39 sites are named Pegasus Court. This one is in Bournemouth
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation has had a closer look at the list of 1,466 Peverel managed retirement sites … and has discovered that 283 have the same names.
That’s 19% of the total.
The full list with the constituency MP is here:
Peverel Retirement homes
And the full list grouped as names with postcodes is here:
PeverelSites
The names include: Pegasus Court (39), Kingsdale Court (6), Jubilee Court (4), Marlborough Court (4), Orchard Court (4), Tudor Court (4).
Yes, that’s 39 Pegasus Courts!
There are also 945 xxx Courts (as opposed to lodges or houses).
Does it matter if your development is named Pegasus Court, Kingsdale House, or Marlborough Lodge?
What are the chances of Peverel developments with different names getting correspondence or bills in error?
- Alexandra Court and Alexandria Court
- Alden Court and Alder Court
- Bader Court and Baden Court
- Hudson Court and Hudsons Court
- Newcombe Court and Newcomb Court
- Park View and Parkview
- Longdon Court and London Court
- Wilshire Court and Wiltshire Court
- Maple Court and Maples Court
- Homelake House and Homelace House
- Homeford House and Homeforge House
- Homedane House and Homedale House
- Homebrae House and Homebray House
- Homeshire House and Homeshore House
- King George Court and King Georges Court
Or
- Alexander Court and Alexandra Court (two letter difference)
- Beech Court and Beeches Court
- Belleview and Bell Vue
Feeling it’s all a blur?
What about confusing Chestnut Court (there are two) with Chestnut Lodge, Chestnut House or Chestnut Grange? There are many such permutations possible.
A lot more than 20 per cent.
Peverel surely had little or nothing to do with the naming of the sites it manages. It may be that the names are just testimony to the extreme lack of imagination among house builders.
If your development has had charges for goods and services not received, has had charges made multiple times, or has had charges levied which should have been paid by another development, please let Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation know.
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation is contacting Peverel for a statement on whether the confusion of site names has caused administrative issues.
TRIPLES
Abbey Court (3), Albion Court (3), Alexandra Court (3), Beech Court (3), Castle Court (3), Cavendish Court (3), Cedar Court (3), Cedar Court (3), Fairview Court (3), Kingfisher Court (3), Kings Court (3), Kingsley Court (3), Nightingale Court (3), Park Court (3), Richmond Court (3), Riverside Court (3), Sovereign Court (3), St Johns Court (3), The Lodge (3), The Maltings (3), Victoria Court (3), Willow Court (3).
DOUBLES
Bentley Court (2), Berkeley Court (2), Bishops Court (2), Blenheim Court (2), Blythe Court (2), Bridge Court (2), Brooklands (2), Cabot Court (2), Cadogan Court (2), Carlton Court (2), Chancery Court (2), Chapel Court (2), Cherchefelle Mews (2), Chestnut Court (2), Collier Court (2), Croft Court (2), Dene Court (2), Eden Court (2), Gibson Court (2), Hamilton Court (2), Hanbury Court (2), Hartford Court (2), Heathside Court (2), Highfield Court (2), Hillside Court (2), Knights Court (2), Laburnum Court (2), Lavender Court (2), Mallard Court (2), Meadow Court (2), Mercian Court (2), Merryfield Court (2), Mill Court (2), Mill Lodge (2), Millfield Court (2), Monmouth Court (2), Montague Court (2), Morgan Court (2), Mulberry Court (2), Oak Lodge (2), Parish Court (2), Park View Court (2), Parkside Court (2), Parkview Court (2), Parsonage Court (2), Pegasus Court & Manor (2), Popes Court (2), Priory Court (2), Priory Park (2), Queens Court (2), Regal Court (2), Rose Court (2), Rowan Court (2), Royal Court (2), Ryan Court (2), Saxon Court (2), Silverwood Court (2), St Georges Court (2), St James Court (2), St Marys Court (2), Stanley Court (2), Strand Court (2), Sutton Court (2), Swan Court (2), The Cedars (2), The Grange (2), The Mallards (2), The Meads (2), Trinity Court (2), Valley Court (2), Watermill Court (2), Wellington Court (2), Westminster Court (2), Westwood Court (2), Willow Grange (2), Wiltshire Court (2), Windrush Court (2), Windsor Court (2), Woodlands Court (2) .
