Planning Watch UK Rotating Header Image

Property Management

Problems mount for Peverel and Solitaire

Peverel property management faces tenant rebellion over service

Excessive fees and poor service are some of the accusations residents level against Peverel. Now they are taking action

The Peverel tenants who are fighting back

  • Patrick Collinson
  • tenant frank gadd

    Tenants Frank Gadd and Bernard Allwork of Church Crookham, Hampshire. Photograph: Graham Turner for the GuardianThree years ago Frank Gadd saw a two-bed maisonette for sale near Fleet in Hampshire that seemed perfect for his retirement. Yes, it was small, but it was affordable and it was relatively new, so maintenance would be minimal.

    “When I saw it, I thought what a lovely place to be in,” says Gadd, now 67. “But after just eight or nine months I felt I’d made a mistake. It was grim.”

    It wasn’t the property that was a let-down. It was the huge service and maintenance charges Gadd was being forced to pay out of his modest pension. The bill hit £4,400 a year for a run of four maisonettes with no common parts. This year, after taking on the agents, he will pay just £200.

    Gadd’s story is one of despair both at the lack of service and excessive costs for things such as buildings insurance. And his tale may not be unfamiliar to leaseholders and flat dwellers around the country.

    His managing agent was a firm called Solitaire Property Management, which in 2008 became part of the Peverel group of companies. Peverel is one of Britain’s most controversial property companies. It owns or manages hundreds of thousands of properties across Britain, under brand names such as OM, Consort and Pembertons Property Management. It looks after 65,000 retirement homes, largely at McCarthy & Stone developments. It runs security company Cirrus, which installs CCTV and entry systems for flats, and Kingsborough, which organises buildings insurance.

    Behind Peverel and a web of connected companies stands multimillionaire property tycoon Vincent Tchenguiz, whose flamboyant spending – before the credit crunch at least – was legendary.

    Aside from the Rolls Royce (at one stage he reputedly owned five), he boasts a £10m-plus luxury yacht, called Veni, Vidi, Vici (I came, I saw, I conquered). His brother Robert also built a huge financial empire, much of it based on loans from Kaupthing Bank in Iceland.

    As Iceland’s financial system collapsed in October 2008, many of the loans were called in, wiping out a large swathe of Robert Tchenguiz’s business empire, and also affecting Vincent.

    But far from the yachts on the French Riviera, numerous tenants of properties around Britain ultimately controlled by Tchenguiz are furious at the charges they pay, and the service they receive.

    One website alone, where tenants share stories about their treatment and what they can do about it, has received nearly 120,000 visitors over the past 16 months. The awkwardly named The Truth About OM Property Management (formerly Solitaire Property Management) & Peverel Group Companies, was set up in 2008 by a disgruntled Solitaire customer

    When he spoke to Guardian Money it was on the basis that we only publish his first name: Adam. “I was fed up with being palmed off with various stories, services not being provided yet the fees kept going up. But it soon became apparent it wasn’t just me.”

    The site is now peppered with allegations, although they are firmly rejected by Peverel. In a statement, it said: “Solitaire Property Management only became part of the Peverel Group in mid 2008. Given Solitaire’s poor history, immediate changes were made by Peverel to improve the company, including centralising customer service management and closing poorly organised regional offices … Since taking control of Solitaire we have made it our number one priority to make a fresh start with residents who felt they had been let down by Solitaire.”

    But some leaseholders continue to press ahead with tribunal claims. In the coming months, a tribunal will hear a £2.6m claim for overcharging alleged by more than 300 leaseholders at the striking St George Wharf development on the river Thames. Residents of five blocks in Nottingham, called City Heights, set off fireworks to celebrate wresting control of their development from Peverel after a long legal battle. Across the city, residents at Weekday Cross have won £730,000 at a tribunal, although Peverel is appealing this.

    Every tenant’s story is different, but there are a number of strands that feature regularly among complaints.

    Service charges Residents, many of whom are on fixed incomes, talk of rampant charge inflation. In the Weekday Cross development, also in Nottingham, the service charge on a flat went up 75% in just two years.

    Service provision Residents say they understand the need to pay service charges, but allege that services are not provided. Often it is the mundane details of daily life. In Gadd’s case, he claims the person supposed to cut the grass didn’t turn up for six months. In other instances it’s about critical repairs and security.

    At Weekday Cross, residents allege promises were repeatedly made but not kept, and in August 2009 at a leasehold valuation tribunal, Solitaire/Peverel were ousted as managing agents.

