The murky world of leasehold service charge accounts was laid bare to MPs and leading figures in leasehold at a Commons round-table organised by LKP earlier this month.
Accountant Nick Hunwick, of Simpson Wreford & Partners which acts for 500 legal entities involved in leasehold service charge accounts in the South East, gave his overview of state of leasehold accounting.
“Originally I was going to say that at the small end we do not encounter many problems,” he told the meeting, hosted by LKP patron MPs Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Limehouse) and Sir Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West) and chaired by Martin Boyd, of LKP.
“But only last week we were presented with a freeholder who owns the freehold of five unrelated blocks of flats who has formed his own managing agency and contrived to collect the service charges and huge reserves for major works and transferred half a million pounds to his other companies to prop up their balance sheets at his year end before transferring the money back again.”
Mr Hunwick titled his presentation (in full below) on leasehold service charge accounts A Fistful of Dollars, echoing the Spaghetti western theme of Law Commissioner Stephen Lewis, who earlier talked of the Good the Bad and the Ugly in leasehold practices.
Mr Hunwick emphasised that leasehold is of growing importance as more of the population live in flats and depicted a woeful picture of the state of leasehold service charge accounts and property management.
“It is in London that we are experiencing some very worrying situations. And there is no reason to suppose other major cities are different.
“We are presently acting for a number of very large blocks in London where no service charge accounts have been produced for at least four years, and where service charge demands total at least £2m per year and the freeholder is reluctant to provide any information whatsoever.
“In one instance the freeholders’ lawyers have had a field day with the meaning of “accounts, receipts and other documents”.
After much delay and obfuscation we attended the office of the managing agent (created by the landlord and not a member of ARMA).
“We had provided a checklist of those things we wished to see.
“We were presented with 10 lever arch files of invoices, a set of heavily redacted bank statements with entries blanked out and where the inference was that monies were being transferred out to other unauthorised bank accounts. And no SCAs at all.
“So cynical – and a farce.
“I might add that many of the costs were paid to companies owned by the freeholder – at dubious margins.
“So much for accounts, receipts and other documents”
Mr Hunwick prepared his first set of service charge accounts in 1971 and has seen a succession of efforts by the sector to improve its standards.
ARMA is only 20 years old, and the codes of practice “are only codes”.
The failure of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act to introduce sections 152 and 156 was a missed opportunity.
“Many [management companies] have moved with the times and the spirit of the absent legislation. I actually think the reputable managing agents have a lot to do with this.”
But there are still issues.
“In another instance a surveyor has been appointed under the housing act and we are the reporting accountants acting on his behalf. He has received so many aggressive letters from the freeholder’s lawyers asking for, amongst other things, confidentiality agreements to be signed that he has asked to withdraw.
“Another case involves the freeholder, who operates one half of a large building for commercial purposes is allegedly using residents service charges who occupy the other half, to fund the entire building.
“I am sure this is the tip of a large iceberg.
“The procedure for bringing the freeholder to account is a tortuous process involving A FIST FULL OF DOLLARS to yet more professionals via First Tier Tribunals. Why should residents have to go to such expensive lengths to find out what has happened to their money? It should not be.
“Better, more direct legislation is required, in plain English, with better definitions, with realistic penalties for non-compliance. And if I may steal another title from the next topic not to force residents to pay A FEW DOLLARS MORE every time they have a problem
“In recent weeks the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor have joined forces to clean up the City. I think this is another area to which the same applies. Perhaps we need Clint Eastwood and THE MAN WITH NO NAME.”
The full presentation is here:
Related posts:
99% of FirstPort’s 3,800 service charge accounts are up to date
Just how much can a freeholder charge in a leasehold flat sale?
Leaseholders thank JFM for turning around RTM site with £45,000 service charge arrears, reducing them to £800 in four months
SCANDAL: LKP stops forfeiture of £800,000 flat … over a £7,000 service charge dispute
Murky investors hitching a ride on the English (and Welsh) homeowner, thanks to leasehold
Law Commissioner Stephen Lewis says LKP is right to expose ‘cowboys’
The Accounts from Peverel/Firstport are available if requested, in an Excel Format but you need to persevere as they will not readily produce them for you.
