Campaign to improve housing in later life
Private Eye today reports the Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation story of OFT price-fixing cheat Glyn Jackson being re-employed at a Peverel site.
Jackson, whose company went into liquidation and so avoided an OFT fine of £35,700, is back at work at the Adelphi site in Harrogate, which is managed by Peverel.
He won’t be employed at other sites, Peverel has stated.
Click to read
Big managing agents, which manage flats, are big because they have got business from developers or large-scale freehold owing companies.
Such as Proxima or Fairhold, which are administered through Estates and Management and are ultimately controlled by a trust in the British Virgin Islands.
Doubtless they are very obliging.
Not a single one is big through consumer choice.
Managing agents accredited to the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, on the other hand, want business from leaseholders. Many are former leaseholders. Many have spoken at our Parliamentary meetings urging politicians to clean up the sector.
All have signed undertakings of good practice and have provided extensive references … from leaseholders.
They can also hand-hold leaseholders through right to manage at minimal cost.
Contact Sebastian O’Kelly at LKP for further details: sok@leaseholdknowledge.com, 07808 328 230
Please click on logos for link and details
London
Darlington
Fulham
Essex / Middlesex
Norwich
Croydon
North London
Pimlico
Richmond, Surrey
Epsom, Surrey
Macclesfield
The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders. Click on the logos for company profiles.
Chartered surveyors
Better Retirement Housing, formerly the Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, exists to promote good practice in the retirement housing sector.
The elderly should be able to downsize, enjoy the benefits of stress-free homes, and live communally.
The advantages of this form of living to achieve mutual reliance and combat loneliness are obvious.
Sadly, the UK’s retirement housing sector has been beset with poor practice and has an appalling reputation. It has been the subject of critical tribunal rulings, two investigations by the Office of Fair Trading, and one Law Commission report.
It has also been debated in Parliament, and at the All Party Parliamentary Group meetings organised by the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership.
That there is a problem is not disputed by impartial observers, although retirement housebuilders’ do their best to minimise the issues.
It is scandalous that the most vulnerable in our society have been beset by sneaky and dishonest fees widespread in leasehold, or systematically cheated, as the OFT found in the Peverel / Cirrus collusive tendering scandal.
However, we acknowledge that the retirement housing sector is varied and there are good operators within it. Better Retirement Housing is delighted that new overseas companies are moving into the market, and that care providers are producing housing solutions. This has introduced a welcome change of culture.
Nonetheless, the standard retirement leasehold flat remains a dubious proposition. It is absurd that it can be the single worst residential property investment one can make, with plummeting re-sale values bearing no resemblance to the local housing market.
The worst practices are made possible by leasehold tenure, and is widely acknowledged that in Scotland, where leasehold does not exist, retirement housing is more harmonious.
Better Retirement Housing aims to improve this sector and, with the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, seeks to make reforms to residential leasehold law.
We assist with individual problems and provide an editorial service of the sector, which aims to be accurate and fair.
Sebastian O’Kelly
sok@leaseholdknowledge.com
Martin Boyd
martin.boyd@leaseholdknowledge.com
Press / admin / urgent 07808 328230
Latest news from Leasehold Knowledge PartnershipTonight’s Dispatches programme (September 24 2012) on retirement leasehold was a brilliant example of television journalism that was extremely critical of both McCarthy and Stone and Peverel. Peverel’s LVT defeat at the hands of
Breaking News on About Peverel
Regarding a Peverel Worker who provides more info on Price Fixing
.
It seems again that Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation has redacted names of Peverel Employees mentioned in the Price Fixing Cartel.
[REDACTED …]
But they have to, for very obvious reasons. They and Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation or LKP may wish to talk privately about contributing or talking to people or groups taking or contemplating action.
I think there are many Peverel staff who wish they could turn the clock back on this scam. And I am one of them. As an ex Peverel Retirement Technical Officer I wrote to my line manager [REDACTED …] expressing concern at what was happening and asking to be removed from being involved in it. The reply was short and sharp – ‘this is how it is, get on with it or leave’.
At the risk of repeating myself I show below a copy of my post on Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation dated July 16, 2013 which may answer some questions. I have inserted extra detail where I think it may help.