    Insurance costs Some residents claim they are overcharged for buildings insurance, which is usually arranged for Peverel by its sister company Kingsborough. Residents say premiums can be as much as double the rate on the open market, driven up by commissions of up to 40% earned by Kingsborough for arranging the policies. Peverel says it regularly tenders risks to the open market and is legally allowed to obtain commissions.

    Transfer fees When the owner of a retirement home dies and the property is sold, a seller may be charged 2% of the value of the property. Peverel says the fees are passed on to the landlord, and it does not benefit. But often the landlord is a company called Fairhold, which although not part of the Peverel Group shares a common beneficial owner – the trustees of the Tchenguiz Family Trust.

    Late charges Residents allege that accounts may be filed late, and that as a result, they are faced with “balancing” charges, sometimes years after the work has taken place.

    Legal representation Individual residents complain that taking on the legal firepower of the Peverel Group is a daunting prospect. One individual says he was faced with nearly 1,000 pages of legal documentation sent just 72 hours before a tribunal, and stood alone against teams of lawyers and barristers acting for Peverel.

    Peverel replies

    We understand how important a person’s home is to them and for more than 25 years, we have taken great pride in our service to residents. We adhere rigidly to industry best practice, including The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and The Association of Residential Managing Agents standards. But as a market leader, we often bear the brunt of criticism for things that not only affect the whole property management industry, but are beyond our control.

    Service charges are collected from residents so communal areas and grounds can be maintained, buildings insured and utility costs paid. The money residents pay goes into a development specific ‘trust’ account and is spent on their development alone.

    Charges are dictated by the lease, a document drawn up by the developer. All charges should be explained by the buyer’s solicitor, but when they are not, the property manager is the resident’s first port of call.

    That doesn’t stop us striving for better practice. For years we have lobbied for greater regulation to raise standards across a largely unregulated industry. Any business faces challenges as it grows, and when Solitaire Property Management (SPM) became part of the Peverel Group in mid 2008, it quickly became apparent it had a number of serious operational and customer service issues that would take time to resolve. Peverel took immediate steps. A three-year, £4m improvement plan was set in motion, customer service management was centralised, poorly organised regional offices closed and Solitaire’s entire senior operations team changed. One of the first actions taken by PPM was to introduce a formal customer complaints procedure for Solitaire. Some of these complaints went as far as tribunals. As part of our commitment to correct errors made under a previous management, we have accepted many of the rulings.

    Since taking control of Solitaire we have made it our number one priority to make a fresh start with residents who felt they had been let down by Solitaire.

    All properties formerly managed by SPM came under the control of our OM Property Management division on 6 January 2011. As we begin the final year of our improvement plan, we are confident former Solitaire customers are now seeing industry-leading standards of customer service, value for money and transparency.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Peverel Ownership Change

Tchenguiz forfeits £220m offshore companies

• Banks have control over web of property interests
• One firm, Peverel faces £2.6m claim for alleged overcharging

  • Simon Bowers
  • guardian.co.uk, Sunday 13 February 2011 19.01 GMT
  • Article history
  • Robert Tchenguiz
    Icelandic bank Kaupthing called in £1.8bn loan to Robert Tchenguiz, above. Photograph Micha Theiner/City AM / Rex FeaturesA complex offshore corporate structure created by Mayfair real estate tycoon Vincent Tchenguiz to hold Britain’s largest property maintenance and residential freeholds business, has been quietly surrendered to lending banks.

    The freeholds and maintenance contracts are spread across the UK and include thousands of McCarthy & Stone retirement home developments as well as several luxury residential complexes on the banks of the Thames such as St George Wharf in Vauxhall, Charter Quay in Kingston-Upon-Thames and Putney Wharf Tower.

    Tchenguiz effectively forfeited shares in a web of holding companies valued at more than £220m two years ago having pledged them, just months earlier, as collateral in an ill-fated attempt to stop Icelandic bank Kaupthing calling in a £1.8bn loan to his brother Robert.

    Despite Vincent’s efforts, the loan to his brother continued to sink into negative equity and was called in as Kaupthing itself collapsed in October 2008. The collateral backing the Tchenguiz loan was later seized by the bank’s liquidators.

    The assets underlying shares surrendered by Vincent Tchenguiz amount to a multibillion-pound property empire. It includes a portfolio of residential freeholds which earns hundreds of thousands in ground rents from tenants and leasehold transfer fees from those who sell.

