On the day the Office of Fair Trading announced its findings into the Cirrus scandal, Peverel Retirement declared it had won a new client: the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institute.
Peverel would be taking over the management of the 13-flat Farnfield Court in Croydon, south London.
The beleaguered property management – which has lost all its prime riverside sites in London and has been dumped by Berkeley Group, Barratt and its old benefactor McCarthy and Stone – slapped this triumph on the company’s website.
For some reason, it has now been removed and a chill has descended.
“We were completely unaware of the price-fixing issue involving Peverel, and did not know about its reputation,” says an RMBI employee. “We will certainly be keeping a close eye on the service charges.
“Also the contract is only for a year and will be reviewed before it is renewed.”
This is a marked change of tone compared with Peverel’s news announcement in December.
Then Mark Hoyland, MD of Peverel Property Services, said: “Ever since work started on Farnfield Court we’ve enjoyed a very positive relationship with the RMBI, so it’s extremely satisfying to see our hard work pay off and residents moving in.”
Related posts:
AgeUK removes logos from Peverel Retirement website
Is Peverel looking for a £90,000 spin doctor with ‘personal integrity’?
What IS going on with Peverel’s lifts? Yet more residents are stuck indoors for weeks – we are up to NINE cases in two years!
After £11,500 Peverel victory, Strand Court dumps second managing agent
It is to be hoped that the RMBI take the management away from Peverel at Farnfield Court.
Unlike a commercial organisation a charity (particularly such a high profile one such as the RMBI) has greater responsibilities placed on it.
Having carried out some research in this matter, i do believe the appointment was made after a convincing “sales pitch”. I do not believe the RMBI had any idea about the price fixing or abysmal reputation of Peverel, nor did they know of the numerous tribunal decisions that ruled against Peverel.
Perhaps the RMBI are coming to the conclusion that with so many management companies available to choose from, being associated with a company with the reputation of Peverel may end up harming their own reputation?
On the basis of learning something new every day, I must admit that when i started to investigate the appointment at Farnfield Court (as i have investigated all Peverel’s other appointments) i did not realise how bi the masonic charity was. This doubtless was the reason Peverel were so gleeful to be appointed by them. Apparently, their total charity spend is second only to the National Lottery.
Let us hope not a penny of it ever gets spent on Peverel again!
Totally support MEs comments. RMBI need to be very careful here.
There are a couple of points that really worry and concern me here. An RMBI employee states “We were completely unaware of the price-fixing issue involving Peverel, and did not know about its reputation,” Why did they not do a thorough check up before taking Peverel on. It is not rocket science. Being really critical I wonder “how good” the RMBI management really are as a “management”.
My other concern is the fact, using RMBI as an example, “people out there in the normal world” do not seem aware of hardly anything that is going on with the likes of Peverel, AND the many many other unscrupulous managing agents etc that are out there.
Is there anyway we can get more and more of info off this site etc into the public domain and say the popular press
Trevor,
We are always urged to to carry out thorough background checks before appointing a managing agent. Without making any accusations of any kind, it would appear that the RMBI appointed Peverel before making more substantial checks.
All it would have taken was for one person at the RMBI to “google” “Peverel” and a whole host of complaints would have instantly appeared. Had this been done (given the extra responsibility that a charity has) it is very doubtful they would have risked the inevitable damage any association with Peverel brings.
To be fair, as soon as the RMBI were made aware of Peverel’s conduct, they have taken the matter with utmost seriousness and not tried to sweep the problems under the carpet (as many others do)
This situation amply demonstrates the vital importance that LKP/Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation and About Peverel have in keeping issues in the public eye.
Rather than just being able to say Peverel “are terrible and they overcharge so we should sack/not appoint them” to be able to present documented cases to back up such a claim has been invaluable.
Having made it my business to visit other Peverel developments (I told my property manager that for each week he ignored my emails i would visit another development) i find that initially the story i tell is not believed. However, as soon as i show the LKP/Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation and About Peverel sites the attitude soon changes.
To which they reply, ” ah but we had a management buyout, this is us just dealing with legacy issues”.