The Tchenguiz Family Trust has backed down on demanding £5,000 for consent for a conservatory that was attached to a retirement leasehold bungalow more than 20 years ago.
Two days ago, Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation raised the issue with Estates and Management, which manages the Tchenguiz residential freehold portfolio.
The original story can be read below or here, with comments
The correspondence was also copied to Kris Hopkins, the housing minister and Michael Ellis, the MP for Northampton North, where the retirement leasehold bungalow is situated.
It was also copied to Sir Peter Bottomley and Labour MP Barry Sheerman, who has spoken in the Commons over similar demands concerning Tchenguiz freehold interests in Huddersfield.
The demand for £5,000 consent was presented to owners Simon and Susan Tookey, who were trying to sell the property at Sheraton Close for £140,000 at last November. The buyers’ solicitor queried consent for the conservatory.
The couple claim that the £5,000 fee lost the sale even though the Peverel employed house manager could confirm that the conservatory was built more than 20 years ago.
Peverel refused to allow its employee to assist the Tookeys by confirming this date because it would harm the interests of its employer at the site, ultimately the Tchenguiz Family Trust.
The bulk of Peverel’s business comes from this organisation, which until the arrest of the Tchenguiz brothers on wrong evidence in March 2011 also owned Peverel itself.
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation this morning received the following email from Suhail Qureshi, of Estates and Management:
Dear Mr O’Kelly,
Following an initial query by Mrs Tookey, we made a number of enquiries to establish the facts around the construction of the conservatory at 46 Sheraton Close, including contacting the Deputy House Manager.
We have been advised by the Deputy House Manager that she believes that the conservatory was built by the previous tenants over 20 years ago.
Notwithstanding the fact that no documentary evidence has yet been found to corroborate this, we have made decision to waive the £5,000 fee.
A letter confirming this has been issued to Mrs Tookey’s lawyers.
Yours sincerely,
Suhail Qureshi
Consents Department
Tchenguiz Family Trust seeks £5,000 for conservatory ‘built 25 years ago’ … and Peverel will not permit their house manager to confirm when it was built
A couple who own a retirement bungalow with a conservatory face a demand for £5,000 from the Tchenguiz Family Trust freeholder.
And the money might not need to be paid at all if the Peverel house manager were permitted to confirm the date when the conservatory was built – but she has been instructed not to get involved.
The £5,000 demand presented to Simon and Susan Tookey is for retrospective consent to erect the conservatory at Sheraton Close, in Northampton.
“But my mother lived here for 17 years and the conservatory was already built when she bought the bungalow,” says Mr Tookey, a lorry driver.
There were two previous owners before his mother, and the Tookeys say the conservatory was built by the first owner as far back as 1989.
The Tchenguiz Family Trust only purchased the freehold to the site in 2008, it is stated.
The issue came to light because the Tookeys were trying to sell the bungalow for £140,000 last November. The sale fell through as the buyers’ solicitor wanted evidence of the freeholders’ consent for the conservatory.
“We contacted Estates and Management and the result was a demand for retrospective consent amounting to £5,000,” said Mr Tookey.
It is claimed that the house manager at the site, Alice Kearns, who has been employed there since it was built in 1988/9, has stated verbally to the Tookeys that the conservatory was, indeed, built in 1989.
But she has been stopped from confirming this in writing by Peverel, most of whose business comes from managing freeholds owned by the Tchenguiz Family Trust.
This is because the interests of the Tookeys clash with those of Peverel’s principal client.
“Although Alice was commendably looking to help you, we have a general duty of care for both yourselves as lessees and for your landlord,” the Tookeys were told by Chris Owens, Peverel’s head of customer relations on December 9th.
“As your respective interests clearly differ here, I am afraid that it would not therefore be appropriate for us to get involved on behalf of either party, which is why her Area Manager regrettably had to decline her suggested action.”
The Tookeys are appalled by this “fence-sitting”. Mr Tookey cannot afford the sum as he only earns £380 a week. In addition, he is ill with prostate cancer.
The Tookeys have offered to pay £870 to obtain the consent.
As the conservatory did not require planning consent the Tookeys lack a paper trail confirming when the structure was built.
But they can rely on affidavits from two friends of Mr Tookey’s mother, who will confirm that this property had a conservatory for the entire 17 years that she owned it.
Many other bungalows at the site also have conservatories that were built at the same time. Two properties were sold last year, without solicitors questioning the consents, or the issue being brought to the attention of Tchenguiz.
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation has contacted Northampton council for aerial photographs of 20 years ago that will show the site.
It has also contacted Estates and Management for an explanation for its £5,000 fee.
Correspondence has been copied in to the local MP Michael Ellis, as well as Sir Peter Bottomley and Labour MP Barry Sheerman, who has spoken in the Commons about similar demands from Tchenguiz in Huddersfield.
Peverel has indicated that its house manager could reply to a request for information from the freeholder, but this has not been done.
