Janet Entwistle, the chief executive of Peverel, was this afternoon sent a open letter from Sir Peter Bottomley demanding higher compensation to sites cheated in the Cirrus cartel, or to accept independent binding mediation.
The letter is backed by Ed Davey, Energy Secretary and LibDem MP for Surbiton and Kingston, and Jim Fitzpatrick, MP for Limehouse and Poplar.
The letter is public and has been circulated to all media.
Tomorrow the Guardian is giving extensive coverage to the scandal.
Related posts:
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation to meet Janet Entwistle over Cirrus scandal … but NO site that was cheated should accept Peverel’s £100,000 ‘goodwill’ payment
OFT will report on the Peverel / Cirrus price-fixing scandal on Friday
Janet Entwistle says no staff ‘involved directly’ in Cirrus scam – or even ‘linked’ – are still employed
After SEVEN months, the ARHM breaks its silence over the Peverel / Cirrus scandal to say … ‘no comment’
A thought that should frighten every leaseholder!
If companies such as Peverel try to get away with what they have thus far, can you imagine what they would have tried if not subject to the scrutiny of the fantastic people behind LKP and Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation?
That’s very kind of you to say. But there are plenty of other people who have pushed this agenda forward, including your good self.
Hmmmm. I see Jeremy David Owens and Joanne Owens directors of Owen Installations have acquired for themselves an impressive looking holiday home in Weymouth for their firm’s headquarters. [ALTHOUGH IT IS THE REGISTERED ADDRESS OF THE BUSINESS, THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY THE HOME OF THE FIRM’S ACCOUNTANTS AND THE PICTURE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation] The OFT clearly has very limited powers when it comes to handing out punishments to wrongdoers. So surely cases of this nature should be handled by the police? Peverel too must be sitting back thinking they have escaped punishment and got off extremely lightly.
I doubt very much if Peverel are sitting back thinking they have escaped punishment and got off extremely lightly. Of course the OFT could and should have done more,. However any fine imposed as i would have wished probably would have been appealed, pushing the price fixing case into the “long grass”.
This would give more time (which they need) for the “new owners” to get their investment back.
The conclusion of the price fixing case moves the battle on to a whole new level. For example it exposes Peverel to doubts about the protection of service charge funds. Though they may win the odd development (for how long is open to question) they are still very dependent on a single source of appointment. Remember, the impending court case in 2014 could well have an impact for the freeholder and by association, Peverel.
The mention of price fixing no longer needs the qualification “alleged or possible” it is now a matter of record. This is but a new phase of the battle. A battle we are going to win!
Pleasing to see that at long last Peverel and Co are now receiving their ‘come uppance’ by the likes of Westminster MPs, senior ones at that. Certainly long overdue after years of exploitation of retired folk, some infirm and vulnerable. A very organised and orchestrated campaign run by Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation and LKP. Now what about the likes of the greedy freeholders who too for years, having been overcharging, cheating and profiteering from the likes of retired folk, again, some infirm and vulnerable. Holding them to account is in my view, better than winning a million pounds on the lottery and seeking answers to what I have failed to get after 18 months of trying. Only one thing that bothers me with all this adverse public publicity surrounding retirement leasehold living. When you are trying to sell as I am, it is bound to be very off putting for prospective purchasers as they see it as poor investment value and can only drive them away. Is that why I have had only 3 viewings in the last six months? Here’s hoping for a successful sale in 2014.
Ngel, regrettably due to the likes of Peverel, the “current generation” of retirement leasehold are and will continue to have to make serious sacrifices with regard to selling properties at next to nothing prices. This also has a knock on effect to inheriting younger family members. Don’t forget the service charges are still due “when we have gone” until it is sold (given away)
Unfortunately it is not recommended for anyone to buy retirement leasehold under current legislation.
Hopefully the sacrifice will not only get rid of retirement leasehold as we know it but it will help future retirees not to experience the horrendous happenings/scams we have today.
Only buy now if, at the end of it all, you are happy to leave zilch
Well said Michael E. The help, interest and support from such caring persons like Sir Peter Bottomley, Ed Davey , Sebastian Kelly, Martin Boyd, Ken Kilmister, Melissa Briggs and the list goes on on, has been brilliant. I am one of the directors of a small managent company (we only manage Freeholders) and will never subscribe to membership of any of these bodies such aas ARMA etc until they only have “totally honest and decent members”. If, to continue in business, I was forced to be a member, I would rather close our company down.
I think Sir Peters letter to Janet E is very lenient and more than fair. I would ad an addendum to Janet E and that is, if Peverel think they are now all squeaky clean and good trustworthy managers, witout further ado, or any silly legal loophole holdups, they should offer all of the complexes they own/manage their own RTM and choice of a managing agent
After a bribery scandal Monsanto Corp. introduced a new code of practice: all employees were required to sign, as part of their annual performance assessment, a statement confirming that they had neither paid nor received a bribe AND that they did not know of anyone in the company who had done so. A false declaration was grounds for immediate dismissal, of course.
Peverel has had employees who offered bribes to officers of Residents’ Associations if they ensured RTM claims were withdrawn.
Isn’t it time for Ms Entwistle to follow Monsanto’s practice?
Otherwise the guff about “now how we do business now” is simply eyewash that fools nobody. The names WILL come out. Is Peverel’s board truly ignorant or is it pretending not to know?
Alas, their troubles have only just begun, but we’re a long, long way from justice for leaseholders.
But these are compulsory under the Bribery Act 2010…..dont be fooled by it being offered asa “look what good boys we are” act
I know this has nothing to do with this topic but does anyone know what has happened to Peverel Action, there have been no comments added for many weeks now ?
Jane,
It is a shame about Peverel Action. I know they were not as professional as Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation/ LKP, but i think they played a very useful role in the past.
I do understand that another website has been launched that operates in exactly the same way as Peverel Action did. It is called About Peverel.
Perhaps someone would be kind enough (with the permission of Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation) to post a link to the site?
Michael,
Thanks for the information. I am so pleased it has survived under a different name and not disappeared like TTAS.
No permission required to link to About Peverel.
Here is the link: http://www.spanglefish.com/AboutPeverel/
Its rather confusing- when I try google search for “about Peverel”, I get Peverel’s own website
OLLIE,
Type in the google menu bar aboutpeverel as one word and you will get it ok.