    Vincent has also effectively lost control of Peverel, a controversial group of companies which offers property maintenance, repairs and other additional services such as CCTV and buildings insurance.

    Accounts filed by UK companies do not make clear that the property tycoon has lost control of holding company shares but the full picture is laid bare in court papers filed as part of a legal claim being brought by trustees to the Tchenguiz Family Trust (TFT) against Kaupthing.

    As reported in Saturday’s Guardian Money, recent years have seen a groundswell of frustration among tenants, variously claiming unreasonable rises in service charges, buildings insurance charges and leasehold transfer fees.

    Some disgruntled tenants claim Peverel companies have also failed to adequately carry out maintenance and repairs. A website, thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk, set up by angry tenants, has had almost 160,000 visitors in the last 16 months. Solitaire Property Management is part of Peverel.

    Meanwhile, residents at St George Wharf, a 900-apartment luxury riverside development overlooking Parliament, have for years been in dispute with landlord companies, including Tchenguiz-linked firms, and Peverel group service companies. A claim for £2.6m in alleged overcharging, supported by more than 300 residents, is to go before the leasehold valuation tribunal in May.

    Much anger has been directed at Vincent Tchenguiz as company accounts for relevant UK-registered businesses state that the ultimate controlling party is the TFT, where the property tycoon is an adviser and a beneficiary.

    But court papers from an ongoing case reveal shares in 14 holding companies incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, and a further four UK firms, are under the control of receivers acting for Kaupthing.

    Unfortunately for Kaupthing creditors, however, the shares may not hold the value they appeared to promise three years ago. The vast majority of assets within the complex web of companies are already pledged to other banks – Deutsche Bank, Bank of Scotland (now part of Lloyds Banking Group), Merrill Lynch, BayernLB and Allied Irish Banks (UK) – under pre-existing long-term senior loan agreements.

    Moreover, these agreements contain so-called “change of control” clauses which give these banks the right to call in loans if Tchenguiz fails to keep control of the corporate structure. Receivers from Grant Thornton, appointed by Kaupthing, could therefore officially take control of the underlying businesses at will. They have not technically done so, however, for fear of triggering a chain of defaults which could leave the shares that Kaupthing took as security from Vincent Tchenguiz three years ago valueless.

    According to court papers filed by TFT trustees, Kaupthing’s decision to appoint joint receivers over several companies’ shares has already triggered various events of default. The papers claim Vincent had repeatedly warned Kaupthing liquidators of “the ruinous impact of … the appointment of receivers … on Kaupthing’s security position.”

    The document claims that, while negotiations are still ongoing, “in effect Merrill Lynch have, as a direct result of the events of default, assumed control of the underlying portfolio, [the parent company behind the Peverel group].”

    The bank has converted the loan from a long-term agreement to an overdraft repayable on demand. A 1% additional default rate of interest is being charged, adding pressure on the group to maximise the earnings it can extract from tenants’ service charge contracts.

    Similarly another big loan, arranged by Lloyds and advanced against part of the ground rents empire, has drifted into trouble. Lloyds, the taxpayer-backed bank, is charging a 1.75% additional default interest on the loan. According to court papers filed by TFT trustees, despite ongoing attempts to restructure the Lloyds loan, the bankers “in effect have … assumed control”.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Peverel ripping off more home owners – Daily Mail

Homeowners ripped off by managing agents charging sky-high fees

By Lauren Thompson
Last updated at 10:51 PM on 26th October 2010

A million homeowners in flats and retirement homes are being left at the mercy of managing agents who charge exorbitant service fees while ­providing poor maintenance.

These property owners are being exposed to a multi-million-pound rip-off by an unregulated industry.

They range from more ­vulnerable elderly residents in sheltered accommodation to wealthy ­businessmen in multi-million-pound riverside flats.

People power: Neil Healey successfully fought a two-year legal battle against ­Solitaire Property ­Management, now owned by Peverel, and got £156,000 in unfair service charges refunded to residents

People power: Neil Healey successfully fought a two-year legal battle against ­Solitaire Property ­Management, now owned by Peverel, and got £156,000 in unfair service charges refunded to residents

Complaints include:

  • Overcharging.
  • Fees that rise inexplicably every year.
  • No explanation of what charges are for.
  • Managing agents using their own ­companies to provide hugely expensive insurance and ­maintenance services.
  • No regulation to protect people from shoddy practices.

Michelle Mitchell, of charity Age UK, says: ‘These companies have a free rein to ride roughshod over residents and hold them hostage to a range of unfair ­practices due to the sector’s lack of ­regulation.’