NAMES
Non-unique first names (1203 distinct) included
Pegasus (42), Orchard (8), Willow (7), Kingsdale (6), Priory (6), Chestnut (5), Jubilee (5), Marlborough (5), Park (5), Alexandra (4), Cavendish (4), Kings (4), Meadow (4), Mill (4), Oak (4), Riverside (4), Tudor (4), Victoria (4), Abbey (3), Albion (3), Arden (3), Beech (3), Bishops (3), Carlton (3), Castle (3), Cedar (3), Chapel (3), Court (3), Crown (3), Fairview (3), Hamilton (3), Kingfisher (3), Kingsley (3), Lodge (The), (3), Maltings (The), (3), Montague (3), Mulberry (3), Nightingale (3), Parkside (3), Parkview (3), Redwood (3), Richmond (3), Sovereign (3), St James (3), St Johns (3), St Marys (3), Stanley (3), Sycamore (3), Valley (3), Admirals (2), Alexander (2), Ash (2), Ashdown (2), Avon (2), Badgers (2), Bentley (2), Berkeley (2), Blenheim (2), Blythe (2), Bridge (2), Brook (2), Brooklands (2), Bucklers (2), Cabot (2), Cadogan (2), Cedars (The), (2), Chancery (2), Chatsworth (2), Cherchefelle (2), Churchfield (2), Claremont (2), Collier (2), Croft (2), Cromwell (2), Cypress (2), Dene (2), Eden (2), Ferndale (2), Forest (2), Garrett (2), Gibson (2), Giles (2), Grange (The), (2), Hanbury (2), Hart (2), Hartford (2), Harvest (2), Heathside (2), Heron (2), Highfield (2), Highview (2), Hills (2), Hillside (2), Hunters (2), Jasmine (2), Knights (2), Laburnum (2), Lavender (2), Lincoln (2), Magnolia (2), Mallard (2), Mallards (The), (2), Maple (2), Meads (The), (2), Mercian (2), Merryfield (2), Millfield (2), Monmouth (2), Morgan (2), Morningside (2), Oaklands (2), Parish (2), Park View (2), Parsonage (2), Pegasus Court & (2), Pond (2), Popes (2), Queens (2), Rectory (2), Regal (2), Roman (2), Rose (2), Rosewood (2), Rowan (2), Royal (2), Ryan (2), Sandringham (2), Saxon (2), Silverwood (2), St Georges (2), St Michaels (2), Strand (2), Sutton (2), Swan (2), Trinity (2), Watermill (2), Wellington (2), Westminster (2), Westwood (2), Wiltshire (2), Windmill (2), Windrush (2), Windsor (2), Woodlands (2)
Non-unique second names included
Court (945), House (199), Lodge (45), Gardens (25), Mews (23), Close (19), Grange (15), View (10), Cwrt (8), Park (8), Gate (7), Manor (6), Place (6), Cottages (5), Green (5), Heights (5), Mead (4), Mill (3), Walk (3), Courtyard (2), Crescent (2), Croft (2), Farm (2), Hall (2), Haven (2), Village (2).
Related posts:
Anyone at these sites involved in the Peverel / Cirrus price-fixing scam, please contact Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation
FULL OFT LIST OF PEVEREL / CIRRUS SCAM SITES
Hold on! Pensioners have been stranded by broken lifts in Peverel blocks FIVE times in the past TWO years!
Knights Court wins RTM after Peverel dropped the action …
Guys
what an brilliant opportunity for deliberate mistakes
WHO was responsible for the naming ? was it perhaps [EDIT …}
happy hunting
As a tax payer who has involuntarily contributed to this whole fiasco I think it would be good to see if duplicate invoices have been used on multiple sites to claim service charges…. I think a forensic accountant/investigator would be a good idea at this point on their whole accounting system…. nothing less will do. We all need to put pressure on the Government and our MP’s to have a thorough investigation on the whole set up…
A lot of work and dedication has gone into deciphering this complex set up, well done to who ever took the time to do it.
I would urge anyone who has or knows anyone that has a leasehold property to write to their managing agents now and request information on their site.
We all know that landlords tend to swop managing agents every 2 or 3 years… the main reason they do this is so that they can hopefully lose the ‘trail’ of accounts which could be opened up to scrutiny… It is easy for them to say that ‘they were a different company and the invoices were never passed over so nothing to do with us’….. a far too easy cop out if you ask me.
Hi Karen,
Thanks for the information regarding RTM is was a great help.
We have recently had refunds for a Relief House Manager (RHM) [EDIT …] for 10 hours work over 2 days, the cost we paid was £143.44 which works out at £14.43 an hour. We were informed that the Address was wrong and it should have been Ashgrove. I have named the person because we are trying to establish if this person did in fact visit as RHM???
I have inspected our last seven years Expenses Files and have found further invoices for items not of our making or missing, as follows:-
1. An Asbestos Survey for Ashbrook Court in Surrey?
2. Replacement Lamps for a Retirement Club (Great Britain)
3. Missing Invoices for Warden Call System from 2008.
4. Insurance claims not Invoiced.
5. VAT Invoices with different information.
Other invoices which were similar for what could be the same work, with different dates, in the same financial year, with the same costs. Other similar Invoices which show as Dr, in different Cost Headings and in two different financial years.
