Update from Charter Quay’s, plus OM Confusion
By admin | January 26th, 2012 | Category: Past Articles | 32 comments
With the recent ongoings with OM Property being issued with winding up petitions and changes to OM and E&M’s websites – we wanted to clear up a few of these concerns, along with bringing you an update on Charter Quay’s.
First up, we’ll clear up the concerns about OM and E&M added to their websites a copyright notice, which in E&M’s case states © Estates & Management 2006-2012 and OM’s says © OM Property Management 2012.
These additions to their websites are not related to OM / E&M setting up new companies and are purely copyright notices for their sites.
We think these copyright notices have been added to prevent the use of their website content on other media platforms, rather than it being the end of them or another company being setup.
In other words, they are more than likely trying to stop sites like TTAS, Carlex and Peverel Action quoting their content!
We decided to refer to the BusinessLink website, that contains useful information for businesses and below we quote their reasons for website copyright.
An internet copyright notice sets out the copyright position of your website content – eg whether you will allow the material to be downloaded or distributed by visitors.
Copyright notice samples
This website and its content is copyright of [business name] – © [business name] [year]. All rights reserved.
Any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form is prohibited other than the following:
- you may print or download to a local hard disk extracts for your personal and non-commercial use only
.- you may copy the content to individual third parties for their personal use, but only if you acknowledge the website as the source of the material
You may not, except with our express written permission, distribute or commercially exploit the content. Nor may you transmit it or store it in any other website or other form of electronic retrieval system.
However, there is an unwritten rule for websites and blogs whereby if you quote another sites content that you acknowledge where the information came from and is why you’ll often notice a “Source: XYZ” at the end of posts, where we have used another sites information.
Which returns us to why they have suddenly added these copyright notices? What else are they trying to prevent?
Are they anticipating an influx of visitors to their website and are trying to prevent content being quoted in the press?
Who knows, but we are still waiting to hear from our sources in regards to whether Peverel has really been saved from Administration.
We’re very keen to secure this confirmation, as we’ve seen a spike in correspondence from potential homeowners asking whether Peverel have been bought, because they would then feel confident to buy a Peverel property!
This is still a risk, but clearly one that novices are prepared to gamble with on the assumption that the new buyer is going to improve things!
It’s highly unlikely that changes will occur IF Peverel/OM have been bought and if anything any investor will be looking to get the money they’ve invested back, as quickly as possible.
Therefore – do not rush into anything too soon, even if it is found that Peverel have been sold.
Charter Quay Update
We’ve been contacted by Charter Quay’s to highlight an article they recently published about their AGM.
The article in question explains details for the first time of the issues of common area rental being taken over by their LVT appointed managing agent, who is suing CQRA’s landlord via courts (not the LVT) for the recovery of £93,000.
They told us that the legal issues are of course the same as those faced in many residential and retirement sites, and they thought it was worth mentioning this on TTAS and in particular the approach of Estates & Management who promised to give monies back and then failed to do so.
“There is no reason to believe that there will be problems in the future” says landlord.
CQRA EGM 4th February
CQRA is holding an Extraordinary General Meeting for all owners to consider the future management of the site. The meeting takes place at 10:30AM, 4th February, at the Rose Theatre. If you are an apartment owner it is important that you attend.
The three year management order by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal appointing HML Andertons in place of the landlord’s management is due to end in August. Our landlord wants the site to return to their management and has told the Tribunal “there is no reason to believe that there will be problems in the future”.
We know the very opposite to be true. In November 2011 the Tribunal ruled about the landlord’s actions in 2008 and 2009. They highlighted various issues: the sweetheart deals with related companies; the onerous contracts and the huge insurance commission rake off. The Tribunal ruled the landlord’s managing agents actions in the handover to Andertons were “disgraceful”.
Owners should know one more thing about our trustworthy landlord. They charged us over £93,000 for “notional rentals of the common areas” covering the years 2005-2009. All five years of this “rental” were taken from our service charge account in 2009 just before the landlord’s managing agent was thrown off the site.
- Michael Gaston the Managing Director of Estates and Management Ltd, the landlords agent, admitted in an email in November 2010 he should not have charged for these “rentals” and assured HML Andertons that he would pay the money back – They have not.
