Here is the list of all the sites involved in the OFT investigation into Peverel’s price-fixing cartel.
Can any residents at these sites please contact me as soon as possible.
Thanks,
Sebastian
07808 328 230
Abbey Court, Priestpopple, Hexham, Northumberland, NE46 1RN
Fire system
April – June 2009
CCSL and Owens
Albion Court, Queen Street, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 0UT
Warden call/ door entry system
November – December 2006
CCSL and O’Rourke
Alexander Court, Chapel St, Poulton Le Fylde, Lancashire, FY6 7BQ
Warden call/ door entry system
March 2007
CCSL and O’Rourke
Alexandria Court, Glenmoor Road, West Parley, Ferndown, Dorset, BH22 8PW –
Warden call system
July – October 2009
CCSL and Jackson
Angel Court, Cromer Road, North Walsham, Norfolk, NR28 0UN
Warden call system
May 2009
CCSL and Jackson
Ashdene Gardens, Whitemoor Road, Kenilworth, Warwickshire CV8 2TS
Fire system
September – October 2009
CCSL and Jackson
Ashridge Court, Station Road, Newbury, Berks RG14 7LL
Warden call/ door entry system
May 2009
CCSL and Jackson
Averill Court, Hill Road, Clevedon, Somerset, BS21 7NE
Warden call/ door entry system
August 2006
CCSL and O’Rourke
Averill Court, Hill Road, Clevedon Avon BS21 7NE
Fire system
May – June 2009
CCSL and Jackson
Beech Court, Plains Road, Mapperley, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG3 5PZ
Warden call/ door entry system
November 2005
CCSL and O’Rourke
Beechwood Court, Corfton Drive, Tettenhall, West Midlands, WV6 8PE
Warden call system
May 2009
CCSL and Owens
CA98/03/2013 (CE/9284-10): Investigation into collusive tendering in relation to the supply and
installation of certain access control and alarm systems
NB: It should be noted that while the aim was for Cirrus to win each contract, it did not do so on every
occasion. For instance, it would appear that on some occasions there was a third bidder which was not
involved in the collusive tendering arrangement.
Name and address of properties at which the OFT has found a bidding process that has involved collusive tendering
Type of System involved in the relevant bidding process
Approximate dates of the bidding process in question
Name of companies found to have been involved in collusive tendering for that bidding process
Birnbeck Court, Carlton Street, Weston-super-Mare, North Somerset, BS23 1UL
Fire system
October – November 2006
CCSL and O’Rourke
Brandreth Court, Sheepcote Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 2JU
Warden call/ door entry system
November/ December 2006
CCSL and O’Rourke
Carfax Court, 31-33 Durdham Park, Bristol, BS6 6XC
Fire system
January 2007
CCSL and O’Rourke
Chapel Lodge, Upminster Road South, Rainham, Essx RM13 9AG
Warden call system
August – October 2009
CCSL and Jackson
Chapel Lodge, Upminster Road South, Rainham, Essx RM13 9AG
Door entry system
August – October 2009
CCSL and Jackson
Chatsworth Lodge, 2-8 Wickham Court Road, West Wickham, Kent, BR4 0LY
Fire system
April 2009
CCSL and Jackson
Court Lodge, 21-25 Erith Road, Belvedere, Kent, DA17 6HB
Fire system
November 2009
CCSL and Owens
East Haven Court, Old Road, Clacton-on-Sea, Essex CO15 3PG
Warden call/ door entry system
October 2009
CCSL and Jackson
Fairview Court, Galsworthy Road, Kingston on Thames, KT2 7LE
Warden call/ door entry system
March 2009
CCSL and Jackson
Fayre Green, Norwich Road, Fakenham, Norfolk, NR21 8HE
Warden call system
May – June 2009
CCSL and Jackson
Forest Dene Court, Cedar Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5LP
Warden call/ door entry system
March – April 2009
CCSL and Jackson
Glendale, The Bayle, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 1SH
Fire system
August – October 2009
CCSL and Jackson
Glendale, The Bayle, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 1SH
Warden call system
August – October 2009
CCSL and Jackson
%0
Related posts:
FULL OFT LIST OF PEVEREL / CIRRUS SCAM SITES
The Peverel / Cirrus price-fixing story so far:
Beyond belief: price-fixing cheat Glyn Jackson is – AGAIN! – back at Peverel sites
Peverel / Cirrus price-fixing report expected next month, OFT tells Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation reader
Sebastian
I have sent a detailed email to ME and will send to you.
NO Guardian phoned me?
A total of 2,514 flats are involved. All but those at Sefton Court are still managed by this demonstrably corrupt organisation.
The average cost per flat of this scam was £556.88. Failure to follow proper Section 20 procedures should indeed mean that that maximum payable by any any leaseholder should be £250.
250 x 2,514 = £628,500.
Therefore, Peverel must repay any amount spent in excess of this figure: £771,500 at a minimum (55%).
That’s assuming all of the works were reasonably required in the first place. It is very likely that the desirability of the works was directly related to the health of the reserve funds at the developments concerned and were not otherwise reasonable.
Why should Orchard Dene escape being scammed but Chapel Lodge get hit twice? Both have 21 units and were built a year apart. I think the health of the reserves will explain the difference.
It’s time, not just for restitution in these cases, but for a full parliamentary inquiry into the systematic looting of funds held in trust by an unregulated industry riddled with crooks.
Paul Joseph,
Your post, like many others serves to demonstrate to Peverel that any notion they may have had of being able to draw a line in the sand under the price fixing scandal by offering a £100,000 goodwill payment is false. Subjected to proper challenge (which they will be) they will end up paying back a considerably larger amount. That such a goodwill payment was offered should serve as warning that service charge funds are not protected against fraud. For that to be the case, Peverel would not have needed to make any offer at all. All that would have happened is that once identified service charge funds that were used as part of the fraud would automatically be refunded. i would urge everyone to simply ask their property manager, if service charge funds are protected against fraud? Don’t settle for the usual Peverel “speak” answer.Insist on a written “Yes or No”
Peverel would have known that the £100,000 goodwill payment would have stirred up a wave of protest, so i ask why make an offer for such a small amount, knowing it would not be accepted?
Possibly they hope (and have allowed for) payments being increased to £250,000.
This would be a bonus for Peverel as their true liability is around £700,000.
What would have happened if instead of £100,000 Peverel had offered £460,000? That could well have taken the anger out of the situation, as clearly to many that would appear to be a substantial amount.
Possibly the answer to that is contained in Peverel’s accounts. After repayment of loans Peverel Group Profits were about £12,000. (Twelve thousand) in case anyone thought it was a typo) Do Peverel have the funds to make repayments?
Remember the “in it for the long term” Electra made sure they took £6,000,000 out of the company ahead of cheated residents getting the refunds they were entitled to!