They are seen as:
1. Account History Summary
2. Account History Breakdown
3. Income & Expenditure for Year Ending
4. Balance Sheet as @ Year Ending
5. Trial Balance/Audit Trail
We already receive:
3. Income & Expenditure
4. Balance Sheet
The other 3 (1+2+5) are not sent as these provide more in-depth information of how your money is spent.
The in-depth information allows checks to be made on all items, I have at least 6 items that were not for Ashbrook Court such as:
Relief/Deputy Payments
Asbestos Survey
Bin Cleaning
Lights for a Club
Call out for TV repairs
Loss of Signal
The finding of these items can only be seen if Residents check the Trial Balance/Audit Trail which is only provided if residents ask for the Invoice Files covering the period from 2005/06 when the Fraudulent Price Fixing was owned up to by the Peverel Directors some of those now at Freemont Property Services Ltd.
This was posted by LKP Admin on 21/08/14
which is still relevant today as the SFO and the OFT decided that the offences were not serious enough?
Ripped-off pensioners, betrayed Campaign against retirement 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?
– 2005 to 2009 Peverel cheats pensioners at 65 site by installing Cirrus equipment through bogus tendering
– Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation alerts police, SFO and OFT, and The Times publishes article on December 4 2009
– But Office of Fair Trading gives Peverel “leniency” for turning itself in at some point in December 2009
– OFT starts investigation a leisurely 18 months later
– July 2013 OFT admits the leniency deal with Peverel. Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation and politicians are furious
– Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation whistleblowers who had co-operated with OFT – and sworn to secrecy – are disgusted
– December 2013 OFT issues ruling saying Cirrus scammed pensioners with £1.4 million contracts at 65 retirement sites
– January 2014 OFT ended. Competition and Markets Authority launches inquiry into leasehold management
– Minnows in the scam – Glyn Jackson Communications, Peter O’Rourke Electrical and Owens Installations – are fined.
–Two go into liquidation in 2012 and escaped fines. Owens fined £1,777
– No sanctions against Cirrus; no one at Peverel censured or dismissed
– Sir Peter Bottomley talks of ‘possible criminal behaviour involving Peverel’
– Peverel / Cirrus scandal gets extensive media coverage
– February 2014 Cirrus wins lucrative contract with Housing21
– ARMA of which Peverel is one of the largest members, says it won’t do anything. It has no ‘locus’, it says
– ARHM Peverel provides the bulk of funding, prodded by Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation into considering the scandal
– August 2014 ARHM reluctantly makes statement
— The systematic cheating of the elderly by a property manager’s subsidiary is a breach of its code of practice.
— ARHM Concludes no action should be taken
– 09 /2014 Jeremy Owen, of Cirrus stooge company Owens Installations, says what they were doing was “corrupt”
— Peverel/Cirrus management knew what was going on and did nothing?
Chas Says:
Why was the OFT allowed to give both companies exemption from financial penalty?
Why did the OFT take 4 years to complete investigation?
Why did the OFT claim information on the perpetrators was classified and not in the Public Interest
Why was the investigation so limited when The Peverel Group and OFT new other developments were scammed but were happy with what they had as it meant less work and collusion was seen to have occurred?
This is straight off the press.
Peverel took on Cirrus to undertake maintenance work of Door Entry/Smoke Detection and Warden Call Systems.
The engineers would call on these developments on a regular basis and were informed that they were to identify which development they could y consider could be upgraded or Replaced.
The original contractor was a company called Tunstall but for no reason a Mr Keith Rutherford changed the Tunstall contract to Cirrus in 2004/05. This was a surprise as there had been a good working relationship with Tunstall, who were very good and did not rip off developments as Cirrus later did.
Quite often you could ring Tunstall with a problem, they would talk a AM or RHM trough the problem. Cirrus would send out an engineer and then the development gets charged as it was “outside the contract”?
The Whistle Blower at The Peverel Group must have been an executive decision and one of the four directors would have phoned the SFO/OFTs.
Question asked, did the SFO notify Peverel? Who would know which QUANGO to contact?
