…provide a forum where members involved in the management of residential blocks of flats can discuss and develop management practices to enhance service to clients and lessees.
…fix and endeavour to maintain consistent standards of practice amongst members in an otherwise unregulated market.”
Again note that they openly admit to being ‘unregulated’ (again something for all of us to avoid in the future!) and the need to “maintain consistent standards of practice amongst members” to me clearly shows that they acknowledge that some members (not naming any names!) are lacking in their ‘standards of practice’!? And again all these principal objectives are property management sector orientated! Nothing here directly benefits the leaseholder or upholds their rights! And to have as one of your objectives to promote “the the need for – residential managing agents” i.e. it’s own members, means that they only have their own interests in mind! If you need something you need it! Why do you need to promote the need for having it!? Seems like they are trying to justify their own existence?
So to me it looks like if you can get away with ‘policing yourselves’ then you can pretty much get away with anything!
Dear Michael Epstein, I still echo your comments “All the residents have ever asked for is for work to be done in an acceptable manner, for all invoices to be accurate and honest, no deception over service charges or insurance charges”
As to the effort “Andy” and co. must have gone through today to get the search facility at IRPM taken down within one day – if only they could put half that effort into managing our Homes properly (that they are contracted to do!) then maybe as you said “If [they] put a fraction of the money [they] must be spending on trying to defend what cannot be defended into doing [their] job properly [they] might have a company with a future”!
I think if Andy has managed to get the changes made then that is a great demonstration of just how independent the organization is – as I said to our PM when I noticed the letters after his name, it is nice that a company can set up an institute to ‘qualify’ it’s own employees and give it a guise of respectability, until like everything associated with Peverel, you see it for the sham it really is …
I see on the list both people responsible for our development, IS has yet to prove himself, however CF is the most rude but useless individual that we have had the misfortune to deal with – evidence the qualification is b*******
Neil,
I have been sent some Review Notes and invoices regarding our water charges.
However, they have included estimated charges with no invoice to back up their figures.
I find this mind boggling – surely the auditors need invoices before signing off the accounts.
Foxy Lady,
No. The auditors would not be doing their duty unless they check for and accrue the un-invoiced amounts likely to be due. In our block both the pre-payments and not invoiced but accrued amounts have been done well. The main problem with the accounts was that a different person seems to have done it each year classifying things differently. Some years a quarter of all expenditure fell into “other” in order to hide where our money went.
Our main problems have been of the Xmas party type choice of contractors, such as the really poor garden contractors that have produced a desert, cleaners at a cost of over £100 per hour, and (repeatedly) 3 qualified electricians (I know because I let them in one time) undertaking a 150 mile round trip just to change our light bulbs, described on the invoice as ‘repairs’. And of course insurance on the Fortune 500 policy that bore zilch resemblance to the market rate but which boosted Peverel profits. And like others on TTAS, Peverel chose to spend our reserves as quickly as possible on cowboy decorators leaving insufficient for other major items.
Neil,
Many thanks for the explanation.
Yes, we have cowboy gardeners too. When the ‘boss’ of the gardeners came out he told us he knew nothing about gardening. He is actually a builder – says it all really!
We call our “gardeners” mutilators
Would you believe they charge for extras that they have not done
Francescc,
I believe it only too well.
We have been charged over £2,000 for clearing and shredding some fallen branches after the snow plus a few other small branches that were cleared. Also the cost of hiring the shredder!!
Almost £1,000 for grit that we didn’t receive in the bad weather.
The list goes on and on.
Here’s a challenge to “Andy”: Confirm (or deny…) that the removal of the member search facility on IRPM’s website was your doing (or at least as a result of a request, either by yourself directly, or somebody else, within OM / CBG etc.).
I’ll bet “Andy” won’t confirm it, if what we all suspect is the truth. Whether he denies it remains to be seen…..
If he is honest enough to confirm it was his / OM’s / CBG’s doing, then perhaps he could further confirm the reasons for having this previously free-to-view information removed.
So, “Andy”, what (if any) involvement did you have in IRPM removing this information? We’d like to know…..
Foxy Lady,
I bet if you asked for a genuine invoice for the work on the trees it would leave Peverel stumped! I suggest you use the grit in our fight against our dear friends at peverel towers.
By the way Andy, i am still waiting for you to take me to court if you think you are right. You know who i am, you know where i live.
Tell you what, as the post is so bad, i can come up to your office to pick up the summons if that will help!