.- In February 2011 Michael Gaston’s PR man advised the Surrey Comet they would pay us the money back – They have not.
.- In 2011 Andertons started a court action against the landlord to recover the money to the service charge account.
.- In December 2011 the landlord went to court to try and have Andertons case struck out. They failed and had to pay Andertons legal costs.
.- The issue is due to go to a final hearing this year. In addition to the £93,000 Andertons are seeking to recover legal costs and interest.
So when our landlord says “there is no reason to believe that there will be problems in the future” we hope you understand what they really mean.
If on the other hand you think our having to figtht them every inch of the way for the last four years is a reflection of how they would behave in the future. If you think that they might be looking for payback on the massive legal costs they have incurred not to mention the repeated humiliation in the courts and in the press. Or if you are just angry that they have never apologised to you. We recommend you turn up to the EGM on the 4th February.
We need you to turn up to the EGM to help keep the landlords hands out of your pockets!
Source: CQRA
Sources have suggested that the LVT is claiming it’s only in London where there is a problem with Peverel and from the top of our head, we can think of the following LVT cases that suggest otherwise:
- Westside One (Birmingham)
- City Heights (Nottingham)
- VizioN (London)
- CQRA (London)
In addition to the contribution of our ‘Find a Friend‘ pages that proves the issues are not just in one area but nationwide.
And Finally
We’ve been undertaking a spot of research into individuals at Peverel / OM and decided to checkout ‘Andrew Billson’ to see whether he’d taken up his role at Barratts Homes yet.
We were curious because earlier in January we’d heard rumours that Barratts may have got cold feet over his appointment and needless to say, it appears that that may be the case based on Andrew Billsons ‘LinkedIn’ profile as his profile no longer states his position in Peverel, but shows he is still employed by them.
Admittedly the end of January is almost here and it’s possible that his last day is approaching…. who knows but our sources are on the case looking for more details.
Fingers crossed, Barratt Homes have seen sense and have opted against recruiting Mr Billson!
Admin,
I wondered how long it would take you to work out the reasons for the Copyright on the websites?
10 points to you and A Reviewer!
In fact, my post was correct in every detail, apart from the fact I was completely wrong!
As a matter of interest, for a site not to be copied does it have to state “All Rights Reserved?”
What it does show, is that there is always a reason for Peverel doing something, however trivial it may seem.
Michael
thanks so much for the accolade – i would suggest that admin take 9 points and i will be happy with the mention and 1.
if you look at the front of just about any book you will see an essay on the subject …
copyright
assertion of rights under the copyright designs and patent act
all rights reserved
sold subject to ..
can i suggest that deeds / leases / landlords at al are all dare i say it in summary:
” to allow us the unlimited opportunity for fiscal rape ”
but never the less rape is a CRIME … and NOTHING they say or do can change that.
i would say that thanks to ttas, peverelaction, carlex and guys like the late don heady, property management is becoming a much less lucrative industry … reminding that ALL of peverel’s owners [apart for the mbo] have gone bust.
happy days
On the latest Service Charge Budget sheet issued by Peverel Retirement is the following :-
‘ This document and its contents are confidential to Peverel Management Services Ltd and the residents of the development to which it relates. It may not be copied, published or otherwise distributed without the written consent of PMS Ltd.’
What have they got to hide other than the fact we are being ripped-off !!
Jane
to enforce this nonsense they would have to have evidence that
a) you had disseminated this information … like to your bank to make a payment – you have told them how much you have to pay ! may be they want you to make ten thousand payments of £0.99p ?????
b) then they have to sue you … but before they do that they have to seek an injunction [interdict in scotland] to formally stop you.
your defense of course is that you wanted to ask other people if what they were charging is fair … and [as sure as the fact that they are going to go to hell] they dont want to go there [especially in the high court ] … may be you might even want to send it to prospective buyers of your flat so you are not accused by them of withholding information relevant to the sale.
last thing is that this is against your human rights … they tried this on me and the court of session in edinburgh found that it WAS against said rights .. well that was the opinion of the sheriff of east lothian – ok so now they know who i am – but forgot that both david edwards and rdf bagley already did a runner – so may be they wont…
the import of that decision was to give me legal aid – ok it took a couple of years to get the legal aid rules changed. but in effect it pre-heard the case.
then they did a runner – case dismissed by consent
happy telling the world what your costs are – of course it will be out of date as soon as you do it, because they will think another scam and costs will go up AGAIN.
and of course they cannot unreasonably withhold their consent to you to publish the information … and now i remember that i wrote a 20 page essay on the word reasonable in a contract context for the PULN back in 1981 i think it was.