Names mentioned that were at Peverel at the time.
Keith Rutherford
Dave Ryder
Graham Robinson
David Cooper he was threatened with a disciplinary hearing for going out to tender to another company other than Cirrus. To be confirmed next week.
I do believe the Directors of the Peverel Group were involved, if they were not aware why were they not aware as Cirrus won all the contracts and were unable to undertake the contracts and the waiting list got longer and longer so part of the deal was the loosing contractor would do the works as a subcontractor.
Sarah Whitehouse is currently on leave but I have heard she has GOT the job with M&S, all the staff were horrified.
They will soon find out the sort of nasty underhand sneak she is, always trying to get other members of the team in trouble.
She is similar to SG Im afraid promises the earth delivers nothing.She was heard saying at a meeting:-
“they are old people and they will do as they are told”
I do not want any money for postage I believe this can help to bring justice to those who lived by the sword.
WB
Sebastian please inform me why the comments from me regarding the SFO was deleted totally?
In the past you have redacted words names you have not thought fit.?
You can answer on your own Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation Site or Phone Me!!!
Reply
Dear Mr Willis,
Thank you for your emails to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).
The SFO investigates and, where appropriate, prosecutes cases of serious or complex fraud (including cases of domestic or overseas bribery and corruption) which, in the opinion of the Director of the SFO, call for the multi-disciplinary approach and legislative powers available to the SFO. In deciding what cases to adopt, the Director will take into account all the circumstances of the case and consider:
* cases which undermine UK commercial/financial PLC in general
* and the City of London in particular;
* cases where the actual or potential loss involved are high;
* cases where actual or potential harm is significant;
* cases where there is a very significant public interest element; and
* new species of fraud.
We After carefully considering the information provided, we have concluded this matter is not complex enough to warrant an SFO investigation, and thus does not require the use of the SFO’s expertise or specialist powers. We have reviewed this matter on previous occasions and have reached the same evaluation. We can confirm that the SFO’s stance remains the same and therefore, no further action will be taken by us at present.
I regret to have to give you what may be disappointing news. I would, however, like to thank you once more for bringing this matter to the attention of the SFO.
Yours Sincerely,
The Intelligence Unit
Serious Fraud Office
Original Message
From: reporting@sfo.gov.uk [mailto:reporting@sfo.gov.uk]
Sent: 24 August 2015 00:47
To: PGP Referrals
Subject: Report Fraud from SFO Website
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Dear Intelligence Unit, SFO.
As you do not have a name I feel that you have not taken this as serious as we have.
Your brief dismissal can be construed that you had long ago been informed that this is taboo and is likely to cause problems.
Your comments on what you do investigate seem to be unfair to pensioners who were specifically chosen because they are unlikely to complain if the perpetrators were found out, which is exactly what Serious Fraud Office has also done.
If we were from London in particular the City of London, then we would have been within the scope of the SFO. This is seen as ageism and the SFO has said to us , don’t bother us you are not from London therefore we are too busy to get involved.
Many of the residents that were cheated were from London and the cheating lasted 5 years and was the tip of the iceberg.
I will copy this to my friend Sir Peter Bottomley and other MP and to Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, LKP and About Peverel.
Scope where investigation will be investigated are seen below, which:-
•undermine UK commercial/financial PLC in general
*and the City of London in particular;
•and where the actual or potential loss involved are high;
•and where actual or potential harm is significant;
•and where there is a very significant public interest element;
•and new species of fraud.
Of course we as pensioner are of little interest to Government Departments unless there is an election looming, which has now happened so they have 5 years before they need again too ask for support?
Charles Willis
To: cpwillis46@hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 11:46:18 +0100
Subject: Report Fraud from SFO Website [Unclassified]
Dear Mr Willis,
Thank you for your emails to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).
The SFO investigates and, where appropriate, prosecutes cases of serious or complex fraud (including cases of domestic or overseas bribery and corruption) which, in the opinion of the Director of the SFO, call for the multi-disciplinary approach and legislative powers available to the SFO. In deciding what cases to adopt, the Director will take into account all the circumstances of the case and consider:
cases which undermine UK commercial/financial PLC in general and the City of London in particular;* cases where the actual or potential loss involved are high;
cases where actual or potential harm is significant;
cases where there is a very significant public interest element; and
new species of fraud.
