It’s very strange that despite reports about freeholds being sold and Peverel being bought – nothing has since been heard about it, suggesting that maybe they’re finding it difficult to find a buyer.

As others have pointed out, what would the point be of buying these freeholds when the buyer knows that residents will be fighting to gain control of their developments?

Others have mentioned that having perused the accounts that have been submitted to Companies House by Peverel and other guises including, E&M etc, that it’s beginning to look ever likely that Peverel will soon have to cease trading.  Unless they raise a refinancing package or a buyer!

It’s also come to light that the investment bank ‘Lazard’, whom are responsible for selling the freeholds for Mr Tchenguiz have reportedly turned a £100m profit into a 4th quarter loss of £4.8million.

With some contributors questioning whether it’s becoming a common theme for things that VT touches, losing money.

Publicity by TTAS about the possible sell of Peverel raised the hopes of many that were contemplating purchasing a Peverel property.  However, the lack of confirmation of said sell has once again resulted in residents questioning whether there was any truth to this originally or if the deal has collapsed?

Our sources have informed us that things have also gone very quiet within Peverel quarters and some question whether this is because the ‘leak’ of Peverel potentially being sold had an affect on any deal?

Who knows, but as always once we hear more – we’ll let you know.

Change of direction for TTAS?

TTAS has always been a platform for residents suffering at the hands of Peverel / OM Property Management related companies, to have their issues aired.

However, based on recent correspondence from visitors – it’s clear that we also need to start providing information on how to help residents in their battle.

When we relaunched TTAS last year, we added the ‘Advice’ pages to the site and many have told us how beneficial this information has been.  However, there is always a point when contributors need more info that we cannot necessarily provide at that time.

That is why we are looking to hear from any development that has taken action against your management company and won.

Admittedly, we don’t want to publish information that could be used against residents – but we want to start making information available to help people on their way, whilst also being able to benefit from ‘off-line’ info that we can supply.

Obviously, TTAS is great when you are trying to find out what to do and how to win your case against the management company – but we very rarely get to hear from those that have escaped the dark side, because there is no real need to come back to TTAS because those residents have already escaped.

This is why we dearly want to hear from those people, so that we can get an understanding of what you did, who you used and what reasons you had for appointing certain companies to help you.

TTAS can become that fountain of knowledge that everyone can benefit from because it only takes one person (in our case TTAS) to stand up and be counted for others to benefit.  If there are many standing up for themselves, the stronger we become and the better it is for all of us…. an uprising began in 2008 and will get stronger as the years go on!

If you’d like to tell us what you did to escape your property management company, please e-mail admin@thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk and we’d be delighted to hear from you.

And Finally…

A lot has been going on behind the scenes of TTAS of late and is the reason for a reduction in the number of reports we’ve published.

One of these changes is that we now have a member of the Admin Team that is happy to liaise with you and introduce you to TTAS sponsors (if applicable).

The reason for this change is because a number of people have expressed concerns towards contacting ‘Admin’, as they felt it wasn’t very approachable.  That’s why we’ve listened and those that contact us will now have a proper contact to work with.

[Disclaimer]
Please note that the image of VT has kindly been supplied to ourselves and Carlex by a well known development that has recently taken the fight to Peverel.  The development in question has asked us to not credit them with the image and they thought it would be a light hearted image for ourselves and Carlex to use.

It posed the question amongst many on TTAS about the best way to choose the right managing agent.

Prior to TTAS, many of us would probably have taken membership of ARMA as being a major factor and good thing when appointing a new agent, especially if you had a short list where one was a member and the other wasn’t.

The likelihood would be that because of the ARMA ‘logo’ and the principles that ARMA appear to stand for, is that you’d choose that agent over anything else.

However, we’ve all grown to realise that actually being a member of a certain body doesn’t really count for anything and what we are all looking for is a company that will provide a service, work with us, provide value for money and not rip us off.

Du diligence is the keyword here and a TTAS contributor has kindly sent us their views on how to choose a managing agent, that we are happy to publish.

How to choose a managing agent

It is easy and straight forward. Do NOT be put off by what appears to be a complex process…. how easy is it to decide which supermarket you want to go to … and once you have “adopted it” they try and keep you as a customer – see later on about this.

I volunteered to write this article for  TTAS because I realise the value of the site.  Another reason for writing it is because I have a considerable experience in “procurement” – even appointing a new managing agent – but that was in 1991 and we chose peverel … BEFORE they went bad.

Who am I ? [apart from being a nightmare to Peverel ...] I am a Chartered Engineer who has worked for the World Bank [aka the IBRD] overseas and was part of a team trying to work out how to spend millions of pounds of aid on major construction projects and make sure none of it went astray.

I still contend that Britain is one of the most corrupt societies in the world in which to live ….

So what are the “rules” ?

To my mind there are several; mostly they are based on the World Bank’s.

Assuming that the required percentage of people want to change managing agent, first make sure that everyone is happy with the way that you are going to choose a new one, then get acceptance of the following methodology.

It is also ESSENTIAL to get agreement on who is going to do the hard work of doing the analysis, and writing the report which will go to EVERYONE, and upon which they will then be asked to vote.

Finally, making a recommendation

This article assumes that you are going to do it in the following structured manner.

1) Get suggestions from everyone as to who they would like … “my solicitor says …”, “my friend I play bridge with says …”, “my mate down the pub says …”

Make a list. Some suggestions will be positive, some negative.

2) Create the list, and check that every firm wants to be on it.

When you leave a suggested firm off the list you MUST state why:

• a Negative suggestion
• the firm is NOT interested

Next is to reduce the list to a sesnsible size. To do this you need to pre-qualify the firms on the list. You might want to make the list a minimum of two and a maximum of five.

This is the process of trying to identify who may make a good agent, and who wont. YOU have to do almost all of the work at this stage .. its very tedious.

