UPDATE April 18 16.08: Peverel statement at end of article
A retirement leasehold resident disputing Kingsborough insurance commissions with Peverel has been told that she must take her dispute to an ombudsman, whose rulings are not published.
Joan Wade, who has lived at Grasmere Court in Worthing since 2003, was appalled to receive a letter from Peverel’s senior area manager on February 26 stating:
“I understand the matter of insurance commissions has already been considered by our complaints panel and you have been informed of their decision. If you are unhappy with their decision the next stage in our complaints procedure is to write to the Housing Ombudsman.”
Alternatively, Joan and her neighbours could take their case to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and – very publicly – dispute thousands of pounds of commission.
This is what Janet Entwistle, Peverel chief executive, and the venture capitalist owners of Peverel are very keen to avoid. She said in June last year in her AskJanet blog:
“Historically, some insurance commissions have been too high … With regard to your particular dilemma to take this to a tribunal, that really is something I want to stop. We must look to try and resolve all matters constructively far earlier in the process so it doesn’t get to that.”
The full text (which is no longer on the Peverel site) can be read here: http://www.betterretirementhousing.com/there-are-problems-with-peverels-reputation-but-new-owners-are-in-it-for-the-long-term/
Retirement leaseholders have had spectacular success fighting Kingsborough, Peverel’s in-house insurance fixer.
At Strand Court, in Rye, the commissions were reduced to zero at an LVT and Peverel was criticised for treating the residents with “arrogance” and for “the intentional hiding of information to which residents would have been entitled” by doling out contracts to their own subsidiaries.
The full report can be read here: http://www.betterretirementhousing.com/wartime-squadron-leader-aged-94-chalks-up-11500-victory-over-peverel/
A recent Kingsborough commission dispute at another retirement site in Kingston, Surrey, was settled earlier this month – with the residents gagged by a confidentiality agreement.
In the light of such stinging criticism at the Strand Court case, Peverel’s enthusiasm for mediation and behind-closed-doors redress schemes is quite understandable.
But curiously on April 1 it has changed from the Housing Ombudsman Ombudsman to the Warrington-based Ombudsman Services: Property.
Both are commercial companies, misleadingly described as “not for profit” companies although they provide livelihoods for their employees.
Interestingly, Peverel itself should be paying for these ombudsman services (about £40 a block) rather than have the fee dumped on leaseholders through the service charges.
This LVT ruling made it perfectly clear that as an ombudsman scheme is not mentioned in the lease it should be Peverel paying to join it. The LVT case was: CHI/29UN/LIS/2012/0033.
A report of this can be read here: http://www.betterretirementhousing.com/peverels-approach-to-self-regulation-is-you-pay-for-it-and-it-goes-on-the-service-charge-even-though-an-lvt-says-it-shouldnt/
Peverel made clear at that time that this ruling only applied to that particular site … so leaseholders elsewhere may be having to pay for Peverel to clean up its reputation.
Peverel statement
To be attributed to a Peverel Group spokesperson
LKP: Can you please explain why Peverel moved from using the Housing Ombudsman for complaints redress to the Warrington-based Ombudsman Services: Property from April 1?
A: We reviewed our ombudsman service in response to customer feedback and strongly believe Ombudsman Services: Property will provide the best service for our customers. As an expert in the field of property dispute resolution, the service is well placed to resolve issues quickly and to the satisfaction of our customers.
LKP: Is Peverel paying for membership of the Ombudsman, or levying a charge on the leaseholders to do so?
A: We received feedback from Peverel Retirement customers about the charges of the previous ombudsman service. Under the new arrangement, no charges will be made to customers or service charge accounts for this service.
LKP: A reader, who is disputing Kingsborough insurance commissions, is complaining about receiving from a Peverel senior area manager a letter which reads: “I understand the matter of insurance commissions has already been considered by our complaints panel and you have been informed of their decision. If you are unhappy with their decision the next stage in our complaints procedure is to write to the Housing Ombudsman.”
Peverel’s complaints procedure is purely an internal matter governed by your company’s commercial considerations. Should it not also be made clear to those who may think that your complaints procedure has some official validity, that leaseholders can, of course, take their complaint to the LVT?
A: We feel that the LVT process can be confrontational and very difficult for an individual. Our experience is that resolution of disputes by an independent organisation produces far better results in a less combative environment. It is also quicker and far cheaper for a customer.
Related posts:
Financial Ombudsman urged to look into leasehold insurance scams
‘Secret ombudsman schemes are so much better for leasehold than licensing managing agents,’ says DCLG
Ombudsman for Peverel
Vicky Pollard property tribunal: yes, but … no, but … Yes, you have been ripped off over insurance. But no, we can’t do anything about it
Leaseholders pay up to 60% more for buildings insurance because of secret commissions, reports The Times
Ms “Shake and Vac puts the freshness back” Entwistle seems keen on mediation and the ombudsman rather than the open courts. For a company with such a tarnished reputation why would she want more bad publicity.
Ms E’s PR face claims “I welcome the Government’s desire to seek a balanced perspective and look forward to working with the Minister and others from our industry to take these discussions forward and explore ways to make a real difference to leaseholders.” Some readers may think this smells of something other than “putting the freshness back”
We hear from a range of reliable contacts how the cleaner is being applied in the real world. One way seems to be that a number of cases are suddenly being dropped before an LVT hearing. Is this because deals with a confidentiality agreement are being done?
If your LVT record suddenly improves is it because the carpets are clean or is it your more skilled at keeping things out of court but the same mess is hidden under the same old rotten carpet?
As I have stated elsewhere, the efforts of the Peveral haters is targeted at P, when it is clear that the way to challenge premiums is one that is 20 years old. They seem content to rage rather than using their established network to form a “class action” in the form of a common approach and support, and launch a wide scale series of challenges.
Then those placing the insurance business might sit up and listen -in the meantime they will accept the odd hit here and there.