I asked at the beginning this year if we could have an Accounts Person at a meeting to explain in Layman’s Terms the working of the Trial Balance/ Audit Trail, alas no one has been to see us???
The Area manager R. C. was informed during a 2 hour meeting on the 17/07/13 at my address. He was asked many, many simple questions which he was unable to answer. I had found other irregularities which he said he would get back to me. Eighteen days later all we received was a letter saying:-
1. How good the flats looked with the Hanging Baskets.
2. The plastic chairs will be removed due the their condition.
3. Comments about the small trees and Hedges to be cut or trimmed or removed.
4. Windows and Doors that are in need of attention first mentioned on 08/05/13.
5. Inform us that the Accounts Meeting will be held on the 14/08/13 when RC will explain why we were not in receipt of the full refunds that we found in the Trial Balance/Audit Trail and the Expenses File. This was a question asked at the last meeting but RC was unable to say why we only received £7,222.00 refund instead of the £10,000.00 we had found misappropriated.
As Peverel Services Ltd are our Landlords and Managing Agents I do not foresee changes unless we go down the road of RTM.
Chas
Chas
It looks like they are using stalling tactics and are hopeing you will get fed up and stop asking, I would remind them that they have a duty to provide this information under:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1985/70/contents
Sections 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985)
I would also stress to them that you will take it further if they do not respond to you in the time scales they have to by law, if the boot was on the other foot they would be all over leaseholders If they don’t respond then let us all know on this site and we can make sure that you get free advice on the due legal process to make them accountable.
I would also send a letter recorded delivery with all the points you have mentioned to them as they will say in court that you have never mentioned any of the above and if you don’t have it is writing then it doesn’t exist…
But a word of warning here and that is the LVT is littered with cases were respondents have stated they have never received any written correspondence and they seem to be believed….. so it may be as well to also give him a hand delivered copy and get witnesses that you have done so.
I am more than happy to help you obtain RTM just let me know when you are ready.
I wish I had the time to post a letter through every letter box of all Peverels sites and inform them that they too should go down this route!!!!
I would like to see an additional section on the back of all service charge notices that informs all leaseholders that they have a RIGHT to do a Right To Manage or Enfranchisement on their developments (subject to) and I for one shall be pressing for this to happen.
Where possible I send important documents by fax to make sure the recipient receives it – much easier and costs nothing – only need a printer with a fax facility. You can print off a fax report to prove it was sent to the company’s fax number.
Fleeced
See a link to the rules on Right To Manage page 3:
http://www.lease-advice.org/documents/Right_to_Manage.pdf
Fleeced,
I send emails including adding my self, then I know they would have received it. I once sent an agenda for a meeting that our Area/Regional Manager said they did not receive. This was funny as I sent the agenda to myself as well and I received my copy and used it at the meeting which we had called.
Both were indignant when I used the very agenda at the meeting, they were not happy but I gave them the chance to stay and take part or leave, seven residents had turned up for the special meeting in support.
The Area Manager when asked produced incorrect figures and was not prepared for any in depth questioning.
We received £3,600 refunds four months later.
Chas
I am sure Karen is right about the Right to Manage legal advice to send important documents by registered post. But all legal firms today send or receive information mainly by fax or email as a safe method of communicating not only for convenience but to save money and I think I can safely say sending by registered post is not really necessary these days in our modern IT society.
We check our annual invoice/accounts file with a fine tooth comb as we too have found anomalies over the years i.e. gardener invoicing for work which was never carried out, work carried out on other developments and also charging for work which should have been insurance claims.
We have also been told by our Area Manager that RTM does not apply to developments of bungalows. Does anyone know if this is correct?
Very interesting article. I have asked my management company/Crabtree for inspecting the account and looking at the invoices. I was told there is no account written for 2012- 2013! there will be one in 2014!.
Yes, I also was told there is no account from previous management company(Trust), but there is a big invoice which I need to pay.
Simin
I would ask them how do they expect you to pay for something that they can not prove was even paid as an expense on your site… Make sure you quote the relevent piece of legislation when requesting in writing and they will know you mean business.
Peverel is certain to say that as it uses site reference numbers, like bank account numbers, that it would make no difference if every development were called Pegasus Court.
In theory that’s perfectly true.
[EDIT …]
Let’s see Peverel submit ALL of its accounts for ALL of its developments to an independent 3rd party audit.
Its time leaseholders at every development started RTM & RTE companies to take charge of their service charge and to own their freehold.
Its time every leaseholder sent a copy of this Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation report to Mark Prisk and David Cameron to demand separate bank accounts used for holding service charges money at each development.