POST BEGINS – As an ex Peverel Retirement technical officer who was made redundant, thus incurring residents with extra costs [REDACTED …] with no reduction in service charges for services paid for and not given, I am in a position to tell you the real set-up regarding the price fixing at Peverel Retirement.
[REDACTED …]
ADDITION: Whilst all Area Managers and Technical officers knew the system they were never officially told of the scam by Peverel. All we were told was that Cirrus had licensed a new system and Peverel were recommending it was installed in their Developments as and when replacements were necessary. We had a course on how to use it and what the (so called) advantages were. All people above our level knew of the scam. As time went on it was painfully obvious to Area Managers and Technical Officers what was going on.
[REDACTED …]
I do not know how many of the above still work for Peverel Retirement, but some still do.
[REDACTED …]
BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST – Area Managers would highlight that a development was 20 years old and therefore in need of a system replacement. It was always based on age, never on reliability or capability of repair.
The technical officer would then contact Cirrus for a specification. The technical officer and the specifier from Cirrus would then visit the site and prepare the spec, specifying Cirrus equipment.
This equipment was bought in on a licence from Sweden (I think?) and rebadged. Only people trained by Cirrus were allowed to installed this equipment, and only three or four contractors were trained! (Glyn Jackson etc). This meant that only these people could quote!
Cirrus would prepare their quote and send it to Peverel. Peverel themselves [REDACTED …] would then prepare the inflated quote for the contractor they were using dependant upon which area of the country. That was why there were only ever two quotes. As Cirrus equipment was specified, other companies couldn’t quote.
These ‘Section 20′ quotes were then sent to the development and, of course, Cirrus was awarded the contract.
As Cirrus did not have enough staff to carry out all these installations the contractor was sub contracted to carry out the work, wearing Cirrus T-shirts!
Unfortunately all paperwork has been destroyed.
Hope this helps!
END OF ORIGINAL POST
[REDACTED …]
Charles Willis Says:-
Our Regional and Area Manager were working for Peverel Retirement during this period. Are we being informed by Janet Entwistle that at Peverel Retirement, no Regional or Area Managers were ever involved in Price Fixing, during 2004/05 to 2009/10?
Again, a play on words? Regional Managers knew about it, but were not involved. Area Managers knew about it but were simply asked by Regional Managers to highlight Developments over 20 years old.
That’s all they did. It was left to the Technical Department to actually do the dirty deeds.
If that can be accepted, and I am not sure it can be, it leaves [REDACTED …]
Then, of course, there are the Cirrus project managers and anyone else in Cirrus of which I am unaware.
Posted by Simon Williams on 03 September 2014
That is as I speculated, some time ago, how it would work. Once again nihil novi.
Simon further to your reply 03/09/14 THANK YOU.
Are the smoke alarms likely to be hardwired with a battery backup or just battery?
Why would they require replacing so soon?
I have been trying to ask questions at Denehurst but there is no Residents Association.
Do you think that this is why they have pushed it through?
I know that they are paying exorbitant rent for the House Managers Flat.
I have seen that the rent is some £3,000 above the true value, I am aware that the rent paid is about £9,000 per anum, whilst a one bed flat can be rented for less than £6,000 a year £500.00 per week in Church Stretton?
There has been a recent 1 bed flat sold at Denehurst for £75,000.
Original residents paid up to £139,000 when first built in 2005/06 for a 1 bed flat.
The development was built by McCarthy & Stone, SAY NO MORE?
No doubt Charles Willis is right about the Cirrus price fixing scam.
But on the issue of “major works” why didn’t a Peverel Technical Officer submit a claim to the NHBC under the 10 years warranty cover on behalf of the residents about the building defects that were causing the underground car park to flood? It turned out the sump pump had never been properly connected to the outside main drainage system yet supposedly it had an NHBC building control final certificate and passed by the LA? I read a report in which it was said the builders were aware of a flooding problem while the building was under construction. I repeatedly asked for a copy of the final certificate, but was stonewalled and never received one, so I concluded it was falsified? Wouldn’t be surprised.