We after carefully considering the information provided, we have concluded this matter is not complex enough to warrant an SFO investigation, and thus does not require the use of the SFO’s expertise or specialist powers. We have reviewed this matter on previous occasions and have reached the same evaluation. We can confirm that the SFO’s stance remains the same and therefore, no further action will be taken by us at present.
I regret to have to give you what may be disappointing news. I would, however, like to thank you once more for bringing this matter to the attention of the SFO.
Yours Sincerely,
The Intelligence Unit
Serious Fraud Office
Latest Peverel Scam Uncovered
Friends
It has taken me 3 years to get a hold of the Blue Book which has been available at Residential Developments but kept quiet and hidden. It explains charges that we pay for in the Management Fees. These Management Fees include many of the individual costs that have been then charged again to under different headings within the Service Charge Budget each year. These items covers covering a Range of Activities that have already been paid for in Management Fees. The Blue Book dated 07/2011 from Peverel Retirement and another dated 05/2015 from Firstport Property Services Ltd explain in detail what is covered in Management Fees. The Heading are similar with subtle changes as below:-
From these two booklets it has become clear that we have been paying twice for a Range of Activities and for the publications of The Welcome Pack and we also pay for the magazine Life & Style, the list begins:-
1.Management Fees
2.Service Charge Assessed & Verified
3.Independent Audits
4.Arrange Tenders
5.Development Managers Training
6.Staff Visits & Travel Costs
7.Major Works Consultation
8.Health & Safety
9.Risk Assessments
10.ARMA Codes of Practice
11.Welcome Pack
12.Life & Style Magazine
We were Price Fixed at Ashbrook Court (ABC) in 2007/08 where Glyn Jackson (GJ) the Contractor sent in a Bogus Tender for our Warden Call System (WCS) 2 weeks past the CUT OF DATE, where each item was exactly 20% higher than the tender prices from Cirrus. This didn’t matter as the contract had already been earmarked for Cirrus Communication Service Ltd.
Having secured the contract by fraudulent tenders, Peverel Management Services Ltd (PMSL) gave the contract to GJ and charged them a subcontract fee. As it was an emergency no consultation took place to discuss the 2 Options that CCSI priced early in 2007. It took 9 months from the 20/06/2007 to 02/04/2008 for the contract to be completed as GJ was busy undertaking other Bogus Contacts won by Cirrus and then given to them.
This was as a result of the 5 years collusion to cheat over 2,000 residents in 65 developments where Peverel made £1.4 million pounds from the collusion and price fixing.
Booklets from Peverel/Firstport
* Firstport Retirement Property Services A Guide to Fees Our Fees Explained 05/2015
* Peverel Retirement Your Service Charge Explained 07/2011
* Peverel Management Services Important Information Enclosed 03/2003
1. Management Fees (MF)
Management Fees are not shown complete as Peverel/Firsport separate costs giving the impression that the actual MF at Ashbrook Court (ABC) is less than half what we pay for the Service Peverel Supplied. Included in the Service is the RHM who received Remuneration which we paid nearly £12,000 a year. Then Relief Costs if required, allows the costs of traveling which is also in the Management Fee?
Management Fee £12,920.40
Remuneration £11,715.38
These two costs added together are £24,635.78, Area Manager (RC) stated this was for clarification only, when I asked why was Training was not a separate heading, RC said nothing?
2.& 3. Service Charge Assessed and Verified/External Audit
This is shown as being included in the Management Fees, yet we have been charged this fee as separate £328 Professional Fees?
4. Arrange Tenders
The tenders for Painting and Window replacement was charged to the Service Charge costing us nearly £3,000 even though the costs were included in the Management Fee?
5. Development Management Training
Development Managers Training is covered in the Management Fees, yet we are charged again under Remuneration. The costs charged to our Service Charge over the past 7 years amount to over £2,500 for the 4 RHM and £500 for the Part Time House Manager.