You may want to get your list accepted – i.e. put it out for adoption by everyone. Publish the FULL list, highlighting the selected few.

If you need to reduce it further, then you may need to iterate over the third process listed below.

3) Probably the most difficult part of the process is to make a list of suitable questions … so think about the following …

People and personalities etc

Are they nice guys – or just wee men in large four wheel drives with expensive suits ?
How many times do they take people to court – not only for non payment ?
Are they cagey [dodgy] or up front in their answers ?
What is their credit control policy -
What is their reputation like
What do they say ?
Can you get any references NOT through them ?
How do the references compare to what they say ?
Are they totally transparent ?
Can anyone see quotes for work, and then the invoices ?
or is it restricted …

Qualifications and Experience

Do they have an adequate number of staff ?
Are these people simply punters off the street who have been “ARMA’ised”,
or are they in house guys with recognised technical qualifications and/or experience, viz
do they understand drains, the building regulations, etc etc ?

Money and Finance

Ask questions about
How much they charge – their fees
How much do they add on to capital works costs [2-5% is fair]
If they have any “in-house” companies
not necessaily a bad thing … a handyman to change light bulbs is GOOD
What is their commission on Insurance ?
What do they charge for cleaning … WORK out what it ought to be for yourself.

Planning

Do they know HOW to do a five year plan ?
Regular inspections [3 monthly] indicates the work needed to be done
Estimates and the development of a plan indicate the size of a contingency fund

Once the answers have been obtained, and this can be done by sending out a questionnaire, or by telephone, or by a personal visit from a member of a firm’s senior staff. If no-one senior is involved, then strike them off the list, the you need a scoring mechanism.

A simple emchanism is to have a Yes/No or Ok/Not Ok system each worth one point.

4) Write your report.

Normally by now you will have a feel as to which firms are genuinesly interested, and really competent. and that makes it simple.

• DO NOT recommend the firm with the lowest fee !
• Add in their commissions and other generated income from Insurance, capital Works, Electricity.

Publish the first draft of your report and ask for comments.

Address the comments [BEWARE ... this is when the tunnelling moles will try to disrupt you]

Rewrite the report

Call for a vote in accordance with the deeds or whatever …..

Some may agree or disagree with this contributors approach, but the more input our community can have in regards to this matter the better it will be for everyone.

This is because TTAS can combine everyone’s comments and produce bespoke take on how to choose a managing agent that others can consider.

We’ll be adding this to our ‘Advice’ section of TTAS once people have added their comments.

And Finally…

More unhappy residents have got in touch with us and need the TTAS communities help!

Dear Admin

The residents of Park 25, Redhill are very concerned with having to pay OM Property Management and the local council twice for the same thing.

I am gathering support fast and we will be writing to the local MP and Council.

Can you suggest additional support please?

Providence Square, SE1

Dear TTAS

We took Peverel to LVT in 2008 and have a lot to say about it and with 6 properties in the development and yearly charges £1M+, RTM acquired and Director not getting tid of Peverel or ask for Reserve Funds must be the only one around.

So fed up that exposure is needed

Dear Sirs

I have a property and the said freeholders are freehold managers nominees ltd company no 02686761

It has directors who are registered as BNP PARIBUS TRUST COMPANY ON THE ISLE OF MAN

?????????????

THEIR SECRETARY IS CAPITAL TRADING COMPANIESSECRETARIES LTD

The managing agent they employ are Freehold Managers ltd who’s directors are similar to estates and management who are a part of conscensus group

I wish to know if you have any more info on the Freeholder at all

Dear TTAS

I am an owner of a Redrow property at William Price Gdns, Fareham PO16 7YD and we’ve been having problems for the last 14 years or more.

When we bought the property we were not informed there was a Section 106 Agreement on the surrounding land giving the public the right to use the the land that 82 household have to pay $200 a year each to maintain. This Agreement is not mentioned on our deeds because the solicitors were not informed.

Evidence against OM (formerly Solitaire has built up ready for a court case, and I would like to know if Solitaire is or was a subsidiary of Redrow, can you help please?

Subletting Chargers – Hawthorn Court, Derby

Hi

My brother and I inherited a 1 bed apartment in the above community in October 2010. Since then we have been unable to sell it and decided to rent it our last year after 12 months of being empty (obviously we still paid the exorbitant service charges throughout!)

I found a lady who wanted to rent it and on advice from an independent estate agent set the rent at £495 pcm to include the service charges of approx £186 per month, leaving a residue of £309.

I understood that there were some charges to be paid should the property be sold (2% of the value) to the landlord –Fairhold however did not realise that this was also the case in the case of letting. I spoke to someone in the department at Peverel and was advised to write in to request that this charge be waived, which I did in November.

In December I received a lengthy letter advising me that the landlord – Fairhold would not waive this charge (approx £1600 as the flat has lost in value since we bought it) but would accept one calendar months rent for each 6 months of the rental period!

So should this lady live there for 2 years they would expect £1980 – more than the original 2%.

In addition they also request £96.00 for ‘A notice of sublet and registration fee’ and £42.00 for them to register a Grant of Probate, which they request a copy of.

This cannot be correct, we cannot pay these fees as we are already out of pocket over the last year after re-decorating and carpeting the apartment and paying the service charges (which are due again in March!)

My questions are;

• Has anyone taken these fees to a LVT and won?
• Will they take us to court if we don’t pay?
• If I pay the Notice of Sublet fee and the probate fee am I admitting liability to pay the rest?

I feel that they are trying it on with the 1 month of each 6 months’ rent because they know that the 2% of value is unfair?

Please can someone help us?

As always, similar complaints and worries that residents should not have for owning or inheriting a property.

If anyone can help the contributors above, do comment or let us know and we’ll forward you details on to them.

We reported that the membership fee was undisclosed, because it varied and was hard for us to publish specific costs and didn’t want to publish fictitious information.