As a leaseholder, I had to submit the claim myself to the NHBC, after which the responsibility was passed back to Peverel, when they were forced to provide a surveyor’s report to the NHBC and that was when AEDAS entered for the first time, a firm of fully qualified surveyors, and the in-house technical officers were made redundant. It is common sense that when major works are required only fully qualified surveyors and building/structural engineers must carry out the inspections. How did Peverel get away with not hiring surveyors for so long?
Because you don’t bite the hand that feeds. Back then the NHBC in simple terms first asked the builder to respond or act and when your employer is being supplied with shiny new freeholds, you don’t upset them with defects claims or NHBC claims that affect their cover and NHBC premiums.
Absolutely correct AM.
Yes, more of the corruption and dodgy deals exposed.
I read recently, either on this website or on AboutPeverel, that another leaseholder had complained of a similar problem with their roof, and the leaseholders were forced to pay thousands of pounds for roof repairs on a new building, when it should have been covered by the NHBC.
The message is that leaseholders must DIY. You can’t trust the management companies to make the necessary claims.
fleeced, having worked in construction since 1965 in a Self Build Group building 24 houses in 24 months, I have seen short cut after short cut.
I was working on a site when the first NHBC Building Inspector visited in Birmingham. The Inspector turfed of 90% of the builders, for shoddy works.
The rise of the sub-contract companies as apposed to Direct Workforce, where they worked for a price, not per hour, changed the industry.
The Clerk of Works who were to me, the person in charge and was able to control the standards and the workforce, but when the workforce became sub-contract the level of control by the Clerk Of Works was slowly diminishing.
The NHBC became the private sector of Building Control. The standards of construction were no longer as high. The rise of the sub-contractors on the site (each trade now would be sub-contract) when the Clerk of Works would now have up to 8 different sub-contractors who would tie up the time of the Clerk of Works, who over a period of time would not have the capacity to check as previous.
A scam that came to my knowledge was a housing estate were an electrical sub contactor wired a group of houses. The next sub-contractor who was paid to complete the second fix was unable to find any light circuits or or sockets that worked. When checked they found that the tails showing of the both lighting and sockets were but two foot lengths of wire.
This meant that the whole of the first fix had to be undertaken again and also the main contractor had to pay again.
Sorry for the sad tale but this is well known within the Construction Industry.
Fleeced,
Thank you for the support.
As an ex Building Control Officer, one of my duties was checking old Building Approvals, that had not received their Completion Certificates.
There are many reasons why the Completion Certificate would not be issued.
The main reasons were:-
Lack of certification
Failing to have the Mandatory Visits by BCO
The Builders not asking for the Certificate
Believe it or not the quality of works would be down to the Clerk of Works, who would be employed by the Contractor/Builder.
The failure of the Pump to be correctly connected, means that the Pump was not commissioned properly and would have needed a Certificate stating commissioned and working.
The fact that Peverel did not follow up is possibly that they knew that there was not a Completion Certificate Issued?
If the development was later sold, a Completion Certificate would have been asked for, but not having a Completion Certificate, would not necessary stop a sale?
Was it a McCarthy & Stone development?
McCarthy & Stone were I believe Design & Build.
You are right Charles. McCarthy and Stone had employees to site foreman level but then sub contracted all the works carried out by the trades.
Pegasus Retirement Homes Ltd was the builder that sold the freehold on to Peverel. Both knew all along about the problem of flooding in the underground car park caused by cowboy builders.
The LA planning dept stonewalled me too over the Final Completion Certificate. It’s the old adage you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours…
Leasehold tenure must be ended: the freeholds must be sold to the purchasers and not to the management company. Will the Conservative Party write this into their election manifesto? Most unlikely as the CofE, the established church, owns large areas of land and leases it out and Eric Pickles/Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is a staunch church-goer. WikiSpooks: “At the 2001 general election, the independent candidate Martin Bell, who was the MP for Tatton, having run a campaign of “anti-sleeze”, stood against Eric Pickles due to accusations that the Peniel Pentecostal Church had infiltrated the local Conservative branch.[8] Pickles’ majority was severely reduced, but he retained his seat by a margin of 2,821 votes (6.5%) becoming elected with only 38% of the votes against Martin Bell’s 31.5%.”
Not a hope!
As frustrating as it is (even for me!) Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation/LKP have grown to such an extent and is now in a position of such influence, they must be very careful about what is published on the site. This is of vital importance when mentioning a name. About Peverel operates in a different manner (though they share exactly the same aims and they hope the different approaches compliment eachother)
On behalf of REDACTED I wish everyone well!
