Janet Entwistle, the Peverel CEO, assured Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation earlier this year that no one involved directly in the Cirrus price-fixing scam – or even “linked” – was still employed by the company.
Janet Entwistle’s was speaking at a meeting with Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation / LKP at the Commons on February 10, hosted by Sir Peter Bottomley.
She is recorded in the minutes, which were subsequently sent to Peverel for approval, as stating that she
“confirmed no member of Peverel staff involved directly in the collusive tendering scheme was still employed by Peverel.
“JE [Janet Entwistle] further asserted that no individuals linked to the ‘bid rigging’ are employed within the Peverel Group.
“ SOK [Sebastian O’Kelly, of Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation / LKP] stated that Andy Davey was still working within the Peverel Group.”
A further Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation / LKP meeting with Janet Entwistle is scheduled for October.
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation has suggested that Andy Davey be invited to the meeting.
The full minutes are here:
Related posts:
Janet Entwistle to Bottomley: no move on £100,000 ‘goodwill’ payment over Cirrus, but she welcomes meeting with MPs and Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation
Three MPs tell Entwistle to pay up more over Peverel / Cirrus scandal, or accept binding mediation
Cut out the nonsense and pay up for Peverel cheating! Cabinet minister tells Janet Entwistle
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
Yes, but how many staff indirectly involved (and thus had full knowledge of the scam) are still employed by Peverel? Quite a few I suspect.
“directly”?
The minutes say “linked”:
19/ JE further asserted that no individuals linked to the ‘bid rigging’ are employed within the
Peverel Group. SOK stated that Andy Davey was still working within the Peverel Group.
Paul,
The sentence before:
18/ SOK stated that LKP/Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation had been contacted by at least two other sites who were not in the OFT findings. JE confirmed no member of Peverel staff involved directly in the collusive tendering scheme was still employed by Peverel.
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation this is a further play on words and it is clearly visible.
I have stated that Ashbrook Court, has evidence that would show the Bid Rigging/Price Fixing was highly likely to have occurred and has been mentioned on this site previously.
I again ask for Support, Guidance and Direction from Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation?
No doubt this will also be waiting moderation.
The longer this situation goes the more Peverel will be digging a hole for themselves.
The slow drip of evidence from previous employees and exposure of additional affected complexes to the original 65 only adds to their already bad publicity.
They need now to lay bare all the available evidence and name those employees who were involved or had knowledge of what was going on at the time. There’s no point in keep telling us who was not involved.
This whole situation could have been avoided months ago with an apology and adequate compensation, probably around £500,000 plus the Goodwill payment. Something based upon the likely amount of the fraud.
It cost the OFT and the public purse £500,000 to discover what everybody already knew, what a waste of money that was.
For Peverel’s own good, and for the sake of the elderly victims I have continually urged them to have a rethink. All my requests were rejected and now I am completely ignored.
It’s a thoroughly sad and unsatisfactory situation not helped by the actions of the OFT.
You are one of many who are ignored. Michael. Ignoring complaints is what Peverel do best. Janet Entwistle did not respond to a letter from the residents of Mere Court who sent a signed petition. [REDACTED …] No-one at Peverel ever gives a proper answer. Either they ignore completely or do not answer the question that is asked of them.
Alex,
I am having difficulty with this website.
I have read the minutes of the meeting at the House of Commons attended by Sebastian, Sir Peter Bottomley and Janet Entwistle.
I would not be surprised if this was a watered down version? Note no reply to the last question?
Also
4/JE Peverel Group do not own developments they only Manage them.
Later on JE stated that Peverel Retirement only sold those House Managers Flats that belonged to them?
Do we know who took the minutes and why has it took over 6 months for the minutes to be aired?
I was informed that JE was in a previous life, not only a lawyer but, a barrister?
Charles,
Your difficulties with this website are of your own making as you insist on naming individual employees of management companies and suggesting that they have acted criminally. This is not fair. You have been asked not to do this in the past.
As a result, your comments are being held for “moderation” before being published.
The minutes of the meeting with Janet Entwistle were taken by Sir Peter Bottomley’s office and were sent to Janet Entwistle for approval. They have been published now by Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation and LKP owing to their relevance to the Cirrus coverage.
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation,
I asked if there were notes taken at the meeting as the minutes seem watered down and the last question was not answered.
Was Peverel Group allowed to moderate/sensor and reproduce the minutes of the meeting that were produced by Sir Peters lawyer?
I do not have a problem with your moderation/censorship.
We seem to have different agendas.
Peverel had the opportunity to amend the minutes, but did not do so.
Seb,
To make things even clearer both Sir Peter, ourselves and Peverel were sent a copy of the draft minutes and all parties were allowed to submit factual corrections. The final version is now accepted by all parties as the official record of the meeting.
Some of the points recorded in the last meeting will have a relevance to the next meeting.
If readers wish to raise particular points for the next meeting they should do so in an email to admin@Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation.org.uk
I think Janet is right in saying no one linked to the Cirrus scam is still employed by Peverel in 2014.
Very few employees inside the company would have known about the Cirrus scam and those Peverel directors during 2004-2009 have terminated their positions before the Group was placed in administration under Zolfo Cooper.
But Peverel Retirement /PMSL still obligation has to repay the leaseholders at affect retirement sites, the money overcharged by the Cirrus Scam.
ollie,
Ashbrook Court had the Warden Call System (WCS) replaced in 2007/2008 after we were informed that the WCS was OBSOLETE. Cirrus Communication had previously priced 2 options a Straight Replacement, £15,000 or an Up-Date £15,000 pus £5,500.
Without consultation our Area Manager ordered the Up-Date, so we paid £5,500 more than necessary?
We know, the Price Fixing was rife at the time and the Cirrus Communication tender was £5,000 less than the Glyn Jackson (GJ) by exactly 15% per item as there was some 20 different items it seems that we were Priced Fixed.
We can not be sure how much the true tender cost for the WCS should have been, as Cirrus would have always been the cheaper.
Cirrus would have given their tender cost to GJ who would then add the agreed amount which would have been either plus 5%, 10% or !5%, our difference was 15% precisely on each separate item.
Both contractors also added exactly £1,000.00 to the Contract Sum, which did not reflect the 5% of the Contract Sum as is normal under Contractual Procedures?
We were able to claim back 99% of the new Up-Dated cost of the WCS, as before Cirrus was to replace it, a storm damaged the WCS, so they were forced to go out to tender. Why would an Insurance Company pay out 99% of the value paid for an OBSOLETE, WARDEN CONTROL SYSTEM?
We feel that the £5,500 update cost, should be returned to the Insurance Company paid for by Peverel Retirement Management Services Ltd – Brand Name Peverel Retirement?
The actual cost of the individual items in the tenders, were deemed to be 50% overpriced when the Price Fixing was first brought to the attention of the SFO and the OFT, in 2008/09.