6. Staff Visits & Travel Costs
We have in the past and in the future pay for Relief/Deputy visits which cost us £15.00 P/H, times the number of hours worked 3 hours a day this works out to £45.00 a day three visits a week costs us £54.00 in Travel Costs which are shown to be included in the Management Fees.
7. Major Works Consultation
Major Works Consultation is included in the Management Fees, we were charged 10% of the contract sums for both Painting and Replacement Window contacts costing us £3,000 in Service Charges, this reflects the redundancies arranged by Peverel in 2009/10 by Keith Edgar when the Peverel Group made almost all Technical Staff redundant and transferred the costs to the residents?
8 & 9 Health & Safety/Risk Assessment/Fire Testing Assessments
Health & Safety is an ongoing requirement which is included in the Management Fees yet we have paid from Service Charges for Risk Assessments to trees which were only saplings at the time and charged again to the Service Charge for Tree Surveys? Risk Assessments are included in the Management Fees yet we were charged by Cardinus for a Risk Assessment which was a farce and was not properly carried out this again we paid for from the Service Charge. Fire Testing is only required in the House Managers Flat at ABC and is included in the Management Fees, yet other developments are charged separately for this and charged to the Service Charge?
10. ARMA Code of Practice/Ombudsman
These are not provided by Peverel so are not a Service Charge, but are a Management Operational Cost which is part of the Service they are required to provide under the LTD?
11. Welcome Pack
Welcome Packs (WP) are charged to the resident selling, (£308) which is then given to the incoming resident and is included in the Management Fees, the new resident then pays the Service Charges, Management Fees which also include the payment for the WP, so every resident pays twice for the WP?
12. Publication of the Life & Style Magazine
Publication of the Life & Style Magazine is paid from the Management Fees, when I asked RC if we contributed to the magazine he wrote yes in a letter to me then denied this fact?
I will expect a call form Peverel to set up a meeting the senior management including the Director at Ashbrook Court to arrange refunds for these items we have paid for twice?
Watch this space???
Further to Event Fees and Service Charges.
Is the paying of Council Tax for an empty House Managers Flat through the Service Charge allowed as this is not a Service Provided for our benefit. The Service Charge should only reflect items that are provided as in the name “A SERVICE” where paying Council Tax for a Freeholder/Landlord can not be an acceptable payment and I have asked that the total paid over the past 3 years be refunded.
The LVT and the FTT having considered in the past that items were not allowed:
The Tribunal ruled membership of the Housing Ombudsman Service was not a service provided by the manager. It added: “the facility of paying the subscription through the service charge is not a “service or item provided by the Manager” which “shall enhance the enjoyment security or safety of the Lessees of the Dwellings”, in that the subscription provides access to an additional body to whom lessees can complain, and does not enhance their enjoyment security or safety.” Peverel lost the action, and could not claim its legal costs.
This did not stop Peverel [REDACTED …].
This has become an Event Fee that was never explained to us [REDACTED …]. We were informed that on moving from Full Time HM to Part Time HM we will no longer be responsible for ANY COST that would be expected before or after the HMF was sold. We were also informed that the selling of the HMF would allow the Service Charges to be divided by 29 flats instead of 28 which meant a reduction for the existing 28 residents.
We now find the HMF empty, the Freehold sold to Landmark and the office we were promised in 2012/13 no longer happening. The original Freeholder, Mercian Development Ltd have to-date paid out thousands of pounds in Fees, to change a single garage into an office so as to release for sale the HMF. We have been informed that Pev/Port have refused to allow the original freeholder to purchase the garage having agreed to in 2014. No reason was given but it was noted that the freeholder now owned all the 29 flats???
Our Area/Regional Manger refuses to even discuss the history of the HMF where the AM was complicit in the information provided regarding the sale.
Another Breach of Trust, including being deceitful and providing fraudulent information where both of these managers stood to benefit from the sale, which they forgot to inform us, is this not a predetermined action leading to fraudulent misrepresentation?