It is most important that people alleged to be linked to the price-fixing cartel are NOT named unless they were named in the formal findings. Glyn Jackson was named in the OFT report and, therefore, can be referred to. Although people may believe, or think they know, certain individuals within Peverel or Cirrus were part of the scam they can not be named until verifiable documentary proof has been shown to exist.
In early October, LKP / Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation are due to meet Peverel CEO Janet Entwistle at the House of Commons with Sir Peter Bottomley MP. Peverel director of “Business Excellence” Andy Davey has also been invited to the meeting.
We still do not understand how an unknown number of junior members of staff could run a sophisticated bid-rigging cartel for five years, covering the whole country, and do so entirely for the benefit of their employer without the employer knowing. It also remains unclear how the employer had no systems in place to detect such practices. Even more odd is that the Peverel Retirement managers never noticed the rather consistent differences in some of the bids, and that the same bidders appeared time and time again.
That Jackson should be so quickly employed again as a sub-contractor without Peverel realising what had happened raises questions about the robustness of their new systems.
Martin,
For Peverel to assert that all those involved in the collusive tendering have now left the company, must mean that Peverel must know the identities of those involved.
I wonder if Miss Entwistle intends passing those names to ARMA and ARHM in case any of those people apply to join either ARMA or ARHM?
One might pose a hypothetical that if your are too busy lining your own pockets you are too busy to notice…. That said as long as a contractor is on an approved list and you are asked to quote on some works and will get your share, either of the large contracts or ongoing day to day works here and there, then it is easy to organise at low level. After all if say one contractor is told just give us a price not less than £x they don’t have to spend any time on site and in return we’ll ensure that you get y no of jobs, then few would refuse. The trick is to ensure that everyone gets a share.
Why is it “most important” not to reveal what we (think we) know? Is this the same thinking which kept everyone quiet for 4 years while the OFT fumbled things, playing in to Peverel hands? Do you still prefer to trust the system?
The point of and the power of these blogs is to alert and inform others about what we (think we) know – and you are saying it is “most important” not to.
The original Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation was run by old fashioned heroes who were not so frightened.
Ed Watch,
This is sooo correct, we need a platform that doesn’t move as the threats come in.
Look what happens when those who ignore the people, who put their heads above the parapet to help others?
Yes we are shot at but we do try?
Yorkshire is now finding out.
No doubt this is to be moderated as well.
Charles, Ed Watch,
You need to understand if you name employees without there being proof FirstPort or which ever employer is concerned have every legal right to have their names removed. Some of the small sites make all sorts of statements but if nobody bothers to make them take these names down you have to ask why? LKP/Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation is big enough that we have to make sure the stories we post stay on the web which means we also have to face down some large legal firms on occasions.
You do of course remember TTAS ended up having to redact a number of their articles because they named names without evidence.
.
Martin – I perfectly understand that Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation feels it has too much to lose and is frightened to speak up. It would be stating facts to name the list of people who might have been interviewed by the OFT, it would be stating facts to list those people who had a position of responsibility in Peverel and Cirrus at the time of the fraud. It is you who needs to understand we all have the freedom and the right to make fair comment in the face of people who abuse the system to hide from the truth. Man up, have some courage.
The freedom to make a choice about what you say also extends to choosing what not to say.
If its courage that they lack and you have it, presumably in bucket loads, exercise your freedom – start your own website.
Ed Watch,
I concur and that we have the right to make Fair Comment in the face of people who abuse the system and hide from the truth.
We are learning and finding out more and more of the people who cheated 65 developments are we to stop???
Michael,
Do you believe it possible that our Janet was not informed when she was installed as CEO.
Surely the Senior Directors/Managers would have informed her that there was a OFT investigation into a Price Fixing Cartel?
[REDACTED …]
The exposure in the press in 2009/10 forced the Peverel Group to inform the OFT that Peverel Management Services Ltd and their sister company Cirrus Communications along with at least three other private companies had colluded to cheat us residents by fabricating works needing doing, and then arranging for stooge companies to over price for Warden Call Systems and Fire Systems that were working well.
