… now ALL sites should exercise right to manage and be rid of them
… ‘the system is rotten’ to have allowed Peverel / Cirrus to get off, says Bottomley
Update: Guardian reports OFT and Peverel Cirrus scandal
Update: BBC reports Peverel / Cirrus scandal
The Peverel / Cirrus price-fixing scandal was finally confirmed by the Office of Fair Trading today, which found that retirement leaseholders had been cheated in tenders of £1.4 million.
A “minimum” of 65 tenders were examined.
Because the OFT accepted the fiction that these scams were “first brought to the OFT’s attention in December 2009” by Peverel, both it and Cirrus benefit from “immunity from financial penalties”.
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation had, in fact, reported the issue to the OFT and the Serious Fraud Office and held a meeting in the House of Commons where these scams were discussed.
No one at the OFT seems to have read The Times on December 4 2009, where the Cirrus scam was outlined at some length.
Ed Davey MP, the Energy Secretary, and Sir Peter Bottomley have expressed their disgust that the OFT were suckered into a leniency deal by Peverel.
“This is a complete scandal,” said Sir Peter Bottomley. “Other investigators passed the problem to the OFT and Cirrus knew they were in trouble.
“It is odd that by far the greatest offender gets off. The systems are rotten if they allow this.”
Peverel’s then chief executive Nigel Bannister was quoted in The Times in November 2009: “People are reading a conspiracy into a problem that isn’t there. We use Cirrus because it is an excellent service.”
So, it can at least be conceded that Peverel’s decision “to help with inquiries” was somewhat tardy.
The OFT statement today says it has imposed £53,410 fines on the other firms involved in the fiddle Owen Installations, based in Dorchester, Peter O’Rourke Electrical, based in York, and Glyn Jackson Communications, based in Leeds.
But … it hasn’t, really.
In one of those displays of confidence-sapping cleverness – that are so undermining of trust in our public institutions – the OFT fails to point out that Peter O’Rourke Electrical based in York went into liquidation in June 2012, and Glyn Jackson Communications based in Leeds went into liquidation in September 2012.
As for Owen Installations, “Owens has admitted its involvement in the collusive tendering with Cirrus and entered into a settlement agreement with the OFT in February 2013, thereby benefiting from a settlement discount.”
What did that involve?
So the OFT fines are pretty meaningless.
Sebastian O’Kelly, of Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, said: “The first task is to get the money returned to the retirement sites that were cheated by Peverel / Cirrus.
“The Office of Fair Trading – and government – needs to understand how appalled retirement residents, and others, are at this feeble and collusive so-called investigation.
“The leniency deal with Peverel is based on fiction and is an utter disgrace.
“The time taken to commence inquiries would not have impressed Sherlock Holmes: Peverel supposedly turned itself in in December 2009, but the investigation began in April 2011. Why?
“I have no doubt that this investigation would have been even more pathetic had not Ed Davey and Sir Peter Bottomley – with the prime minister’s intervention – backed Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation’s demand to meet the OFT chief executive last September.
“That has resulted in the full investigation into leasehold property management announced earlier this week.
“Although this investigation was not edifying for those who desperately want our public institutions to function properly, the fact remains that the biggest leasehold property manager – and the one with a near monopoly in retirement housing – systematically cheated elderly and vulnerable residents in its care.
“All retirement sites should exercise their right to manage and appoint a property management company of their choosing.”
Oh, and here is a reminder of the directors involved in helping Peverel / Cirrus cheat pensioners :
Peter O’Rourke Electrical based in York went into liquidation in June 2012 Directors Mr Peter Alan O’ Rourke and Ms Tracey Sandra O’Rourke.