Our freehold at Ashbrook Court was sold to MB Freehold Ltd care of Landmark Collections in Bolton having a Post Box as an address. When I finally found out from Peverel Retirement and emailed them I was informed any further information about them can be found on Companies House. I thought the freeholder might want to know that Peverel have a For Sale Notice fixed to a wall.
Following on, from Sale of House Managers Flats (HMF).
A For Sale Board from a local estate agent has been placed in the HMF. This is visible from the kitchen window. The HMF was to be sold once the original freeholder had provided an office for the part time HM. I have spoken to the ex-freeholder who is very unhappy that Pev/Port have now refused to allow the sale of a garage to be turned into an office.
This leaves us residents in limbo as we are being charged Council Tax for a HMF that is owned by the ex-freeholder. The landlord Pev/Port have no responsibility to us residents as we are charged over a thousand pounds each year for a flat they wanted empty. Which is what they wanted when they gave us all the reasons to replace the Fulltime HM and replace with Part Time HM.
Our last HM lasted less than 2 weeks and left after receiving £500 worth of training which we again paid for. We have not had a Part Time HM for 6 months.
The AM and RM gave us so many reasons that we would benefit from the the change, but forgot to inform us that both were to be rewarded financially if we changed to Part Time? The HMF would be sold releasing the financial rewards.
Surely the Pev/Port Management, who know that this is has happened on other sites, have to take action against their employees, who we were informed would benefit once the HMF was sold.
Is this not a Breach of Trust and Fraudulent Behaviour?
Sebastian,
I have tried to send this posting below to the SFO regarding the failure of the OFT and the SFO itself to investigate fully the Fraudulent behaviour by Peverel/Cirrus from 2005/09.
Dear Mr *****
Collusive Tendering Admitted by The Peverel Group in 2009
On the 16/12/2009 a complaint was first registered by names can be redacted if you wish, Ken Kilmister, Melissa Briggs and Don Heady (copy available) with the SFO regarding collusion to defraud elderly residents who were Leasehold Tenants at Peverel Group Companies.
The SFO took 2 weeks looking at the complaint before deciding that the complaint was not serious enough and passed it on to the OFT. On receiving the complaint the OFT informed the three complainants that the OFT Investigation was subject to strict confidential restrictions and they were not to release the information, the OFT later threatened them to keep quit or they could be charged with an offense?
The Collusive Tendering had been occurring for over 5 years from 2005/2009 and was highlighted in the press by James Charles 26/09/09,07/11/09 and 04/12/09 regarding over pricing Service Charges and Collusion. In late December The Peverel Group phoned the OFT and informed them that they were prepared to own up to Collusive Tendering, (after the Press Releases and after the initial complaint was made).
The two week period that the SFO held on to the complaining email was before the Peverel Group owned up to Price Fixing. The result of this delay meant that both Peverel and Cirrus were allowed immunity from prosecution. The OFT stated that the complaint was made after the Peverel Group had Blown the Whistle which is not correct.
In December 2013 the OFT announced that Cirrus and PMSL, (both Peverel Group Companies) breached competition law and had Colluded from 2005 to 2009 specifically relating to the 65 Retirement Developments (names and works carried out available) for Warden Call Systems and Fire Alarm Systems. The Peverel Group agreed to provide all details on tenders conducted between 2005/2009. Peverel only released information they wanted in the public domain. No mention was made regarding the Developments that may have been Price Fixed prior to 2004 and on Developments where the Area/Regional Managers were still working for Peverel/Cirrus. The OFT refused when asked to investigate further Developments such as Ashbrook Court, stating they would only investigate the 5 years 2005/09 and the 65 Developments put forward by the Peverel Group.
The Peverel Group accepted the OFT findings and paid £100,000 Compensation into the Contingency Funds of those Developments on 06/01/2014, (compensation for the developments that overpaid for the works undertaken) nothing for the illegal Collusive Tendering.
The fact that The Peverel Group cooperated throughout the 4 year investigation allowed immunity from financial penalties. This cooperation was to be fully made and all information was to be made available but only for 65 developments. It has since become known that more than 65 Developments were Price Fixed as concluded and accepted by The OFT and The Peverel Group its self.
