The Truth About Solitaire Property Management & Peverel Group Companies

We’ve been contacted by the residents of Virginia Quay, in London Docklands who were quoted around £25,000 for the installation of a bollards system at their estate, which apparently actually ended up costing them £82,000!

Over 200% more for a bollard system!

They told us that the company who installed the system were called ‘Fortress Security Systems’ and it is a former ‘Peverel Employee’ that is running the operations for them.

The former employee’s ‘LinkedIn’ profile can be found at: [Link removed as requested by the former employee]

They told us that the Virginia Quay’s development manager (NP) was only allowed to approve works up to £5,000 in value, with his manager (SR), being able to approve up to £20,000 and anything more than this would need to be approved by SR’s manager.

However, allegedly – the only signature on the invoice was from NP and to make matters worse, the bollard system they installed is apparently not fit for the purpose and is disfunctional!

The contributor has then advised us that apparently…

They overspent on the budget (£877K) by a massive 29% (£250k) meaning they had dip into reserves and everyone to pay approximately 25% over and above their service charge in the depths of recession.

One of our resident has lived there for 9 years and after 6 bouts of water damage to the communal carpets and was asking to have the carpets replaced, because of stains left (he been unfortunate enough to have had 5 lots of damage) NP’s response to the 5 occasions was ‘thats unfortunate but I cant do a lot about it’, hence Oval pay for all the costs, and our premiums go up – and Peverel are getting kick backs from the premiums.

Still the same carpet, lays there untouched for nearly 10 years!

They profit out of use for additional fobs, over and above the free issue, which were purchased by residents. These were charged out at £25 each whilst the actual cost was £11.69 (inc vat) – and no accounting of this income can be found.

We’ve been copied into numerous correspondences, between Virginia Quay and Peverel / Consort, yet still no answer from them!

As always, we hope that once again – by bringing this story to the public’s attention, that it will spur a response from our Peverel / Consort – or whoever!

[ADMIN EDIT]
We were contacted by the person who we had linked to their LinkedIn profile, who told us the following:

Just for clarification I had nothing to do with Virginia quay whilst at Peverel, i worked for an entirely different region and indeed a different company within the group when the works were carried out and joined fortress having been approached (head hunted) by the owner. The works had already been completed and indeed invoiced, when i joined fortress and therefore nothing to do with me at all.

We apologise for any inconvenience that the former employee has encountered.

It does though, go to show how risky the Internet and Social networking websites can be – by revealing details about people that can easily be misinterpretted.

Andy from Solitaire kindly contributed to the site for the first time in a long while, with his comments on inaccuracies in the post relating to the City Heights LVT

To view his comments click here

TheTruthAboutSolitaire only report the facts that the residents in question advise us of and your response, sounds very much like the one which Peverel issued to CARLEX, when CARLEX reported that Peverel were taking down posters promoting RTM and CARLEX meetings – which was something along the lines of “we have not informed house managers to do this” – despite house managers, confirming they’d been told to do so.

As a previous contributor has mentioned – Holdings & Management (Solitaire) Ltd, have numerous companies registered to addresses at Ballards Land (same address as Estates & Management – whom Mr Tchenquiz is a Director of) and the former address of Solitaire in Barnet.  Therefore, your claim that the freeholder is not Solitaire Property Management Ltd is correct, however, as the appointed Property Management Company by the freeholder – which is a company that is part of the Consensus Business Group - of which Peverel are also part of, we feel that Peverel / Solitaire are in theory indirectly the freeholders. (“you say tam-a-to and I say tomato”)

Insurances, as we are discovering from other contributors, currently it appears that all are arranged by Oval via Zurich on behalf of Solitaire / Peverel.  We have received numerous policy certificates confirming this and therefore, if the insurances are the responsibility of the freeholder – why are they not responsible for insuring estates and why are their names not on the policies? Instead it is Peverel / Solitaire? 

So are you confident that insurance has absolutely nothing to do with Peverel / Solitaire then?  We’re pretty sure that Oval would disagree with that comment, judging by the replies we’ve had from contributors who have gone direct to them, following the lack of responses from Peverel / Solitaire’s customer services dept / property manager.