The fact we said this cost was undisclosed clearly struck a nerve with managing agents up and down the country who got in contact to advise what the real cost of being an ARMA member is!

In light of this, we thought it would benefit the TTAS community to understand that monetary value each unit (managed property), when it comes to ARMA – especially as in 2011/12 ARMA had also increased subscription costs by 3% and justified this by saying that “members had told them that the subscription rates represented real value given the benefits of membership”.

Here’s the ARMA ‘subscription’ / membership costs:

In becoming a ‘Member’ of ARMA, managing agents agree to the following, with points that we think are particularly interesting in bold.

• comply with the Association’s aims and objectives, Memorandum & Articles of Association and Bye-Laws;
• abide by the RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code and any other relevant recognised codes;
• ensure that the required accountant’s report on client accounts is submitted annually;
• maintain adequate insurances for professional indemnity and submit the required annual certificate;
• maintain a current Health & Safety Policy Statement;
• fully comply with the Associations requirements regarding complaints (see Bye-Law 6);
• maintain membership of a relevant Ombudsman scheme;
• ensure that where there may be conflicts of interest they are fully disclosed to affected parties and disclose any commissions that we may receive to our clients;
• inform the Association, in relation to our firm, of any future litigation in the LVTs or the Courts regarding our removal as a manager; similarly for criminal prosecutions relating to property dealings or the management of money;
• provide evidence of our commitment to training and professional development if required;
• display, where appropriate, the ARMA logo on all letterheads and other relevant printed material;
• inform ARMA immediately of any changes to the controlling ownership of our business and/or the controlling directors/principals;

TTAS being impartial as always, wanted to publish details of what one management company told us in regards to the benefits of being an ARMA member.

ARMA provide guidance notes on many subjects which are very useful.

Other benefits include their directory giving contact details for our local area.  This directory lets RMCs know who to contact and does seem a great idea.

However, the RMCS that have contacted us to tender for their development, have also contacted the other ARMA members in our area, meaning that everyone is battling it out.

This obviously results in a lot of paperwork to compile and submit, with a small chance of securing the contract.

Especially when the RMC’s may not necessarily undertake due diligence and merely look at cost.  They later then find out whether appointing that agent has been beneficial or not.

The only ‘benefit’ in our eyes is the ability to say that we are an ARMA member, which they thought was a good organisation.

This reiterates what we reported yesterday that with the exception of a few notes, there appears to be very little benefit of being an ARMA member.  Smaller managing agents may be persuaded to become members because their subscription is not that expensive – resulting in ARMA profiting from their membership.

Another worrying issue is related to the fact that to many ‘novices’ ARMA are seen as being a regulator which is very misleading!  Afterall, how many of us before TTAS thought we could turn to ARMA for help in our battles?  I for one certainly did and soon learned that they were only in it for themselves.

And Finally…

Here’s a little quiz for a Thursday afternoon….

What do Mainstay Property Management, Peverel, OM Property Management, Consort and ARMA all have in common? (and we’re not talking about the old boys club here.)

Don’t know?

Well they’ve all taken it upon themselves to register a ‘TheTruthAbout…’ domain name and we take great satisfaction in knowing that Mainstay Property Management, Peverel, OM Property Management, Consort, CEM and more recently ARMA have done this.

The reasons for doing so are obvious because they have done it to prevent a copy cat ‘attack’ (for want of a better word) in the future.

ARMA in particular were a little late in registering ‘thetruthaboutarma.co.uk’ and only did this in November 2011, but it does show that the concept of TTAS is one that they are trying to protect against and demonstrates the effect TTAS has had/is having on the property management sector.

If you find out about another ‘TheTruthAbout’ domain name relating to property management sectors – do let us know.

In the past, TTAS has questioned what the point of ARMA is?  Especially when members have to be members of one of three Ombudsman to handle complaints.

Then, we started to take an in-depth look into the history of ARMA and who has held senior roles within the association, which soon lead us to believe that actually there is no point in ARMA even being ran.

Why do we say this?

Well, the organisation appears to have always been ‘ran’ by members of the larger property management companies such as Peverel and Mainstay.

We recently spoke with a selection of ARMA members and asked their opinion of ARMA.  93% of members said that they felt it was a ‘job for the boys’ and that it is funded purely by Peverel and Mainstay.

They also told us that the primary reason for being members of ARMA is because the ‘big boys’ are members and when tendering for developments, they have to be members to stand any chance of securing the contract.

ARMA profess to have 260 members, all of which are paying undisclosed membership fees per year for what exactly?  What happens to these membership fees?  Where does the money come from to pay those that run ARMA?

In October 2006, News on the Block reported on whether management companies should become members of ARMA and once again, NOTB’s coverage appears to be more of a sales pitch endorsing ARMA, than actually questioning whether ARMA is worthy of being assumed as a regulatory body.

If you haven’t read this NOTB report from 2006, click here to familiarise yourselves with it.

In our eyes, ARMA is funded by the ‘big boys’ who are profiting from residents.  However, they don’t appear to be content with that and want to exploit their competition, via the guise of ARMA.

Portraying the appearance that residents have someone to turn too, gives ARMA good reason to convince management companies to become members.

The whole property management sector when larger organisations are involved seems to be completely corrupt, as everyone is in it for themselves without a care in the world for those at the bottom….. the residents!

TTAS believes that ARMA must also be dissolved so that the Government can see that there is no proper regulation and will have no other option than to look to regulate it themselves – because at present, we think that the powers that be are of the impression that ARMA are doing a good job (even though they aren’t even regulating the sector).

ARMA do not do anything to help residents and when they do, they will always favour the managing agent because if ARMA were  ’independent’ and found residents to be right when complaints where raised with them, their members would become disgruntled and would no longer want to be members.

Their website actually states:

ARMA’s founding principal aims are to represent its members and therefore the interests of lessees, resident management companies (RMCs) and investor freeholders

They aren’t exactly fulfilling that aim are they lets be fair!