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation has urged Estates and Management to seek a statement from Miss Kearns, who has worked at the site since it was built, as it would surely not wish to profit wrongly from this matter.
On December 4 2013, Mr Suhail Qureshi of Estates and Management informed the Tookeys that “a letter from Ms Kearns would not be sufficient, and it is not our responsibility to contact her”.
An alternative if this is not settled is for the Tookeys to withdraw their offer of £870 and to obtain a tribunal ruling.
If successful, they could then seek costs from the county court from Estates and Management for the loss of their house sale.
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation has contacted both Tchenguiz and Peverel and will publish responses.
Related posts:
Tchenguiz backs down over £5,000 demand for … a conservatory built 25 years ago
Tchenguiz Family Trust seeks £5,000 for conservatory ‘built 25 years ago’ … and Peverel will not permit their house manager to confirm when it was built
Small-scale builder left high and dry after Tchenguiz / Peverel meltdown
A gift from Tchenguiz is one to decline
FirstPort backs down over demanding £10,808 from leaseholder … and she is not staying silent either
Tchenguiz Family Trust seeks £5,000 for conservatory ‘built 25 years ago’ … and Peverel will not permit their house manager to confirm when it was built
A great result for LKP/Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation..
I wondering if E and M or Tchenguiz Trust are going to compensate Mr & Mrs Tookey for the lost sale and associated costs?
Karen,
No they will not compensate Mr and Mrs Tookey.
E&M have merely “waived” the fee, which is totally different admitting they are wrong.
The Tookey’s would have to pursue court action to recover any losses, which i believe would be problematical. Ironically, they may have a more solid case against the solicitor they used in purchasing the property.
My personal opinion is that should be relieved, sell when they can and Mr Tookey can concentrate on getting through his health issues for which we all wish him well.
A great result for LKP/Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation..
They had a victory against Grant Thornton- they were feeling generous 😀
Seriously though good job. So very often the business model with this lot is “Ask ( then send a letter before action from the lawyers) and let them fight it. If they do, then we’ll look at it.”
Very well done LKP and Sebastian, again!
My neighbour has been informed that there is a need to replace and update hard wired smoke alarms in residents flats.
The flats are nearly 10 years old and Cirrus is one of three contractors asked to tender?
The name of the person providing the notice is Barry Everett should the residents be concerned?
Yes there is no need for this in most cases. They should immediately get together and ask a suitably qualified company NACOSS or NICEIC, or electrical engineer firm, to inspect and report on the system and the proposal, so that they can challenge the notice of intention..
Chas
I smell a rat here……get the residents to ask to see any reports that highlights the need for any repairs necessary……
Also, contact one of the managing agents on LKP and ask them what their advice would be for a building that is under 10 years old….
They may even want to give a quote for the management of the building… 🙂
Karen,
No one in the Residential Development cares, the residents show no concern. We had a Warden Call System updated early in 2008, seven months before we moved in. We picked up the notices on the occasion’s that we visited. We moved in November 2008 after the works were completed?
The first budget meeting I attended, when asking questions regarding Service Charges the residents did not want to know how the money had been spent, they were more interested in getting back home.
The average age of the residents was then 80, the meeting took less than an hour.
From that meeting and the information received, it was clear that Peverel had works undertaken. Only a few residents asked any questions, none that covered the £21,000.00 that had been spent.
I called a meeting after noticing Insurance Claims were paid from Service Charges only for the residents to question my motives.
They showed no concern that the Carpets and toilets were replaced and we paid £702.00 and no claim was seen to be made.
Four years after, our Area Manager can show no paper trail that any claim was ever made for the claims and states we always, only make phone calls to Kingsborough for Insurance Claims.
On notice boards it is readily seen that you need to phone Oval Insurance, not Kingsborough Insurance. Even though we have paid out over 40% Commissions for duplications of the insurance, so Peverel Retirement will then receive the commissions?
This is why Peverel Retirement have been so successful they know their market well and rely on the apathy shown by the elderly who as they get older, the apathy increases and this adds to the success of Managing Agents like Peverel Management Services Ltd, trading as Peverel Retirement (a BRAND NAME only) and they can continue to find work for sister companies.
In broad terms there is no real need for an update as long as the system is working order, or a change of circumstances or practice indicate that changes or improvement are required or desireable..An MA will not be able to advise any more of the above on that and should refer it to a specialist company. Residents should invest in that independantly to point out the suitability state of repair and need, as opposed to “being better/improved and argue acordingly.” In many cases it is usually desireable and much can depend on the wording of the lease.
AM
You show such knowledge of the industry, so why not visit and see the apathy that has been instilled over 25 years in a wonderful development that has seen 18 residents move on or pass away in only 6 years.
There are only 9 residents that have lived here longer than myself and only 2 of them have shown any real interest in the cheatings that have been uncovered.
Two residents have attempted to help, but have now, due to their age asked for me to only inform them when we have uncovered another scam?
Recently I have spoken too them every week.