Your comments about the improvements and promises are almost identical to those that Lee Middleburgh wrote in his letter to ARMA on the 4 January 2010 (a copy is freely available for download on another post, should you not have read it). 

Your post has clearly been written in great depth, planned and contrived to try and protect the reputation of Peverel and to suggest that the facts we have published are incorrect – some maybe, however, the City Heights LVT  Determination say’s it all really and we tend to believe the residents that have suffered at the hands of Peverel / Solitaire over the comments of the company that lost the LVT, despite being defended by numerous professionals. 

TheTruthAboutSolitaire has gained enough evidence to suggest that things aren’t changing and you’re still overcharging residents.  Only when this site stops receiving complaints and we stop seeing people ‘googling’ for ‘Solitaire / Peverel Complaints’ we will believe that you have changed, because there won’t be a need for the website then!

Your comments are detrimental and more damaging to Peverel’s already poor reputation, than it is to try and protect it, because all contributors to TheTruthAboutSolitaire are aware of the real Peverel / Solitaire and is the reason why so many are now are finally starting to understand your accounts, know how to find out the facts and more importantly – know how to get rid of you via RTM or take you to LVT’s.

The excuses of new computer systems and information being incorrect cannot be used forever, how long has it been going on for now?  Emmm, since last March / April?  We think you may need to replace your IT / Systems provider, because they clearly ‘buggered it up’ and don’t know what they are doing. 

This aside though, many of the residents in question have found discrepancies in paperwork dating back to way before Peverel took over Solitaire – highlighting the fact that for many years, residents have been overcharged / charged incorrectly.

Surely, when Peverel took over Solitaire, you did an audit of their developments before taking over?? Or is the Peverel / Solitaire take over, similar to that of Lloyds and RBS – rushed into and then realised the consequences?

Our rant has gone on a bit and we apologise to the avid visitors of the site, but we feel we needed to stand up for ourselves and residents, against a company that are completely blind to FACTS.

Finally, before we finish this post, here are some of the points that we have identified where residents have been incorrectly charged or overcharged, that ‘Andy’ may like to investigate:-

1) Resident Percentage Contributions to Service Charges, are not the same as residents leases, resulting in residents paying more than they should be;

2) Insurance Premiums are excessive, our broker has already sourced one policy which resulted in a £1500 saving – what are your excuses to that? 

3) Failing to act / provide insufficient services for fees;

4) Excessive Admin Fee’s – £25-£50 for a photocopy of a document / name change;

These are just a few that we as Admin’s can think of, but I’m sure there are many more and we’re sure many of the other contributors to TheTruthAboutSolitaire will agree with the comments that have been made.

TheTruthAboutSolitaire has been able to make a recording of the BBC East Midlands Today program, that was aired on the 15 February 2010, that publicised the recent LVT Victory for City Heights Residents.

The LVT verdict has resulted in Solitaire / Peverel Property Management, being ordered to reimburse the residents of City Heights in excess of £187,000.

Below is the YouTube footage for those that were unable to view the program.

This victory we hope will act as an inspiration to all unhappy residents of Solitaire and TheTruthAboutSolitaire would like to pass our congratulations onto Greg Press and Neil Healey for their contributions to TheTruthAboutSolitaire and the work they have put into defeating Solitaire Property Management.

Since the revelation of City Height’s LVT success, we have been bombarded with resident associations and residents contacting us for copies of their Determination.

We hope that we’ve been able to reply to you all with the information and if we have forgotten to send you the determination, please contact us again!

Insurance premiums are clearly a touchy subject amongst us all and we are pleased to see that so many of you have been going through your paperwork with a fine tooth comb and already forwarded through copies of your Insurance Certificates, with details of any claims.

Those of you that have forwarded through policy information, can be assured that our broker is currently going through them and we hope to be able to provide you with some comparisions shortly.  Please be advised, that due to the number of requests received, there will be a slight delay in obtaining the figures and we hope that it’ll be worth it, in the end.

If you haven’t already done so, feel free to send us copies of your Insurance Certificate and details of any known claims and we’ll obtain a competitive quotation for you.  Our aim is to publish the Peverel / Solitaire premiums against those that we can source, to give a clear indication to everyone the savings that can be made and prove that Solitaire / Peverel are overcharging for their premiums.