So how do we get ARMA to be dissolved?  It’s simple – get 258 of those members to cancel their membership.

If only two companies are members (Mainstay and OM / Peverel)  it will make the ARMA accreditation worthless and the ‘jobs for the boys’ will be ended.

Melissa Briggs of CARLEX is one person who has noticed this ‘monoply’ and recently setup a commercial venture called LKP, whereby she is hoping to become an independent regulatory body that property management companies can become members of.

LKP has a growing list of members and LKP undertake a great deal of due-diligence to ensure that members are reputable and will look after residents interest – rather than merely wanting to exploit them.

This is a great idea and it’s a project we know ARMA have tried to belittle and shows they are scared – because they know if members start to cancel subscriptions, they’ll end up relinquish control of their power within the management sector and that’ll be the end of the cliques.

We’d like to stress that we are not endorsing LKP and are merely pointing out that outside of the management sector ‘cliques’, there are people endeavouring to create regulation.

We know that TTAS is frequently visited by alternative property management companies and would like to take this opportunity to address them and urge you to seriously consider your reasons for being members of ARMA.

This claim by Peverel is clearly an out right lie, because the number of developments that keep contacting us to be added to our ‘Find a Friend‘ pages, support our reasoning that they are lying.

With this in mind, we wanted to highlight some of the issues that the new Find a Friend developments are experiencing and why they wanted to be added to our listing.

Publicity of these developments will also help neighbours to realise that they are not alone and that they can attempt to do something about it.

North Point, Crouch End, N8

Dear TTAS

I have just come across your page after 10 years of frustration dealing with Peverel (now OM Property Management).

I am specially frustrated with high service fees, very little value and ignoring multiple requests such as a wide – neighbour petition that I coordinated to install a new lighting system (currently all our corridors in the communal areas have too many lights on and they operate 24/7).

I would be very interested in understanding:

• What do we have to do if we want to change management company?
• Who is the best management company?
• What is the company that own OM Property?
• The Government has issued a Carbon Reduction Commitment league table and I am interested to know how they scored.

Thank you for setting up TTAS and giving us suffering residents an opportunity to discover that we are not alone.

ER

Primrose Place, Doncaster, DA11

Hi

I have just found your site and would like to tell you about our charges.

We have just had to take out a £1000 loan (which we cannot afford) to cover the increased charges as we were threatened with legal action.

In Nov £346.23 was added to our bill for “service charge adjustment for period of 1/9/09 to 31/08/10, I did ring to objct but got no where. We were struggling to pay it all anyway, the 6 monthly bill has increased from£415.50 in Sept 2010 to £889 in Nov 2012, more than double in 2 years.

The service is not good. Last year a water pipe burst, we were without water and electricity. They put a temp generator on our parking space for a week….we had no place to park and no compensation.

The front and back doors often jam, this has gone on for years! They are repaired but not replaced so it happens over and over again. It is very irritating when you cannot leave or enter the block of flats!

I know the charges are not fair, we are getting into debt because of them, is there anything we can do?

thank you for reading this

River Meads, Stanstead Abbotts

Yet another OM Property Management disaster for your files: River Meads, Stanstead Abbotts, Herts.

Service charges through the roof and practically no services.

Grapes Garden Close, Mountsorrel, LE12

Hello

We are a small development of thirteen properties, houses and two apartments, which have the misfortune of being “managed” by OM Property.

The development is: Grapes Garden Close, Mountsorrel, Leicestershire.

You may wish to add this to your database.

This was a stitch up from the word go. When we were sold these properties on a newly built development our solicitors, who were “recommended” by the developer, paid scant attention to the property management aspect and non of the buyers were made aware of the full and serious ramifications of this arrangement.

We bought freehold houses with onerous management company ties attached that, had we known at the time, some of us would not have bought in to. They have a “lien” on our properties preventing a sale if there is a “dispute” and even charging a (large) fee for a remortgage!

It looks like a scam cosily arranged between the builder, OM (Peverel as they were) and the solicitors all acting together to feather their own nests at the expense of the homeowners.

As such we feel that we do not have full rights and title to our own properties and that OM are preying on us due to the covenant imposed on us at the time of purchase.

Sorry for the rant but hopefully it is more grist to add to your catalogue of OM/Peverel misdemeanours.

Grays Residents – Are there good management companies?

Dear Sir / Madam

Please can you help us residents to remove Solitaire / Om Property / Peverel Group from manging our development ?

I am a resident of a block in Grays, Essex that Solitaire manage (unforunately for us ! ) , the development was built in 2007 and consists of 100 flats ( 75 of the flats are managed by Solitaire, with the remaining 25 flats managed by Swann Housing Group.

Upon reading through your website it seems that we are one of many developments throughout the country that this is managed by Solitaire.

What I really want to know is, is it possible to remove Solitaire from managing our development and replace them with a reputable Managing Agent ? Is there really any out there or are they all as bad as each other ?

I know I shouldn’t tarnish every managing agent with the same brush but we really have lost faith in Managing Agents.

I understand that one option, would be the right to manage, however it looks as if we would need 51 flats to be in agreement for us to try and remove Solitaire from this development. That is alot of people, especially as the the majority of people in our development are renting and you don’t know who the oweners are.

There is currently around 10 flats that all feel the same as me, we aren’t quite a residents association, but we are all on email and have got together in the past to discuss how we can try and keep these service charges down, we have even had our property management down in the past to discuss our issues, however with to no avail, our costs seem to keep on rising, year after year.

Our service charge on average is around £ 2000 a year mark, Which is almost double the service charge for other developments within the area.

we are currently trying to sell our flat at the moment, but due to the the excessive service charge, we are stuggling to find a buyer.

This has prompted my email to you and made me more determned that ever to get rid of these mercenaries !

I see from TTAS that there are various companys within the directory that say they can help ( Adam Church, Atlantis Estates, Bartholomews, etc ).

