A right to manage application for Terrys Mews, a block of 20 flats in York failed earlier this month owing to an error over the name of Peverel OM.
The leaseholders, who were represented by Canonbury Management to handle the RTM, did not appear to know that Peverel OM is now called FirstPort.
Proxima GR Properties Limited, the freeholder – which is a vehicle of Vincent Tchenguiz’s Tchenguiz Family Trust based in the British Virgin Islands – argued that this error was sufficient to refuse RTM.
“The Applicant asserts that it did not include details of FirstPort because they are not mentioned in the lease and when searching for Peverel OM Ltd at Companies House no such company by that name exists,” said the tribunal ruling.
“The Applicant was, therefore, not to know that Peverel OM Ltd was synonymous with FirstPort. The Applicant asserts that the lease should have been amended by the Respondent to include details of FirstPort.”
However, the leaseholders’ statement of case included screen shots showing that FirstPort and Peverel OM were the same company.
“The Tribunal notes that the Applicant’s statement of case is inconsistent with its own actions. The Applicant, through its representatives, served a Claim Notice on FirstPort Property Services Limited on 13 May 2016 (ie before receiving the Respondent’s counter-notice or statement of case) yet asserts within its subsequent statement of case dated 22 August 2016 that it was not to know that Peverel OM Ltd was synonymous with FirstPort.”
As a result the application for RTM was thrown out.
Canonbury informed LKP that this information was the responsibility of the leaseholders at Terrys Mews to provide, and has offered to have another go at RTM at a reduced fee.
The full ruling can be read here:
Related posts:
Peverel / FirstPort paid ‘£40,000′ of residents’ contingency fund money to Mr Tchenguiz ‘by mistake’
Any port in a storm as Peverel desperately rebrands to … FirstPort
Cooee! Peverel becomes FirstPort and heading for ARMA-Q … But will it be welcome?
After only a week, FirstPort (formerly Peverel) makes a debut in the Eye
Peverel / FirstPort pays back £39,377 wrongly taken from Hillside Court, but the pensioners say another £3,498 is missing
Case against Benjamin Mire collapses, as RICS disciplinary process descends into shambles
As a result the application for RTM was thrown out.
Canonbury informed LKP that this information was the responsibility of the leaseholders at Terrys Mews to provide, and has offered to have another go at RTM at a reduced fee.
Are this company, Canonbury saying they failed to check information provided as basic as change of name with either Companies House or Land Registry?
The leaseholders should maybe “invite” Canonbury to make a second application at no cost.
What is the point of employing a professional company if they’re not even going to check the lease and then blame the client for not knowing that Peverel has changed its name four or five times in the last decade?
You can be fairly certain that Judge Platt will have known who Peverel OM were but is, of course, not able to excuse the fact they were not contacted when making his determination.
Looking at the Canonbury’s website, it still refers in its RTM section to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal. Since the LVT became the First Tier Property Tribunal in 2013, it’s maybe time for an update to the site which claims to offer the cheapest service in the industry.
Canonbury has an interesting business model. If one of the leaseholders participating in an RTM enfranchisement defaults on payment Canonbury pockets the money of all the other leaseholders instead of either a) refunding it minus a fee or b) making arrangements agreed in advance to make up the shortfall, which could be rather paltry.
.
It’s not just the web site that needs an update.
My impression is that there are many people out there feeding of the misery of flat leaseholders . Management companies like FirstPort useless lazy solicitor’s RTM ” experts ” such as Canonbury . Pigs at the trough !!!
Percival,
Management Companies like Firstport Retirement fits the bill. The CEO Nigel Howell extolls the virtues of his company. Shame those who work for him in senior positions see it different. The Policy & Procedures are ignored and senior management have been seen to care little about us residents.
We at Ashbrook Court have been informed our new Development Manager who has been with us for 4 months, has been poached by the Area Manager to work on another Firstport Development. We have invoices for over £800 for his training and travel.
After 3 months of intermittent lighting in the car park a contractor replaced 3 bulbs. The similar external lighting in the courtyard was working well. After they replaced the bulbs in the carpark the courtyard lighting failed.
I phoned Appello who said they would report it, now 4 nights later, no lighting. Shame Again.
If a RTM action fails due to the old name of the same company being given, could the same argument be deployed over challenging management contracts?
When being re-branded was it not the case that Firstport made a statement that the re-brand would not effect residents?
Clearly in this situation it has.
I understand the need for RTM actions to be carried out in accordance to the law.
But why can it not be, that where a defective or challenged RTM notice is served, the freeholder should have 28 days to serve a formal notice of objection to the RTM company stating their reasons for the objection,
The RTM company has 28 days to rectify or address the objections..
Only if agreement is still not possible should a tribunal be involved.