A contributor to TheTruthAboutSolitaire has advised us that ARMA have apparently replaced the IDRS – Independent Adjudication scheme with an independent Ombudsman (which is apparently more robust and Government approved)

ARMA have advised that all ARMA members will have to join an Ombudsman now (otherwise they do not qualify for membership and they will not renew existing membership if there is not confirmed availability of an Ombudsman for dispute resolution).

ARMA’s preferred Ombudsman scheme is Surveyors Ombudsman Services, SOS  (Housing and Property Ombudsmen are also acceptable) and Solitaire have confirmed that they are joining SOS.

For visitors information, we have read on the SOS website that apparently, they will be changing their name to ‘Ombudsman Services: Property’ – following the increasing number of estate agents and residential managing agents who are now members of the service.

Following Friday’s LVT decision at City Heights, it has sparked an interest in media coverage and our source from City Heights has just informed us of the following:-

The BBC came to City Heights yesterday afternoon and did some filming. Our judgement is today all over local news and radio.

Peverel yesterday banned the BBC from filming on any land at City Heights owned by the Freeholder! So to get round that Residents were filmed walking around the communal areas!

As we have 999 year leases which allow us access and use of the communal lands which we can extend to our visitors; our visitors being the BBC.

We are currently trying to source links to the BBC content, for visitors to TheTruthAboutSolitaire to view.

It would appear that City Heights have certainly frustrated Peverel.

[ADMIN EDIT - 15 Feb 2010, 18.03]

As reported by TTAS contributor ‘Paul’, here’s the link to the ‘thisisnottingham.co.uk’ website, that features the report on the City Heights’ LVT victory.

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Residents-win-thousands-pounds-tribunal/article-1834675-detail/article.html

We’ve been forwarded a letter that was sent to all ARMA members by Peverel in January, pretty much saying ‘go easy on us, we know we’ve got problems and we’re sorting them’.

A contributor to TheTruthAboutSolitaire had previously mentioned that this had taken place and until today, we had no evidence to back this claim.

It’s interesting to have read the attached and to try and understand, why they felt the need to send this letter to all members, had it not been for the fact that they are worried about the increased negative publicity and their own failings.

More importantly, we’ve also been supplied a copy of ARMA’s January Newsletter (which isn’t freely available to members of the public) that raises the following point:-

A SUDDEN SPURT OF RTMCos

Figures obtained from Companies House show that by mid-November 1,968 Right to Manage companies had been registered – a 20% increase in less than a year. Assuming none of these RTMCos were created over the head of RMCs then it is thought that RTM has been exercised on over 10% of blocks owned by investor freeholders.

Whether this surge is recession-led or just the growing awareness of RTM is not clear but it is beginning to look like the Government’s aims under CLRA 2002 are succeeding. Well for RTM anyway – we are not so sure about Commonhold!

This point brought a smile to the faces of the TTAS Admin’s, as it appears that finally – residents are fighting back and ARMA are aware of it!

If you are interested in reading the ARMA Newsletter and Peverel’s Letter to ARMA members, feel free to download them from the following links:-

ARMA Newsletter (January 2010)
Peverel’s Letter to ARMA Members 

Following on from yesterday’s post in regards to the ‘Major Victory in Largest LVT Case Brought in Britain‘.

We have read many contributors comments advising that their estate / development insurance policy is with Zurich, which has been organised via Oval Insurance Ltd, on behalf of Peverel / Solitaire.

In the past we have also obtained competitive quotes and been able to reduce the ‘Peverel / Solitaire’ policy, only for them to ignore our requests and be advised that the policy in place warrants the fees! Despite the policies being identical and thousands of pounds cheaper!

Therefore, TheTruthAboutSolitaire’s campaign continues and we are proposing that those residents who are lucky enough to have a copy of their insurance certificate and details your policy premium, feel free to forward it through to us.

We will, on your behalf contact a broker who has experience of Solitaire / Peverel’s practices and will provide you with a competitive quote.  We will then publish the amounts that Peverel are charging and how much we can reduce your policy and endeavour to ‘embarass’ Peverel / Solitaire into admitting that they are overcharging.