Glyn Jackson Communications based in Leeds went into liquidation in September 2012 Directors Glyn Jackson and Jayne Michelle Jackson
Owen Installations based in Dorchester is still operating and shown in Duedil as having an estimated turnover for the year ending Feb 2013 of £129.643. Directors Jeremy David Owens and Joanne Owens
Related posts:
OFT price-fixing cheat Glyn Jackson is back working at Peverel sites
Peverel Cirrus price-fixing stooge says sorry …
Ripped-off pensioners, betrayed Campaign against Residential Leasehold Exploitation whistleblowers, four-year tokenistic OFT inquiry, cost: £500,000, craven trade bodies, Cirrus unpunished, stooges go into ‘liquidation’ … one minnow fined £1,777
If Peverel Retirement is admitted to ARMA-Q, what message does that send thousands of cheated pensioners?
Peverel given clean bill of health by ARMA – just as it admitted Cirrus was cheating pensioners with bogus tenders
Pravda alive and well at LEASE, ARMA and Peverel … who ALL support the OFT inquiry into leasehold fiddling
This is pretty shocking. Is it possible that the OFT has agreed to investigate leasehold as a sop to help fend off criticism of this dishonesty or incompetence? Surely it’s time for a parliamentary inquiry?
I agree with OMHostage……….. only an inquiry will do for me. Thank goodness for LKP & Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation’s persistence on this and considering it is all unpaid work, you both deserve an OBE.
I think we should count ourselves extremley lucky…. hip hip horray……
Here is what Peverel is saying
“We accept the findings and are very sorry for the failings identified by the OFT. These practices were totally unacceptable. They stopped in 2009 when Peverel Group brought the matter to the attention of the OFT and this is not how we do business today. We have cooperated fully throughout the investigation.
“Peverel Group is under new management; our Code of Business Conduct outlines how we operate and supports the promises that we make in our Customer Charter. Peverel Group also supports the residential leasehold property management market study announced by the OFT this week.
“Peverel Group has decided to make a goodwill payment to the developments affected of 10% of the price of any work resulting from the tenders.”
Very generous! But what about those sites where the work was not actually necessary or where they “over specified” the job to achieve maximum profit. 10% is pathetic.
If for some reason your comments are not being published, just email and I will put them up: sol@leaseholdknowledge.com
From Sue Wood:
I have already made the point to the OFT about over-specification.
They replied that: ” …. alleged ‘over-specification’ is not the subject of this investigation.”
Further: “My initial view is that alleged ‘over-specification’ would not be likely to be a breach of competition law. To the extent that there might be issues under consumer law, I have passed this matter to my colleague Richard Taylor who will consider it.”
I find it difficult to believe that this kind of behaviour is acceptable. So, may I suggest that anyone who has evidence of over-specification, get in touch with him:
Richard.Taylor@oft.gsi.gov.uk
Although the door-entry-scam findings are a huge disappointment, they serve to highlight the complete inadequacy of the existing legislation. We now need to make the most of the OFT’s Market Study.
Sue Wood/Admin,
Does the fact that Peverel are offering a 10% goodwill payment a a result of the OFT price fixing findings indicate that service charge development accounts are not protected against fraudulent activity?
Michael – sorry, that’s above my pay-grade. Maybe one of the legal beagles knows?
Peverel have ‘offered’ to repay 10% of any works that may have been over specified…!
Is that 10% of the 50% that was over specified?… isn’t it laughable..
How stupid do they think people are…………… what an insult to British Leaseholders…..
Because Peverel have offered to repay a notional 10% for developments affected by the price fixing scandal, does not mean leaseholders should accept their “Goodwill Offer” Far from it, the offer should be rejected out of hand.
I will be guided by more expert opinion, but would it not be the case that contracts awarded following an illegal act must by their nature be unlawful. That being so, would it not be that if the contract was unlawful Peverel would not be entitled to collect or benefit from such contracts.
I believe if leaseholders were to make a legal challenge, they would receive the whole amount of the contract value back.
Though mention is made of the new management, is it not the case that responsibility still lies with the company? Would the “new management” not have been aware of the OFT inquiry or that Peverel had “turned themselves in?”
If Peverel are said to have profited by £1.4m, would it not be that the £1.4 m would have formed part of the asset value of Peverel when it was bought out of administration?