Can these companys really help us to get rid of Solitaire, Are these companies currently representing customers on TTAS ?

Any information thay you provide us with would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much for for help in advance, and its nice to know that there are other people out there that care and that wont be bullied by these big organisations

A mix-bag of complaints, but they echo the feelings that most of us have and is proof that more people are turning to the internet to find out if they are alone and are discovering TTAS.

If there are any TTAS contributors that live near the developments mentioned, do get in contact with us as we’d like to introduce you to the residents above, to help you work as one.

TTAS being the open platform that we are, were delighted to publish the efforts of the contributor in question and their report follows.

Sale of Freeholds

On 27 January 2012, the Financial Times featured an article on the front page written by its Property Correspondent, with the headline “Tchenguiz to sell 250,000 freeholds for ₤3bn”.

The article included the paragraph “Mr Tchenguiz told the Financial Times that the portfolio would provide a safe and long running exposure to house price growth. . . . he had not decided what he would use the proceeds for.”

There were a few more details the same day’s Property Week which stated that “Vincent Tchenguiz has put his residential freeholds business up for sale for ₤3.5bn, in what would be the largest property sale in UK history.”.

The Daily Mail also ran the story stating that Vincent was selling 1% of ALL UK Homes to clear his debts.  (If you didn’t get the chance to read this article click here)

Now that sounds like our Vince, indeed we can almost hear him dictate ‘the story’ to the reporter.  So what else did Vince say or forget to say?

TTAS is dedicated to all of the truth and not just the economical bits.

First of all, rather like New Labour, this has already been announced so very little of the story is new. Four months ago, On 27 September 2011, Bloomberg ran a story titled “Tchenguiz Trust May Sell U.K. Residential Unit After Kaupthing Settlement” which included the quote:

“We are going to bring in one investor soon, a sovereign wealth fund” (Vincent Tchenguiz, who advises the trust, said yesterday in a telephone interview.)

That was four months ago so how soon is soon? The FT and Property Week stories now say that Lazards had now ‘extended the search’ for buyers from sovereign wealth funds to ‘domestic investors’. In other words sovereign funds are not interested.

What do we know about what our Vince wishes to sell? Property Week says that it is intended to sell European Investments Overseas (EIO).  This is a company registered in the British Virgin Islands.

From the organization chart produced by Charter Quays Residents Association we know EIO owns Proxima Property Topco Ltd, Fairhold Finance, and Estates & Management, all with their registered office at Molteno House Regents Park Road.

Proxima Property, formerly called Aztec Property, owns Proxima GR, formerly called Peverel Property, which collects ground rent through Estates & Management from many OM properties, and Fairhold owns many of the Peverel Retirement freeholds.

OM Property Management is also a subsidiary of EIO but as a result of not meeting commitments this has already been placed into Administration and is no longer under the control of Tchenguiz Family Trust.

In September 2011, following the settlement with the Icelandic bank Kaupthing, Bloomberg further quoted Vincent Tchenguiz:

“We are now able to do what we want with all our assets”.

If he can do what he wants with ‘all our assets’, then why hasn’t Vince sold?

There is one big problem which the Financial Times expressed as ‘encumbered by debts’. Against the freehold assets money has been borrowed from Allied Irish Banks (saved by the Irish taxpayer), Bank of Scotland (saved by the British taxpayer), Bayerische Landsbank (owned by the Bavarian taxpayer), Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch (saved by the American taxpayer), and UBS (saved by the Swiss taxpayer).

These loans which are due for repayment within the next two to five years include a clause that requires its immediate repayment if the asset is sold. In other words the banks decide what freehold companies will be sold and what price the banks will accept. Vince is not able to do what he wants as they are not his assets.

Nor are the present managements of the various banks happy with the situation as the table shows as, because house prices have gone down, so has the value of freeholds.

The freehold investments of Proxima are at the value of the directors. The real price may probably be lower. When any freehold is agreed to be sold by Vincent Tchenguiz the price will be insufficient to repay the loan attached to it and therefore the banks will veto the sale.

The ground rent received is insufficient to pay the interest and so the situation continues to deteriorate. The whole enterprise is bust.

The likelihood is that the situation will continue drifting until the loans mature and the banks then have no option other than to place the freehold companies into Administration along with the related property management venture.

Remember OM Property Management. Immediately after going into Administration in 2010, Vincent Tchenguiz told Estates Gazette:

“We have been in consensual discussions with Bank of America Merrill Lynch since late 2009″

The Administrators progress report in October 2011 stated that Merrill Lynch would suffer a shortfall on this part of its loans to Tchenguiz Family Trust.

Yet during the period of ‘consensual discussions’ TTAS contributors showed on 21 January 2012 that ₤34.5mn was paid away in dividends to the British Virgin Islands out of the reach of Merrill Lynch.

The banks should be wary that proceeds from the sale of freeholds may also disappear into the Bermuda triangle.

What does the future hold for Vincent and more importantly Peverel / OM related companies?  Only the Administrators know that answer unfortunately, which leaves thousands of residents up and down the UK in limbo.

First up, we’ll clear up the concerns about OM and E&M added to their websites a copyright notice, which in E&M’s case states © Estates & Management 2006-2012 and OM’s says © OM Property Management 2012.

These additions to their websites are not related to OM / E&M setting up new companies and are purely copyright notices for their sites.

We think these copyright notices have been added to prevent the use of their website content on other media platforms, rather than it being the end of them or another company being setup.

In other words, they are more than likely trying to stop sites like TTAS, Carlex and Peverel Action quoting their content!

We decided to refer to the BusinessLink website, that contains useful information for businesses and below we quote their reasons for website copyright.

An internet copyright notice sets out the copyright position of your website content – eg whether you will allow the material to be downloaded or distributed by visitors.

Copyright notice samples

This website and its content is copyright of [business name] – © [business name] [year]. All rights reserved.