PULN -> Perusahaan umum listrik negara
happy days
from a non dribbling [well not often - except when my arm is nudged in the pub while i am trying to take a mouthful of beer], mind still operating, chartered engineer.
and don’t forget to google the term “sheriff of east lothian” – including the quotes … its why they didn’t challenge the ruling.
If, as Peverel Retirement claim, they offer “value for money” and “economies of scale” why on earth should they want to prevent the general public seeing their service charge budgets and accounts? It smacks of wanting to cover things up and paranoia. It just makes them look pathetic.
Jane,
Or alternatively a means of pulling in ever more ‘admin fees’ for supplying the ‘budget information’ to others who request sight of it?
I posted that last week..!!!!
Jane,
You say the notice is issued by Peverel Retirement, (which is listed as a dormant company) but that it Peverel Management Services that it is confidential to.
Well that being the case, confidentiality can not be that important as according to your notice board Peverel Retirement (A dormant company) must have told Peverel Management Services.
So, anything you pass on is from Peverel Retirement, not Peverel Management Services.
Sorry if my explanation was more confusing then usual.
In order to assist you and Peverel further, I suggest you publish on this site, in full, what you wish, and once I have had a look at it, I could advise if it should be published!
I once asked the ARHM (Association of Retirement housing Managers) the so called trade body for a list of management fees charged by their members, but they refused to do this on the basis of commercial sensitivity. Peverel tell us thier fees are “average” for the sector based on surveys done by ARHM, but the ARHM won’t tell the end users of the survey results. The ARHM is just a closed shop.
According to Michael O’Donnell *(Ebbtide Partners) in his 25 October 2011 newsitem announcing his appointment as Chair of Peverel, Peverel have 44% of the market share of the retirement market. (Information obtained from Ebbtide website – source aknowledged)
With nearly 50% of the market share I would think that they do not worry unduly about comparisons.
Would a more appropriate comparison then be between Retirement devevelopemts that have ‘stood their ground’ with Peverel and succeeded in getting big refunds on insurance premiums etc and those developments which, for whatever reason, have not ‘stood up to’ Peverel?
I recall one of the LEASE advisors saying to me a couple of years ago – ‘So your management fees are £250(inc VAT) a year?’ to which I replied ‘ how did your know?’ I will not report directly what his reply was, but my own interpretation of what he then said was ‘they charge what they know they can get away with.’
Michael,
Thanks for your interest and concern. It is not so much that I wish to publish anything at this stage but my re-action is what have they got to hide ? Insider hit the nail on the head with the word ‘pathetic’ !!
For your information, the covering letter sent with the Service Charge Budget was headed Peverel Retirement.
£250 a year is an ok price to pay if you get an agreement that there will be no kickbacks, commissions, “contributions to overheads” (a backhander in any language), s20 consultation fees etc. There are companies out there that agree to total transparency and to passing on any discounts.
£250 a year is an ok price to pay for peace of mind. With OM you spend time wondering what the latest scam is.
Michael Wolff’s entertaining book Burnrate, about the dot com boom, cited an old business maxim from the wild west of venture capital in Silicon Valley: if you don’t know the fool is in a deal it’s you.
If you think you are getting a bargain by paying less than £250 a year and do not have an agreement in place as described, then you need to go look in a mirror.
There has been a recent case involving managing agent’s fees and an appeal (presumably bought by the Managing Agent) to the Upper Chamber. It would appear that the appeal was successful, but the relevant judegment is not yet available online. However the principle highlighted in LR/72/2005 – Arrowdell Ltd v Coniston Court (North) Hove Ltd is referred too,
that was supposed to be
If you don’t know who the fool is in a deal… it’s you
Of course, many of us were made fools of when the developer of our properties sold the freehold to a company that already controlled the managing agent.