The fact that the Warden Call Systems worked OK was not an interest to Peverel Management Services Ltd and Cirrus Communications as this was their Cash Cow and a ready made market of Dribbling Geriatrics who would never find out, because they were not used to working with cheats and liars, who we paid to manage us, what does this say about the elderly residents and their children who either are aware and do nothing or refuse to get involved?
Which ever way it is, it is a sad reflection of the people who profess to be our Managing Agents.
Michael,
You are correct as usual, but some one has to show that the people who may have been responsible and have moved on are still guilty and those that covered it up also guilty and those who knew and did nothing such as Area/Regional Managers some who still work for Peverel Retirement need to be flushed out.
When being asked questions JE stated that there was no one still at Peverel who was involved in the Price Fixing Cartel?
JE did not say that no one working now for Peverel knew what had happened.
Ask the wrong question of a Barrister they will answer the question you asked. or make a statement that is incorrect but seems to give an answer.
Ask who was involved at the time, may have left Peverel, but those who knew could still be there as they were not involved directly, but were informed that it went on, and don’t rock the boat.
So my friend Michael some one has to put their head above the parapet, specially some one who has investigated corruption on their own development. The redaction of names and comments goes with the territory.
Do they wish me to stay silent, and also not rock boats???
Any bid-rigging cartel covering many retirement blocks across the whole country would have been pre-planned by high level executives at DIRECTORS level prior to the Peverel Group put into Administration in Feb 2011 and the heads of the Contractors. The house managers in the separate blocks would not be the ones to place country wide contracts.
Bid-rigging is a criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006 and the Directors of Peverel Group from 2004-2009 should be prosecuted by the Proper Authorities ( Police or SFO ?) . The Fraud Act 2006 can be viewed online .
Since Feb 2011 , the Peverel Group Companies ( less the ones put into liquidation ) have been managed under Directors appointed by Zolfo Cooper and since replaced by Current Directors led by Peverel CEO Janet Entwhistle ( representing Electra and Chamonix ).
The Residents Association at each affected block should take steps to identify how much the bid-rigging and excessive buildings insurance has been charged to their service charge account and take steps to recover their loss.
And yet there is nothing to stop those at level manipulating work distribution and tendering of those already on the approved list, by people at a low level, and any contractor knows that keeping on site staff “sweet” is a given. As to the aspect of criminal action, despite your assertion, no such action was taken and if I recall people on this site have attempted that approach and have been rebuffed. They can always put political pressure on the police forces or take out a private prosecution though the CPS can call that in.
Ollie,
Peverel Group were place into administration on the 14/03/2011 some 15 months after the Price Fixing Cartel was exposed by the press.
Has there been any conclusions made that the Directors who left after the 14/03/2011 were moved on as a result of the Piece Fixing Cartel?
Do we know if any Resident Association have been able to identify the Price Fixing, Bid Rigging individual members of staff who were directly involved at the time?
The Cartels that ripped of the elderly in both Warden Call Systems/Fire Systems and Insurance Scams along with the Overcharging for Management Fees for what work they do is still going on because they know that no one takes it serious enough other than the odd politician, Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, LKP and About Peverel?
Chas,
You should be looking for those ” Directors” controlling the “service charge companies” which benefited from price fixing at the expense of the leaseholders during 2008 and 2009 during the period PRIOR to the press in Dec 2009 . I believe the suspect companies in the price fixing cartel include :
Peverel Management Services Ltd ( 01614866) —— Ref: CQRA-TFT Structure Co.no. 9
Cirrus Communications System Ltd ( 03479623)—- Ref: CQRA-TFT Structure Co.no. 39
Careline UK Monitoring Ltd ( 93229746) —————- Ref: CQRA-TFT Structure Co.no. 38
Kingsborough Insurance Services Ltd ( 03479579) –Ref: CQRA-TFT Structure Co.no. 30
Peverel HMF Ltd ( 06776392) —————————— Ref: CQRA-TFT Structure Co.no. 34
Note : The number after the name is the registration number at Companies House and a search under this company number will give the names of the directors during period prior to Dec 2009..
Ref: CQRA- TFT Structure Co. no. can be seen in the “Tchenguiz Family Trust Structure” at the http://www.cqra.org website.