I can understand that- I recall a few blocks with seasoned citizens and meetings coud only be 30 minutes long before nap time! The difference is that having been raised in an old fashioned chartered surveyor practice, we took our obligations to our client as paramount, and in these cases, realised that we would have to run it on our own< We therefore had to act in their best interest, full stop. Unlike this crop of robbing barstewards.
Chas
I think a better way moving forward is for you to ask the elderly residents for their relatives emails (and phone numbers if you can get them) and explain to your co owers that you would like to keep everyone informed via email of what is going on at the site.
And that you going to put a report together on what you consider to be the mismanaged finances and explain to them all just exactly how much additional money is being demanded from these elderly residents on a yearly basis.
There may just be one relative who may be interested in getting some additional momentum going on your site.
I would also inform the residents relatives of all the unnecassary works that are being done without the real need and point out to them that you feel that there poor relatives are being taken for a ride.
Their
But you need a reasoned and factual basis, or at least suspicions that there is a reasonable chance and expectation of being true. Otherwise you quickly lose credibility. He then becomes the streotypical “old busybody with time on his hands” and not as he intends, a “lifesaver”.
Based on findings in the Cirrus/OFT case he might start there saying that this is a basis for a real concern over the need and ultimately cost of such projects and to ensure that the need is investigaged and in turn that costs are fair and reasonable.
He might start with an open letter and in future a news letter, and think carefully abolut libel and s
AM,
You make a very interesting point.
There is a danger(particularly for those that do not understand, or prefer not to understand) to react by thinking “what is that person banging on about this time? change the record.”
I find this myself, not just on my development but when i seek out other Peverel managed developments.
However, the attitude soon changes when i open up my laptop and show them the About Peverel, LKP and Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation websites..
Regarding libel and slander, yes of course everyone needs to be careful. That said there is much scope within the laws to express opinions., without fear.
Suppose i were to describe Peverel (for example) as crooked.
As a result they sued me for libel.
If i can have no reason for such a description of Peverel I am in trouble.
But, if i can argue that my description was based on the results of several tribunal decisions, cases highlighted in the media and on campaigning websites and of course the OFT collusive tendering report, i will have established sufficient reason for forming my opinions.
As such, i cannot be held liable for libel or slander.
,A recent change in the law of libel now means that Peverel would have to prove that they have made a financial loss due to any comments i had made.
Well said ME. Keep up the good work. I/you have never said anything but the truth anyway
Indeed yes however what you have overlooked is that the while truth is stil an absolute defence dn that the burden of proof has been flipped, the cost of a defence can be crippling. E & M have for example waged a campaign about, lets say, in their view, negative comments, on a related site , in one case referring a solicitor member to the SRA. Many will not be as robust or as carful in their opinions and supporting evidence and therefore irt is better to air on theside of caution. For example it would be one thing to say “that the stories give rise to legitimate concerns and we need reassurance/to investigate”, rather than “they are crooks”. Linking as you sugest can then be used to let indivudual who you canvas to reach their own opinions.
AM, all a play on legal jargon from your goodself. All the stuff “they” all hide behind and bully people with. I would be more than .happy to appear on prime time TV for a “showdown” on what these “thieves” get up to. I am sure ME would to. I bet a million dollars “they” (you/we know who they all are) would not even dare turn up.
It can be proven what scams etc take place. “they” dare not go public whatsoever
As an example an RTA board meember made rather unpleasant remarks about another, and as result, in accordance with our equality and conduct policy, they were removed. They in turn sued, and it was only that I had paid, myself, for us to have an officers liability policy, with legal fees indemnity, that they helped us with the above and the defence. We won, but it still cost over 10K in costs, and didnt even get to court, as they were advised that they would lose.
Karen,
Done that got the T Shirt, only 12 residents have been here longer than myself 16 left or passed away? in 6 years.
The average age is over 82, it is difficult to open up to the existing residents who do not want t know, I have two who are brill but I have to be very careful not to worry them.
I have tried to explain to the new residents, they feel I am a Trouble Maker and anyhow it happened before they arrived?.
I spoke to a new resident yesterday, they showed no interest and stated it was to cold to chat.
They then stated that we needed to move on, as all this happened in the past?
I have to date excepted the snide remarks, but feel that another approach is needed?
The new Budget figures include the full year costs for House Managers pay, as she will only do 16 weeks and not 52 weeks, then we are expected to pay £4,582 over the remuneration she could earn?
I have asked previously to have this money reduced to cover what was earned, but to no avail?
Will try again???
As a budget it would be adjusted against the actual expenses in the year end.accounts.
Chas, I hate to say this but If you can’t get support from the other residents/owners then I would move into a freehold property and leave them to it. I know that it is probably not what anyone would wish to do but for peace of mind and a quiet life… leave them to it.
But then if you have some success, others may start to listen…….
Moving sounds sensible however Chas might be one of the poor unfortunates lumbered with a no sublet and painful exit clause.