Some of the worst examples are seen in sheltered ­accommodation, where ­vulnerable older ­people can pay huge charges for wardens and alarm systems.

Age UK has serious concerns about managing agents failing to obtain ­competitive quotes and instead using subsidiaries of their own company to ­provide ­insurance and maintenance work. This, in turn, leads to ­unnecessarily high service charges.

More than two million people are thought to own leasehold ­properties, with just over half being those who bought former council homes under the Right to Buy scheme.

It can be difficult for residents, whether in sheltered accommodation or normal flats, to know if the same company runs their ­managing agent and the firms they use to ­provide services.

For example, the ­biggest player, Peverel Limited, owns dozens of managing agents, including OM Property ­Management, Solitaire Property Management and ­Pembertons Residential.

Peverel and its subsidiaries manage 200,000 ­leasehold ­properties across the country, from ­million-pound apartments in central ­London to modest retirement flats.

Peverel also owns ­Kingsborough ­Insurance ­Services, which arranges ­building and contents cover; Cirrus ­Communication Systems, which installs CCTV; and CarelineUK, which provides emergency alarms in retirement homes.

All of these are used to provide services in Peverel-managed properties — although Peverel says it carries out a ‘strict ­tendering process for all contracts’.

Residents have complained that insurance premiums, in ­particular, are kept ­artificially high because of large ­commission fees. For example, Kingsborough obtains ­buildings cover but only acts as a middleman bet-ween Peverel and Oval, the insurance broker.

In return, it adds commission fees of up to 33 per cent on ­insurance premiums and this cost is passed directly to residents.

A spokeswoman for Peverel says: ‘Kingsborough receives a ­commission from the insurer and Leasehold Valuation Tribunals have determined that this is reasonable.’

Residents at Stow Court in ­Cheltenham, a block of 44 flats managed by ­Solitaire (owned by Peverel), became so fed up with sky-high ­insurance that they got a quote from an independent ­broker to ­compare costs.

Solitaire had been charging them £7,057 per year — but ­similar cover could be obtained through local firm Lansdown Insurance Brokers for just £2,165 — saving a staggering £4,892.

A spokeswoman for Peverel says: ‘Oval compared the two ­premiums and found the ­alternative quotation provided substantially less cover. Oval was, ­however, able to reduce its ­premium to £4,062 — a 42 per cent reduction on the ­previous year.’

A group of angry residents have set up a website called The Truth About Solitaire (soon to be OM Property Management) & Peverel Group Companies (including Consensus Business Group ­Companies), which has a wealth of information for ­leaseholders wanting to take on their ­managing agent.

James Butler, of Landmark Leasehold Advisory Services, says: ‘Several pieces of ­legislation, including The Landlord and ­Tenant Act 1985, make it a legal requirement for managing agents to openly tender contracts.

‘Sadly, some agents routinely flout the law by using firms owned by or linked to them to provide ­services. Ultimately, it is the ­residents who end up paying the increased costs.’
Charities such as Age UK have lobbied the Government for years to enforce regulation of ­managing agents and are confounded by the lack of protection for ­residents in leasehold properties.

Leaseholders can club together and boot out their managing agent under a process known as Right to ­Manage. The agent’s consent is not needed and there is no need for ­residents to prove mismanagement.’

It can be a lengthy and complicated process. Go to www.lease-advice.org for more information.

Bob Suvan and his neighbours exercised their Right to Manage a block of flats in Regent’s Park, ­central London. Mr Suvan was fed up with the way Peverel managed his three-bedroom flat and was being charged almost £5,000 per year in service charges.

So he set up a management company, BlocNet, and has reduced service charges in his building by 20 per cent. Find out more about leaseholds at www.thisismoney.co.uk/leasehold.

CASE STUDY

Neil Healey, 33, successfully fought a two-year legal battle against ­Solitaire Property ­Management, now owned by Peverel, and got £156,000 in unfair service charges refunded to residents.
Mr Healey (pictured) took the ­property giant to a Leasehold ­Valuation Tribunal (LVT), the dispute resolution service, on behalf of 165 apartments at City Heights development in ­Mapperley, Nottingham.
He was fed up of Peverel’s poor ­management and service charges of £1,600 per year on his two-bedroom apartment, as well as extras.
Mr Healey says: ‘From the minute I moved in, I had ­problems.’
And from January 1, 2011, the entire estate will be managed by Mr ­Healey’s new company, ­Mapperley Property Management.
A spokeswoman for Peverel says: ‘The LVT related to service charges levied by Solitaire ­Property ­Management between March 2004 and March 2009. ­Solitaire became part of the Peverel Group in mid-2008.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1324001/Homeowners-ripped-managing-agents-charging-sky-high-fees.html#ixzz13a1ZYYVi

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Companies House: Greenbelt Group Ltd – Status: Active – Proposal to Strike off

Greenbelt Group Ltd., face new threat, with Companies House public records now indicating that there is a proposal to strike off the company, presumed due to failure to file accounts.