The only fools in this sorry story, are those that know they are being ripped off, but choose to ignore it!
Those that pay up for a quiet life. Those that do not turn up for meetings. Those that leave the fight to others.
It is ironic, but people will scream blue murder if they get an unfair parking ticket, but are prepared to sit back, when they are “fined” the equivalent of a parking ticket every month by Peverel.
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me!
“The only fools in this sorry story, are those that know they are being ripped off, but choose to ignore it!
Those that pay up for a quiet life. Those that do not turn up for meetings. Those that leave the fight to others”
That unfortunately Michael is all too common and I was having a conversation with one of them yesterday. There is genuine amazement that some us on leaseholder committees spend so much time trying to manage the detail of our relationship with Peverel – they quite honestly feel they have better things to do in life and would rather just pay up. I wouldn’t call them fools, and they have every right to determine their own priorities in life, but is VERY frustrating for those of us that do care. It is that very apathy that makes RTM a difficult proposition for us.
Muddy,
Lots who manifest apathy are willing to accede to what appears inevitable. You have a marketing problem and it’s not insurmountable. You need to create and manage the right impression. You’ll be surprised at the number of last minute converts.
We’ve actually done a pretty good job at getting support in our blocks, but there are other blocks involved over which we have no direct influence and we’re all linked in a way I can’t go into here. But you are right…that’s the way to do it.
TCHENGUIZ TO SELL 250,000 FREEHOLDS FOR £3BN
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/db77a378-4824-11e1-a4e5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1kejL78w5
To by-pass Financial Times registration details, google the above headline directly please !
Many thanks, Jane, for alerting us to this news item.
Many questions naturally follow on from this:
1. Does this include Charte Quay?
2. Where does right of first refusal come into this?
(And why am I thinking about Cervantes – oh yes, of course, Don Quixote and those windmills. So will there only be windmills left in the portfolio?)
Sorry, I forgot one important point:
Where will that leave E & M?
The buyer isn’t buying the freeholds directly, very likely, but a controlling interest in the company owning the freeholds. This will then count as an internal transfer,and there will be no obligation to offer the peasants the right to buy. Then they can continue to be bilked as before.
The question is, do the new buyers income stream projections depend on the revenue from the Tchenguiz business model which depends on what any reasonable person would call conflict of interest?
E&M will surely continue under new ownership.
And what are those income streams and how much can a buyer rely on them?
Ground rents – fairly stable income I would have thought, with regular upward reviews.
Lease extensions – nice little earner for landlords where the lease is at the 80 year mark
Commissions on insurance – being regularly challenged in LVTs and must one day be outlawed
Transfer fees (retirement estates) – under scrutiny by OFT no guarantees of future income
Rental on manager’s flats (retirement estates) – being challenged all the time. Can no longer guarantee “upward only” reviews or rental above market rates
Permission fees (subletting, improvemets etc) – again being challenged in LVTs.
The Tchenquiz Empire was built on all these income streams, but many have and are being challenged and so a buyer will look hard at any sale portfolio. Sites like this will be a must read for any purchaser.
Possible sale price 3billion, debts of 2billion. I wonder? Perhaps he will have to sell his yacht!
Somewhere in the small print there will likely be footnotes addressing a requirement for the Tchenguiz Family Trust to disclose material facts that might affect the valuation. For the most part the focus, and indeed an impediment to the sale, will likely have been the Serious Fraud Office investigation. Sites like this and Peverel Action may have had a passing reference under “reputational capital”, with the government’s determination to avoid changes to the law offered somewhere else as a comfort factor. What will not have been hinted at is the tsunami of RTM actions in the pipeline, because there is no evidence for these. One can only extrapolate from a trend. But… we’ll see what climate scientists call a hockey stick graph. When you hit an inflection point the past numbers are no longer reliable.
At the discussion on service charges at the London Assembly the other day an industry representative predicted, probably rightly, that RTM Co. management will become THE NORM. That will the be OPCO side out of our lives, with the PROPCO to follow. (operating company and property company respectively, as represented by E&M as agent for Proxima GR, e.g., and OM Property Management).