@All,
Thought I might try and call IRPM, a nice lady answered the phone and told me that the website search suffered a fault on Friday and that they had to contact their web developers to fix it, while they are doing this it has to be taken off-line, they hope to have it back by the end of the week, but I was assured it was coming back, she even looked someone up for me to confirm if they are a member or not.
Now I like to think I know quite a bit about computing/telecomms/web etc. as I work in that field, so as it was working fine on Thursday I don’t see how it can suddenly “crash” unless there was data being added/removed/updated and also, it should not take a week to fix … read into it what you will. Perhaps someone else should try call them and see what answer they get? Number is an 020 one on their web page …
Neil and Michael,
I now have all the Review Notes. However, due to company regulations I will not be sent all the invoices unless I pay 35p per invoice. I can, of course, always travel to Luton to view them.
I did get the invoice for the tree works and it left me well and truly stumped!!
Now we can see all the contractors who rip us off.
On Nirmal’s thread, I have noticed Lee Middleburgh is MRICS and should therefore be bound by their Code of Practice. That doesn’t seem to be the case. Any comments?
Hi Foxy Lady,
I could always go and have a look at the invoices for you, I live in Luton.
Thank you Rakmira.
We are all going to ask for a few invoices each.
With all the members of SM/OM that are MRICS or MIRPM accredited – I honestly think that it is now time to hold them to account, if they are not adhering to the code of practice, then they should not be allowed to put the letters after their name – our new Property Manager (5th in 3 years) proudly tells us in every email that he is a member of MIRPM – but to date these appear to be letters only
David – very good point. Perhaps the answer is to lodge complaints with RICS or IRPM (or both, as appropriate) relating to specific non-performing Property Managers, if they have the requisite letters after their names.
Maybe if RICS / IRPM started getting multiple complaints about specific members – and also started to see a patten of complaints relating to specific companies as well – then perhaps they might take action (or at least launch investigations)…???
Obviously complaints would have to be genuine & justifiable, as otherwise mass spurious complaints could be interpreted as a witch-hunt, which could then damage the genuine complaints.
RICS and/or IRPM will only investigate alleged breaches of their respective Codes of Conduct / Practice if they know that these alleged breaches are happening – which means somebody needs to report it.
I always thought that only entities appointed by the Queen could give letters after their names. Such as universities, the army, royal societies or professional bodies with a royal charter such as the British Computer Society or the Chartered Institute of Housing etc.
This allows the letters to be controlled so you don’t end up with people who are members of the British Snail Council (made up) being mixed up with people who have a science degree (BSc). Also if the British Snail Council didn’t have a royal charter and someone put BSc after their name, this is technically fraud as they are using the letters to imply they have a degree when they don’t.
From what I have seen IRPM does not have a royal charter, I saw that the CIH runs the exams (who do have a royal charter) but passing the exam does not make you become a member of the CIH (as far as I know) so who has given them the right to use the letters FIRPM, MIRPM and AIRPM.
Please note this is just information I have gathered from my brain and from Google. If someone can correct me please go for it =)
Not sure on that, Smudge. I am an Associate member of the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists (C.I.A.T.), therefore with the initials ACIAT after my name. This signifies membership of a professional body which does have a royal charter.
But C.I.A.T. has only fairly recently (July 2005) been granted it’s royal charter – prior to that, it was B.I.A.T. (British Institute of Architectural Technologists), and the corresponding qualification then was ABIAT. I only joined after the charter was granted, but I’m sure members were permitted to use the old (BIAT) qualification letters (ABIAT, MBIAT, FBIAT). But correct me if I’m wrong.
Whatever the situation, a member of a professional body – whether it has a royal charter or not – who has letters after their name (thereby signifying a professional membership) should honour any codes of practice / conduct published by the body, and not just sit back polishing their qualification initials…..
Matt and others,
Your latest post(s) has reminded me of the position with ‘engineers’. I believe that only a member of the Chartered Institute of Engineers can call themselves and ‘engineer’ in the professional sense.
So I guess the same applies to all “chartered institutes’ – they ‘police’the conduct of their members and take appropriate action when a member falls short of their standards.
I do not wish to boast, but when it comes to having letters after my name i am actually Michael Epstein CPT (Cycling Proficiency Test). As such, i am qualified to put a spoke into any company that couldn’t give a penny farthing for it’s customers.
When the owner either is, or will shortly be saddled with debt, i will not be taken for a ride. I will handle all the pressure. I will never tyre. For those who remember the 70′s i say to Peverel you are for the “chopper” it is time you were on your bike.