Any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form is prohibited other than the following:

• you may print or download to a local hard disk extracts for your personal and non-commercial use only
  .
• you may copy the content to individual third parties for their personal use, but only if you acknowledge the website as the source of the material

You may not, except with our express written permission, distribute or commercially exploit the content. Nor may you transmit it or store it in any other website or other form of electronic retrieval system.

However, there is an unwritten rule for websites and blogs whereby if you quote another sites content that you acknowledge where the information came from and is why you’ll often notice a “Source: XYZ” at the end of posts, where we have used another sites information.

Which returns us to why they have suddenly added these copyright notices?  What else are they trying to prevent?

Are they anticipating an influx of visitors to their website and are trying to prevent content being quoted in the press?

Who knows, but we are still waiting to hear from our sources in regards to whether Peverel has really been saved from Administration.

We’re very keen to secure this confirmation, as we’ve seen a spike in correspondence from potential homeowners asking whether Peverel have been bought, because they would then feel confident to buy a Peverel property!

This is still a risk, but clearly one that novices are prepared to gamble with on the assumption that the new buyer is going to improve things!

It’s highly unlikely that changes will occur IF Peverel/OM have been bought and if anything any investor will be looking to get the money they’ve invested back, as quickly as possible.

Therefore – do not rush into anything too soon, even if it is found that Peverel have been sold.

Charter Quay Update

We’ve been contacted by Charter Quay’s to highlight an article they recently published about their AGM.

The article in question explains details for the first time of the issues of common area rental being taken over by their LVT appointed managing agent, who is suing CQRA’s landlord via courts (not the LVT) for the recovery of £93,000.

They told us that the legal issues are of course the same as those faced in many residential and retirement sites, and they thought it was worth mentioning this on TTAS and in particular the approach of Estates & Management who promised to give monies back and then failed to do so.

“There is no reason to believe that there will be problems in the future” says landlord.

CQRA EGM 4th February

CQRA is holding an Extraordinary General Meeting for all owners to consider the future management of the site. The meeting takes place at 10:30AM, 4th February, at the Rose Theatre. If you are an apartment owner it is important that you attend.

The three year management order by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal appointing HML Andertons in place of the landlord’s management is due to end in August. Our landlord wants the site to return to their management and has told the Tribunal “there is no reason to believe that there will be problems in the future”.

We know the very opposite to be true. In November 2011 the Tribunal ruled about the landlord’s actions in 2008 and 2009. They highlighted various issues: the sweetheart deals with related companies; the onerous contracts and the huge insurance commission rake off. The Tribunal ruled the landlord’s managing agents actions in the handover to Andertons were “disgraceful”.

Owners should know one more thing about our trustworthy landlord. They charged us over £93,000 for “notional rentals of the common areas” covering the years 2005-2009. All five years of this “rental” were taken from our service charge account in 2009 just before the landlord’s managing agent was thrown off the site.

• Michael Gaston the Managing Director of Estates and Management Ltd, the landlords agent, admitted in an email in November 2010 he should not have charged for these “rentals” and assured HML Andertons that he would pay the money back – They have not.
  .
• In February 2011 Michael Gaston’s PR man advised the Surrey Comet they would pay us the money back – They have not.
  .
• In 2011 Andertons started a court action against the landlord to recover the money to the service charge account.
  .
• In December 2011 the landlord went to court to try and have Andertons case struck out. They failed and had to pay Andertons legal costs.
  .
• The issue is due to go to a final hearing this year. In addition to the £93,000 Andertons are seeking to recover legal costs and interest.

So when our landlord says “there is no reason to believe that there will be problems in the future” we hope you understand what they really mean.

If on the other hand you think our having to figtht them every inch of the way for the last four years is a reflection of how they would behave in the future. If you think that they might be looking for payback on the massive legal costs they have incurred not to mention the repeated humiliation in the courts and in the press. Or if you are just angry that they have never apologised to you. We recommend you turn up to the EGM on the 4th February.

We need you to turn up to the EGM to help keep the landlords hands out of your pockets!

Source: CQRA

Sources have suggested that the LVT is claiming it’s only in London where there is a problem with Peverel and from the top of our head, we can think of the following LVT cases that suggest otherwise:

• Westside One (Birmingham)
• City Heights (Nottingham)
• VizioN (London)
• CQRA (London)

In addition to the contribution of our ‘Find a Friend‘ pages that proves the issues are not just in one area but nationwide.

And Finally

We’ve been undertaking a spot of research into individuals at Peverel / OM and decided to checkout ‘Andrew Billson’ to see whether he’d taken up his role at Barratts Homes yet.

We were curious because earlier in January we’d heard rumours that Barratts may have got cold feet over his appointment and needless to say, it appears that that may be the case based on Andrew Billsons ‘LinkedIn’ profile as his profile no longer states his position in Peverel, but shows he is still employed by them.

Admittedly the end of January is almost here and it’s possible that his last day is approaching…. who knows but our sources are on the case looking for more details.

Fingers crossed, Barratt Homes have seen sense and have opted against recruiting Mr Billson!

TTAS contributor ‘Bella’ posted details of what is entailed when a WUP is issued yesterday, that were obtained from a website who specialises in defending said actions.

We have removed this entry as it contained contact details of the company in question and acted as an advert for them (especially as they are not a TTAS sponsor).

Therefore we have decided to publish an edited version of this information to help give people an insight into WUP’s and this follows:

What is a winding up petition and what can we do about it?

What is a winding up order procedure?

A winding up petition is by far the most serious action that can be taken against your company. Often the company has broken any trust the creditor had, payment deals have failed, cheques bounced and generally the directors have not kept their word to pay. Even though they have tried very hard, their customers have been slow to pay, or sales have been lower than planned.

So the creditor reacts with the “nuclear” option. Of course, sometimes its not as simple as that; in some cases we have seen creditors issue malicious petitions as a means of trying to settle disputes. We can advise how to deal with this. In Scotland a threat of a winding up petition is even more dangerous to a company so read our page on the procedural differences.