I am typing my letter to my local MP, also Mark Prisk and Mr Cameron this evening and sign posting them to see the LKP and Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation web pages so that they can see the anger that is errupting with leaseholders of this country, so we will see what happens….
One of the many remarkable things about the Peverel is the lack of standard procedure across developments.
The business model was geared toward enslaving more and more leaseholders and jacking up their service charges, not doing anything that would provide a higher quality of service, better value for money or anything of else of interest to the “customer”. After all, the customer didn’t have a choice.
This is why, for example, it is not company policy to have a contractor’s register at the front desk in all developments to record visits by contractors, and against which visits can be checked when scrutinising the accounts.
Peverel has ZERO interest in this and may even have appointed companies that provided “contributions to overhead” – kickbacks – for every visit they made.
If Peverel paid commissions for the letterhead on bogus tenders what are the chances that they collected commission on bogus invoices? That is on earnings – in addition – to the management fee they collect on the bills — already blatant conflict of interest and violation of RICS best practice.
The company is known to have offered bribes to directors of RTM companies to withdraw RTM claims.
When will there be an investigation?
Omhostage,
For the avoidance of any confusion, actually Peverel has done very well by the customer.
Of course, the leaseholder is not the customer (as much as Miss Entwistle assures us that we are.
The customer is the freeholder who appointed Peverel. [EDIT …]
House Managers are instructed from above to call us leaseholders ‘Owners’. If only…
In the case of residents who have obtained a refund in service charges, or those that should have refunds due to the Cirrus price fixing, may i ask where does the money come from?
Can it be taken from the overall service charge super account or do Peverel have to pay themselves?
If it has been found that an invoice has been paid by the wrong development is it the case that the correct development is then invoiced? And f so, is there a time limit for this to be done?
The L & T Act does not allow bills etc to be backdated by more than 18 months unless prior notice has been given to leaseholders.
However, as Peverel pay the bills they will not necessarily admit to any incorrect invoices paid. The only way you can check is by obtaining the invoice file, but Peverel rely on the fact that very few leaseholder request this.
There must be millions of invoices passing through Peverel’s books and a huge percentage of them must be paid in error. Staff are busy and I suspect few checks are done before payment is authorised.
I don’t think most of people would mind the odd genuine mistake. I think what worries many is the potential for errors to go undetected and for weak controls to be exploited. See e.g., past stories on this site.
Now for some good news.
Hardy`s Court managed by Peverel has won an EAC award, voted for by the residents.
Homemanor House in Watford has received high coommendations.
These are the first awards to be received by Peverel since 2010 when the top Gold Award was won by Homegate House in Eastbourne.
At present there are 2 properties for sale at Weymouth ,4 at Watford and 1 only going for a bargain price of £55000 at Eastbourne. You will need to act quickly to get to the front of the queue.
It would be interesting to hear from any Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation readers who live in these award winning complexes.What is this fantastic lifestyle which has won their votes
I am sure all of us wish to congratulate Peverel and the residents of Hardy’s Court on the award of such a prestigious award from EAC.
Is that the EAC that shares an office with ARHM, of whom Keith Edgar is a director?
Peverel have answered the question about the awards.
Have a look at the blog on their website.
And take a look at the 9 minute video which shows the voting taking place.
It is very informative.
£55000 for an apartment on a Gold Award complex sounds a bargain, but is it.
That is why I would like to see some feedback from one of the residents of Homegate House.
I have looked at the video.
In my opinion it was both infantile and insulting to the intelligence of anyone taking part.
At least i thought that was the case, until at the end in very small print thanks were given to “those that had taken part in the re-enactment to make the film”
I noticed the early conclusions EAC appeared to come to, in particular the reference to ” Residents were happier in developments without a house manager”
A subtle hidden agenda, or what?
Apparently marks are awarded for location of the development.
So, if you score points for a development with a sea view, that is tough on developments in Wolverhampton!
Yes the video did look a bit strange. Those taking part did look to be lethargic and under the influence.
I hope that other Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation readers will watch it and give their opinion.
I am told by EAC that the awards are given solely upon the results obtained from this card game.
The residents mark the cards with their scores and which are put onto the EAC computor which calculates the winners.
Retirement complexes from all over the country take part which amounts to thousands of entrants entering the competition.
I do not think EAC sharing the same building as ARHM affects the results.
It would help if there are any readers of Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation who have taken part in this card game , particularly from one of the winning complexes.
The fact that a retirement complex can display a Gold Award medal on their sales literature is very persuasive to purchasers who are unaware of current problems.
This years prize giving is on 24 Sept presentations by Edwina curry.
What are the odds on a Peverel Gold.