The OFT Report Annexe 2
Part Extract from the OFT`s Decision Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.9:
“Peverel Group Ltd informed the OFT that, at least from late 2006, it was of the view that there was collusive tendering in respect of every such contract. This would mean that a substantially larger number of bids would have been the subject of anti-competitive behaviour than is found in the Decision.” The OFT decided that it was not an administrative priority to carry out any further investigations.
We at Ashbrook Court, have now received copies of our Tender Documents that show that we were Price Fixed, using the same model of tendering used by Cirrus and Glyn Jackson. I have on many occasions asked Peverel Group, Peverel Management Services Ltd trading as Peverel Retirement, to refund Service Charges that we paid as the consultation for the Up-Grade did not take place.
The Consultation Process should have taken into account the Two Options prepared by Cirrus in 2007. The Area Manager decided not to Consult even though they had 9 months from when it was damaged, they failed. Without consultation the maximum that we should have paid was 28 times £250, which is £7,000 not the £20,00 that was paid. The reason we had the Two Options was we were wrongly informed by our Area Manager that the WCS was Obsolete in 2006 then in 2007 lightening was said to have hit the WCS.
Peverel Ex-Directors
The Directors of these companies would have been aware (or should have been aware) of the Collusive Tendering yet no action was ever taken against any of them. Four of the Directors are now Directors of a similar company Freemont Property Managers Ltd undertaking the same work for Residential Developments and attempting to replace Peverel Retirement now (FirstPort Retirement Properties Ltd) from the Developments where they were once Directors.
Collusive Tendering Costs @ 65 Retirement Developments.
The cost of the contracts for the 65 Developments was £1.4 million pounds and the cost to the Tax Payer for the investigation was over £500,000. The companies involved according to the original complaint were:
•Consensus Business Group Ltd (CBG) owned by Vincent Tchenguiz and his family
•Fairhold Homes Ltd owned by CBG
•Peverel Group Ltd (PGL) owned by CBG
•Peverel Management Services Ltd (PMSL) owned by PGL
•Cirrus Communications Systems Ltd (Cirrus) owned by PGL
•Glyn Jackson Communications Ltd independent contractor, subcontractor to Cirrus
Two further sub contractors were used during this period and they also were found guilty of Price Fixing and were named in the 2013 OFT Report those being:
•O`Rourke
•Owens
The three sub-contractors were all found guilty of Price Fixing Collusive Tendering and were fined £57,000. Only Owens paid the fine (£1,777) as the other two subcontractors were placed into Administration. Peverel and Cirrus were allowed to get away Scot Free Glyn Jackson was later found working on Peverel Sites in 2013/14.
When Tendering for work it states that one of the Tenderers must have no connection at all with Peverel/Cirrus yet Glyn Jackson was a subcontractor for Cirrus. This was confirmed by Peverel Services Ltd, Head of Customer Relations..
I therefore request that a formal investigation be undertaken by the SFO into the Collusive Tendering that allowed The Peverel Group Companies to make £1.4 million pounds from the Collusive Tendering. The Directors of the Peverel Companies should also be investigated and if found guilty should be charged under the Fraud Act 2006.
The fraud began when Cirrus were deciding which developments they would update/replace and stating they were obsolete.
Thank you Sebastian and LKP & Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, can you add to this?
Following on from the Peverel/Cirrus Fraud.
A recent source has explained that Cirrus Communication Services Ltd (now Appello) themselves visited Residential Developments during 2005/09 to determine what they could undertake and when.
So we had the Price Fixer visiting the developments they chose along with and allowed by Peverel Management Services Ltd (trading as Peverel Retirement) who would report to Peverel, who would then commence the Fraud.
The AM would state that the WCS/FS were obsolete and needed to be replaced shortly, spare parts were no longer available. The seed was sown and now planted. Then letters stating the same and an increase in the Contingency Fund was needed. This gave Peverel/Cirrus 12 months to arrange for Cirrus to win the contracts.
Problems arose because they became greedy and Cirrus was winning every contract so it was taking longer for Cirrus to undertake the works so they decided to use the loosing subcontractor to undertake the contract they had over priced.