If a creditor moves to wind the company up, they are usually serious in their intent to recover the money it is owed and or put the company out of business. Read our case studies of how we have managed to stop a winding up petition

Generally a winding up petition (WUP) costs say £300-£800 to issue PLUS £1,190 court deposit, and the filing fee. So it is a serious step to take. Click on the link for an example of what a winding up petition looks like.

Process of issuing a winding up petition: Typically a creditor asks a solicitor to “wind the debtor company up” to recover debts, or to stop the company making its debts worse. This can be any creditor with debts over £750.

An application is made to the high court (PETITION) to ask the court to wind the company up. The process is a very legal and technical one but the main thing to remember is you must act as directors when this threat or petition is received. YOU MUST ACT quickly. Or you could face possible personal liability for the debts.

The Court will grant a hearing date to “hear” the petition. If the company does not respond, or if no defence is mounted, then its usually a matter of the judge issuing a WINDING UP ORDER.

Important Notice! In the last few months HMRC are moving faster to issuing winding up petitions.

What can I do if we receive a winding up petition? What should I do?

Once the company receives a petition there are now fewer options available;

You CANNOT put the company into creditors voluntary liquidation.

You CANNOT sell the company and you cannot sell the assets, as this sale may be reversed by the Court

Other than pay up there are only a few other options. There may still be time to propose a Company Voluntary Arrangement if you act FAST…. Other options include taking legal advice on defending the petition (if it is not an agreed debt for instance).

If the business IS VIABLE and has a good future then administration is a very powerful means to defend the company against the petition.

But now that the company faces winding up this requires an expensive court process. The court will need to consider the needs of all creditors and the petitioner, before granting an administration order.

An Administration Order, if granted by the court, will “stay” or stop the winding up petition and prevent a winding up order being made and any other legal action (except with leave of court).

The administrator may propose a Company Voluntary Arrangement to protect the business and allow a repayment of debts for up to 5 years. Or it may be sold to a new company or buyers (including you as directors). See the administration guide pages here.

If you decide to pay the debt, remember it will have increased because of the costs of the plaintiff (creditor). the petitioner will want those costs paid too.

What if you do not agree with the debt, or owe the debt claimed?

If the action is clearly unfair or an “abuse of court process” then you MUST take legal advice immediately. You may be able to legally prevent the petition from being advertised and indeed have it rescinded if it is considered an “abuse”. We can provide advice on this and our legal partners can assist you rapidly to STOP the Gazette advert by seeking an injunction to restrain advertisement or by way of formal negotiation with the petitioner as appropriate. Otherwise, in due course the petition hearing will be advertised in the London Gazette and the hearing will be heard in the High Court of Justice (Companies Court).

If the petition has already been advertised then you could seek an adjournment of the hearing. However, in order to do this you will need sound reason(s).

What is a Petition Advertisement?

The creditor must have advertised the 7 days petition before the High Court Hearing. It is advertised in the London Gazette or the Edinburgh Gazette for Scottish registered companies.

The creditor must allow 7 clear days after the serving of the petition on your registered office, before the petition can be advertised. It must generally be advertised 7 days before the petition hearing date. It is possible to stop the advert if you act fast.

This certainly helped explain how serious the issuing of the WUP to OM Property Management was and should not be taken lightly, as they have clearly failed their responsibilities in some capacity in dealing with Kingsway Asset Finance.

Past experience has taught us that when a finance organisation has issued such a threat – the matter is incredibly serious.  This is because a company that I have worked at had administrators appointed by the factoring company they used, because they were not contacted by our MD.

Therefore, you can bet your bottom dollar that OM’s legal team are fighting for their lives today and the fact we’ve published this information will only add to the pressure they are dealing with.  After all, if they fail to defend themselves or they come to a compromise – it could seriously damage any takeover of Peverel companies.

TTAS contributor ‘AReviewer’ has just been in touch to advise that they called ‘Kingsway Asset Finance’ and got the impression (just from the receptionist) that it sounds like the debt is not that small… otherwise it would be a case in small claims [5k], or county court – unlikely to be more than £100.

They’ve also passed details of TTAS on to them and pointed them in the direction of fraudulent misrep of electricity that we have previously published.

Watch this space!

And Finally…

Last week we reported on the launch of Peverel Energy, in association with Energy Centric.

Having perused our website statistics, we found that the web admin of Energy Centric had become curious as to why they were getting many hits from TTAS, but unfortunately for them – their website stats are publicly available for anyone to view!

Therefore, we took a quick look at their stats and found that 7 people had clicked through to Energy Centric from the links we published.

[Update: 26/01/12]

EnergyCentric have now locked down public access to their website statistics, but it does demonstrate the type of companies that are paying attention to TTAS.

However, as reported last week – on the 28 December 2011 a ‘Winding up Petition’ was issued to OM Property Management by Kingsway Asset Finance Limited.

This type of action demonstrates that clearly it’s not been business as usual for OM Property Management / Peverel related companies and therefore, what does the future really hold for OM / Peverel?

TTAS contributor “AFriend”, has informed us that the London Gazette Notice 1503780, which was first published on the 28 December 2011, but was actually applied for on the 21 December 2011 will be heard at Manchester District Registry at 10am on the 23 January 2012. (tomorrow)

Those in the Manchester area, may be interested in attending this hearing and if so, the address of Manchester District Registry is 1 Bridge Street West, Manchester, M60 9JD.

Until this Petition hearing has taken place, OM Property Management will remain with the company status of a ‘Winding Up Petition’ and therefore, anticipate further developments as of tomorrow.

TTAS will be keeping an eye on this case and we’ll bring you more details as and when we hear of them.

Submission of Accounts

The revelation that accounts have been submitted finally to Companies House has caused a stir on many of the Peverel related websites, such as TTAS, Carlex and Peverel Action Group.