OFT Office of Fair Trading
What was FAIR in this corrupt arrangement with Peverel/Cirrus/Glyn Jackson and others?
Who was in charge during this period?
In the first Budget Meeting I attended in 2008/09 having moved late in 2008, our Area Manager had stated in 2006 that the Warden Call System was obsolete. This is the very information that an insider has emailed and commented on in the past. The insider stated that once the developments were reaching 20 years of age then these developments were flagged up by Senior Managers to begin the disinformation regarding the WCS being obsolete, which was incorrect. It allowed Peverel/Cirrus to have steady work replacing the WCS.
Peverel state on their websites that they had 1500 developments and 50 Area Managers and 5 Regional Managers.
We were a CAPTIVE AUDIANCE they knew they could keep their SISTER COMPANY CIRRUS IN WORK FOR YEARS BY RIGGING THE TENDER BIDS.
This would have continued had it not for the NEWS MEDIUM who highlighted it in 2009 before Peverel Group handed themselves in to the OFFICE OF FANTASY TENDERING.
Thank you again to LKP/Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation . You are right Karen; “What an insult to British Leaseholders”.
I can not wait to see more of cheating Management be named and shamed. I can not wait to see them to be punished and fined. Unless this happens they continue taking sweet money from innocent, and broken leaseholders . I lived under threat and black mailing of our management for more than a decade. I am totally sure that they rely on certain solicitor firms and get away with their crime in the house of law.
Michael is largely correct. I woud only add that with expert evidence, sites could establish to what extent sytems were overspecified, not only for the needs of the site but the standard required in the lease. The cost of that, and the cost of any system that was installed, can be assessed. This would then be the basis for challenging the scope and cost of the works as service charge and attack the manangement and major contract fees too. I am sure that sites can combine their efforts, especially as many will have similar leases, and no doubt the Tribunals will merge the hearings to cut down on time and expense for all.
Forgot to add to that a section 20c assessment of costs where legal costs can go back on the service charge- there is a clear argument that where you get it so wrong, you don’t get jam on it!
AM
Are you an Area Manager or a Managing Agent, as I find what you say as matter of fact, so you obviously are aware of this industry.
I will no question your motives, but will ask if you know of any company in Shropshire that would give us a quote for the survey and a cost to replace our system, as we already know that more similar systems are available.
We will pay CIRRUS CARELINE this year £1,014.72 for Monitoring?
We also will pay CIRRUS COMUNICATIONS this year £633.00 for Door Entry & Emergency Call System?
We do not have a door entry system as we have no communal areas only front doors to our flats?
I have asked our Area Manager for the paperwork for this payment 6 months ago as we see it as an insurance policy as we do not have communal areas and only 14 of the upstairs flats have an electrical door opening, that does not work when you have a PVCu door.
Our Area Manager has yet to produce any of the requested documentation other that the simple certificate but no clear information.
Any thing arranged with CIRRUS IS QUESTIONABLE but both AREA MANAGER and Peter Whalley our REGIONAL MANAGER have to refused to discuss the matters, as they were under strict orders from Head of Peverel Retirement Division Carol Crowe, not to offer any comments?
We now know that Peverel Group cheated us and many more, we now have to find the proof and we are closer to this than they think?
I have no assocation or involvement with this group, past or present( save where I have given them a “bloody nose”). I specialise in property management and am one of the overlooked majority ( or sizeable rump) that want a statutory regulation for landlords and agents, qualifed or not. In my case I believe licening will go some way to ensure that people involved are at least aware of regulation and competant, and can be excluded from practising.
In light of the above retain, as a group, a local chartered surveyor or chartered accountant to carry out a management audit. Any specialist in these sorts of systems in the local area can help with inspection and the surveyor or lawyer help with the lease.
Last line disappeared…. Firms with qualified electricians and NACOSS staff can comment and advise, as can reputable firms of electrical engineers.
test