Tatton Court is the latest Cheshire retirement site wanting to be rid of the FirstPort / Tchenguiz management which dominates private retirement housing.
“We feel that you are being deliberately awkward in blocking our claim,” the RTM directors write to Estates and Management, the Tchenguiz company that manages his freehold portfolio.
“We also feel that having had a month to review this claim and having already had the opportunity to review previous paperwork, you are using delaying tactics and trying to stall our claim from succeeding.”
The freeholder here is Proxima GR Properties, ultimately owned offshore by entities in the British Virgin Islands and controlled by the Tchenguiz Family Trust. This is understood to serve the interests of Vincent Tchenguiz.
At one point he controlled one per cent of all residential freeholds, which with gearing made him one of the leading UK corporate players to the point that he was bidding for Sainsbury’s before the crash.
Vincent and Robert Tchenguiz were wrongly arrested by the Serious Fraud Office in March 2011, at which point Peverel was pitched into administration.
The highly controversial property management company, whose subsidiary Cirrus systematically cheated pensioners at 65 retirement sites through a collusive tendering scam, decided to change its name to FirstPort in December 2014.
The Tatton Court RTM directors copy their correspondence to Ann Coffey MP, Sir Peter Bottomley and Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation.
It appears that they are withdrawing their RTM claim “for the moment and will consider our way forward and if we proceed to a First Tier Tribunal”.
The right to manage application appears to be organised by former Peverel area manager Sue Earnshaw, of Select Reirement Service. A Jonathan Earnshaw is given as the RTM company secretary.
Related posts:
Peverel / FirstPort paid ‘£40,000′ of residents’ contingency fund money to Mr Tchenguiz ‘by mistake’
Metcalfe Court: how a retirement site has benefited from RTM (including 20% savings compared with FirstPort)
Metcalfe Court: how a retirement site has benefited from RTM (including 20% savings compared with FirstPort)
Metcalfe Court overcomes 11th-hour frustrations to break free of Tchenguiz and Peverel
I wish the residents well in their endevours to escape the voracious clutches of Firstport management.
It is to be hoped that that representatives of E&M are not trying to engineer an outcome that would be beneficial to E&M by persuading residents to appoint Freemont Property Managers(which is run by the previous Peverel/Firstport management), in return for not contesting the RTM?
If residents wish to appoint Sue Earnshaw, that should be for them to choose. If she does not do a good job the residents can simply end her management contract.
I would hope that no representative of E&M would actively but secretly campaign against the appointment of Sue Earnshaw.
I join you Michael in wishing the residents well,
Can someone please publish the reasons why this application was turned down? It could avoid others falling into the same trap that these Landlords use to delay matters and cost residents money etc.
As has already been explained on Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, appointing Freemont Property Management would have no advantage. The Managing Agent would still work for Proxima GR and that is the problem.
When finally, the residents of Tatton Court escape from Peverel/Firstport, they may be tempted by the relief of ridding themselves of them to accept the final handover accounts.
I would strongly suggest they do not do this, as in very many cases when subjected to a comprehensive audit, “administrative errors” have been discovered(usually that favours Firstport) that have led to thousands of pounds being reimbursed to the development accounts.
May I also suggest, that the residents refuse to allow Peverel/Firstport to do any more on the development that is strictly needed until any handover.
It might also be worth checking the status of E&M in this matter?
Are they contracted to act on behalf of the freeholder? I ask this as E&M accounts show only 3 employees.
Please understand the leasehold system, the lease gives the freeholder the legal right to demand annual service charge payment ( for insuring and maintenance of the apartment building) from the leaseholders.
All leases are produced by Freeholder’s solicitor before sale of leasehold property, on terms more favourable to the freeholder and LESS favourable to the buyer.
The only way to overcome this legally binding contract , is to set up the RTM Company to claim the legal right to administer the service charge account from the Freeholder. The RTM company has to be supported by at least 50% of leaseholders in the block. before it can proceed to claim the service charge administration.
To remove any bad freeholder and its managing agent , every leaseholder must support and push for RTM to proceed.