Unfortunately, from our point of view CreditSafe (who we use for our credit investigations) are yet to update their systems with the information that has been submitted to Companies House.

The reason we prefer to publish information obtained from CreditSafe, is because we can compare and analyse their trading performance and report what their current credit status is.

With OM Property Management being issued with the winding up petition, that can surely only suggest that times are hard and they are withholding payment to their suppliers!

Judging by the facts contributors who have obtained copies of the submitted accounts, suggest that things are certainly not good.

In 2009, OM made an operating profit of £1,021,936.
In 2010, OM made an operating LOSS of £,1718,117.

Heaven knows what the losses would be for 2011 and would suggest differently that they had a strong trading performance.

The Loan to Aztec Opco Developments increased from £116,800,000 in 2009 to £131,375,729 in 2010.

No wonder Administration was incurred in 2011 if another £15million was needed from Aztec Opco!

Peverel Action Group, highlighted the following important points:

For the last filed accounts (2009) of the group parent of OM, Peverel Retirement, and Kingsborough there were shareholders funds of £11.9mn. From the filed financial statements this seems likely to have gone up a little in 2010.

During 2010 Kingsborough paid a dividend of £13mn and Peverel Management services (Peverel Retirement) paid a dividend of £10.55mn. So £23.55mn was paid in dividends from the shareholders funds of £12mn+ at a time when the group had insufficient money to even pay interest on its borrowings. As the parent is in Administration and not preparing accounts we cannot know for sure what happened to this £23.55mn but it seems highly likely that it was paid to the British Virgin Islands company Euro Investments and then into another pocket of VT such as Vincos Ltd.

On 12 October the Administrators report stated that it is expected that the secured creditor (Merrill Lynch) will suffer a ‘shortfall’ on its loan and that many unsecured creditors will not get a penny. Remember also that there is a list as long as your arm of leaseholders who have been cheated by OM and are queuing up to take the company to LVTs. Meanwhile £23.55mn has been removed from the company and away from its actual and potential creditors. Surely this is a matter for the Administrators to pursue and retrieve the money and for the Department of Trade to disqualify VT as unfit to hold office as a company director.

There is still a lot more to come from Peverel / OM in the coming weeks and relating to the winding up petition, in addition to the strengthening rumours that it’s true Peverel have been sold – with more residents coming forward to advise that they’ve been told “unofficially” that, that’s the case.

It’s not just OM / Peverel

TTAS has always been one of trying to focus on promoting the failings of Peverel / OM related companies, but we are starting to see an increase in correspondence from residents that are having the same problems as ourselves – but with non-Peverel related companies.

Therefore, we thought it would be an idea to publish some of this correspondence to name and shame other underperforming managing agents and demonstrate that they are not immune to being able to ‘get away with it’.

Our estate is managed by FW Gapp and at the current time they have initiated a contract to repaint the exterior (in accordance with the Deed) however they consulted the 55 flats 16th May 2011 (as requried but Common / Leasehold act) but NOT the 75 Freehold houses.

Our issue is that many of the windows need replacing and uPVC seems the best option as it will remove the recurring cost of repainting.

However FW Gapp insist they will still require properties to contribute to the repainting fund £4000 as a % of total cost even if your house does not require painting.

They have also added “Professional Fees” of 12.5% (£20,000) to the contract cost as FW Gapp view them as major works and not recurring.

The company is abusing it’s position and exploiting the lack of legal control.

Therefore, we’d be interested in hearing from other FW Gapp residents who are also unhappy with the services and charges.

More messages have been received from home owners of Peverel Retirement property who have said that today their ‘House Managers’ have been rather joyful…. when compared with others days.

Apparently, when they have been pressed on this joviality – their response has been “Peverel’s been sold and our jobs are secure!”.

There is still the risk that this is another propaganda stunt, but our Peverel / OM  ’sources’ have advised that the House Managers are clearly boasting about it to annoy residents.

Allegedly it’s not quite common knowledge throughout Peverel and that only certain departments are aware of this (well they were before TTAS reported it!).

We’re still waiting to hear from other sources for more details and when we have received this info, you’ll be the first to know about it.

Just remember, where you heard that Peverel had been sold first!  TTAS, first for breaking Peverel related news.

Powered by Peverel?

Thanks to TTAS contributor ‘Fleeced’ for bringing to our and the communities attention that it doesn’t look like it’ll be long until our developments are Powered by Peverel.

They discovered the following link to Micro Graphix website, whereby they promote the fact that they have recently undertaken brochure design and production for Peverel Group and quote:

Peverel Retirement is the expert in the management of retirement properties across the UK.  Peverel Retirement are part of the Peverel Group which deal with property management and letting, building technologies including communication and protection systems, retirement properties and insurance.

MicroGraphix have designed the new brochure for Peverel Energy, which highlights their services and explains the details in a simple and concise format.

We’ve been able to analyse the image that MicroGraphix use on their website and have been able to determine some of the sells pitch that is quoted on page 4 of the brochure that is displayed.

“Residents will be able to benefit from the excellent corporate relationships that Energycentric has with all major UK Suppliers.

This means that through Peverel Energy, you will have direct access to a dedicated service team including a billing manager, procurement manager and contract manager providing rapid response times in respect of any queries.

It appears that Peverel Energy is being promoted by Peverel Retirement, based on MicroGraphix sales pitch and also from the top line of the brochure on Page 5, where the opening sentence says “Peverel Retirement has launched Peverel Energy.”

Click the images above to view the images that we refer too.

A clever move by Peverel and one that we anticipate to hear a lot more about in the future.

We’ve checked Companies House and there is no company registered in the name of ‘Peverel Energy Ltd’ and therefore, it must purely be another alias that will cause confusion or make people think they’re getting a good deal.

We’ll be publishing more sublet stories tomorrow, in addition to other concerns that potential buyers have.