I would be glad to join a class action law suit about the sale of my freehold (AGAIN) without my having had a chance to buy it, or, for that matter, to join a national ground rent strike provided some minimum number of participants joined in (3m million people live in leasehold property).
Fleeced,
My earlier draft prepared for you to send to MPs to push for changing the Leasehold Laws – is it edited yet for getting TTAS backing ? We urgently need to speak out and get the service charge funds into SEPARATE bank accounts – one for each estate. As well as sending a copy to MPs and David Cameron, you can send it to CEO of all UK Banks which are financing CBG ( BVI) and as well as E&M demands for excessive sublet fees.
The entire UK banking industry is probably 40% supported by Government Tax funds and so we as tax payers are indirectly financing 40% of loans to CBG etc.
bruce – service charge funds are already separated into individual accounts, estate-by-estate. OM told us this a long time ago, and my own estate’s PM also confirmed it to me when I challenged her about it. If I recall, “Online Andy” (remember him?) also confirmed it to me personally in an email, when challenged about it. I specifically asked for confirmation that my payments go straight into a specific account for my estate, and that no payments for any other estate are debited from this account – I was told that this is the case, and is also applicable to all other OM-managed estates.
So it must be true. Isn’t it? Or do you know different…???
Matt,
We spent a lot of time looking at the account issue but fortunately escaped from the dark side a few years ago. To find out more about how your accounts are handled and how separate the funds are you may like to visit this page on the Bank of Scotland web site.
http://www.bankofscotlandbusiness.co.uk/online-banking/i-site/
As you will see there are many ways to define “separate account”. There are also some questions to ask about the trust status of your sub account in what may be a mainstream commercial account. There are also some questions to ask about when monies are moved from the main account to your sub account and what interest is paid under the options provided as detailed in the last paragraph to the web site article. I’m sure you are getting a “competitive rate” rather than being rewarded under any form of “best client” status
When we were managed by the dark side our client accountant assured us they took a “conservative” approach our half a million pounds worth of reserves to “avoid risk”. I guess that means we must have had a “competitive rate” too.
Sorry we’ve not been in touch with the site much for a while but due to one or two cases it seemed best not to say too much. Thanks for all those who have sent their support its been much appreciated even if we did not always respond.
My earlier comment was based on the assumption that the entire empire would be sold; however I’ve only seen reference so far to sale of the freeholds. But since these can’t be sold without offering first refusal to leaseholders, they aren’t being “sold” but transferred as part of the assets of a company… with debts of $2bn. I assumed that nobody would buy this without the money printing bit… the operating companies.
What Tchenguiz might like to do is sell freeholds to raise money (to sue the SFO, among other things) but retain the appointed property managers where possible. Retention can’t be guaranteed because of RTM, LVT etc. Some might be let some go to raise money, sure, but the risk of these things become separated is clear. If the freeholder and managing agent are no longer connected, the managing agent will have to ACTUALLY deliver service at a fair price and STILL make a profit. After years of being used to an essentially rigged market can Tchenguiz companies change their spots? Who would buy them?
I wonder if he’s putting stuff on the market before it’s repossessed for non-payment of debts?
OM Hostage
I read your recent post on Peverel Action too:
“Many who cannot exercise RTM would surely seize on an RTB opportunity as a means of stopping the bleeding, and because of the overcharging would be willing to pay a reasonable premium.”
How right you are.
But I think Mr T prefers poker to horses though!! If the truth was known I bet that’s where our Transfer Fees end up?
I’d have thought spread betting was more his style — but I was being metaphorical in any case.
My message was in the possibly vain hope that somewhere in London there is an ethical financier, possibly living in leasehold accommodation, who recognizes that there is an opportunity here. Mr T has borrowed from foreign banks that don’t REALLY understand this peculiarly feudal, British business and which may not recognize that they have options which Mr T may not have drawn to their attention. Zolfo Cooper certainly isn’t going to tell them; we know whose side they are on.
Maybe there are legal impediments I am unaware of. I speak only as a hostage, from whom enough ransom has been exacted already.
Newsflash!
I just managed to get on LBC Radio, concerning VT, I gave a plug for TTAS