If the residents of ‘City Heights’ are to be re-imbursed £187, 573.53, just think how much more money Solitaire / Peverel have been able to profit from these commissions?

TheTruthAboutSolitaire has previously highlighted commissions that were being paid to Peverel / Solitaire, which ‘Andy’ kindly advised us was not the case – yet another example of residents being lied too.

We’ve been informed that yesterday (Friday 12 February 2010), the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal published the decision in Britain’s largest ever LVT case brough in Nottingham, at City Heights Estate

126 Families living in 6 apartment blocks in Nottingham had had enough of 6 years of hell and got together 2 years ago to challenge ‘RIP OFF BRITAIN’ and the amounts they were being charged by a property management company who were dreadful.

The Freeholder is Peverel and they used their own Peverel Property Management company too.

After two years of fighting two non legal trained neighbours sat in court to fight the case facing an opposition of a Barrister, 2 Solicitors, an Accountant and Senior Managers from the Peverel (Britain’s biggest Property Management Company) during the six day trial.

Stories came out of drinking water being contaminated, disabled wheel chair users trapped in broken lifts, and a women falling carrying a baby on a bridge which had been faulty for years!

There was also evidence in the decision (please contact us for a copy) that shows that Peverel entered into a financial agreement with an insurance broker (Oval Ltd) and Zurich Insurance to receive insurance commissions/kickbacks for keeping 500 estates in Britain with Zurich for Buildings Insurance (ultra high premiums) of which Peverel get 33.05% of every policy (x500) in existence!!!

A major scam, but completely legal.

The court were disgusted by this and have ordered Peverel to repay 6 years of Insurance kickbacks to the 126 families!

Yesterday the court awarded the 126 families a draft amount of £187,573.53!!!

This victory, albeit a lengthy one, demonstrates what we have all been saying during the two and a half years of TheTruthAboutSolitaire and another reason for commencing the ‘Campaign Against Leasehold and Freehold Exploitation’ – because quite frankly, this proves that Peverel / Solitaire are ripping residents off!

[ADMIN EDIT]
It’s come to our attention that the above case is todate not listed on the LVT website, the case number is: BIR/00FY/LSC/2008/0031 – should those that wish to search for it directly can do, once is online.

The title to this post may seem a bit obscure, but whilst we have been putting our strategy for CALAFEX together, we couldn’t stop thinking about, when, how and why developers started to sell off the free hold and have property management companies responsible for the developments upkeep.

In the area that one of the admin’s lives, there are many small ‘niche’ developments, that are marked ‘private road’ and maintained by Peverel OM – which appears to have become the norm.

What happened to the day’s when a house was built and the owners purchased the freehold at the same time and the council were responsible for it? 

Why are Councils (after all they give the go-ahead) allowing developers to build on land, to sell of the freehold and appoint PMCs?

Why can’t developers build developments with public access, that isn’t via a private road and is the responsibility of the local council to look after. Obviously, we understand why flats / apartments require PMC’s – but that is a separate issue.

Homeowners are paying council tax for a reason and for them to be charged that, plus a PMC charge is unreasonable.

Some where along the line, it must have become the ‘norm’ for Councils to approve developments, on the proviso that they wouldn’t be responsible for it, until a later date.  By which time, the developer, freeholder, PMC have all profitted from this.

We need to get to the bottom of this fact, before the government start putting pressure on developers to build homes in the future, otherwise, the government are pretty much holding the gun to homeowners heads and saying, “here’s a home, to live in it, we want council tax and for you to pay hidden charges”

Money clearly talks and I’m sure this entry will cause a stir, but when you look at the bigger picture, it’s true.  This type of transaction is now the norm and it’s time for change!

There’s been an increase in the number of people that have gone RTM or in the process of removing Solitaire / Peverel / Consensus Business Group, property management companies.

Some have managed to remove them via RTM, others by requesting E&M (where applicable) replace Solitaire with their chosen property management company.

With this in mind and to get an idea of the number of developments that TheTruthAboutSolitaire has had a factor in helping remove them, feel free to post below your development / estate, to encourage others that it is possible.

From the information you provide, we’ll be creating a separate page on TheTruthAboutSolitaire listing the success stories.

Now, who want’s to go first?