Companies House records detailed below indicate that accounts should have been filed no later than 30th July 2009.

In a meeting attended by the Editor of Planning Watch UK,  in a private capacity, with Neil Cameron of Tulloch Homes and Richard Hartland, Head of Planning, Highland Council, on Thursday last, Mr Middleton,  Managing Director Greenbelt Group Ltd.,  continued to state that it was business as usual, giving no indication of the threat to the Greenbelt Group Ltd., company.

Thousands of home owners throughout the UK are tied to maintenance contracts with this company,  put in place by developers and signed off  by council planning authorites as “fit for purpose”,  with both UK and Scottish Government continuing to refuse to put consumer protection regulations in place demanded by home owners.

Complaints have been made to Trading Standards,  a number of Police Forces, numerous Members of Parliament, both MP’s and MSP’s and directly to the Minister for Community Safety, Fergus Ewing MSP.

In Scotland, the Scottish Government have indicated that they seem to think that the Maintenance industry concerned should regulate itself and the Office of Fair Trading continues to sit on the fence, despite receiving numerous complaints from many different areas of the UK.

Surely it is now time for MP’s and MSP’s to collectively take action to represent the electorate who have elected  representataives to protect the interests of their communities?

Editor

Notes:

Fergus Ewing MSP - Scottish National PartyFergus Ewing MSP – Scottish National Party

Fergus Ewing MSP – Scottish Government bio:

Fergus was first elected in 1999 as the MSP for Inverness East Nairn and Lochaber. He was re-elected in 2003 and again in the 2007 elections. Prior to being elected he ran his own law practice and developed SNP policy on small business as well as serving on the national executive of the SNP.

He is the son of Winnie, formerly the MSP for Highlands and Islands and MEP for Scotland, and brother of Annabelle, formerly MP for Perth.

His constituency is the second largest in Scotland, and is about 5 times larger than greater London which has around 90 MPs. Fergus campaigns on a wide variety of matters of vital importance to the area.
He seeks to represent everyone, irrespective of their own political views, and is keen to try to offer help to all constituents when they seek it.

***************************

Herald Scotland:

Closure looms for land firm over late accounts

West Myerton

West Myerton housing development where Greenbelt was contracted to maintain the open spaces

Exclusive – Chris Watt – Published on 7 Nov 2009

A controversial land management firm embroiled in thousands of disputes across Scotland has been threatened with closure, The Herald has learned.

Glasgow-based Greenbelt Group Ltd has been warned by Companies House that it will be struck off if it doesn’t produce its overdue accounts.

The firm failed to file records for 2006-07 by the July 2009 deadline, and it could now have its assets seized and handed to the state if it doesn’t comply. The registrar has formally proposed to strike off the firm, freezing its bank accounts and transferring all assets to the Crown.

Greenbelt managing director Alex Middleton said the outstanding documentation had been sent to Companies House, but he claimed that “it may have been delayed by the postal dispute”.

Sources close to the company told The Herald that Greenbelt had faced problems with its auditors, one of whom had resigned its position after disagreements over accounts.

However, Mr Middleton strenuously denied the difficulties, and insisted: “There is no question of the company being struck off.”

Greenbelt has been subject to thousands of complaints from councils, businesses and homeowners since it was incorporated in 1999, and a UK-wide campaign group now lists complaints from more than 130 housing estates.

The firm, originally established in the public sector by bodies including Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and Scottish Enterprise, was recently criticised for its work at the Black Cart Water, near Glasgow Airport, where it was paid £170,000 to maintain the area as a whooper swan reserve.

Greenbelt has since sold the SSSI to a local farmer at profit, without passing on grant money.

The firm has also been accused of failing homeowners who are tied into contracts for it to manage shared areas on housing estates. Aberdeenshire Council received so many complaints about work paid for but not completed that it wrote to developers urging them not to use Greenbelt.

Article website link

***********************************

Greenbelt Group Action

***********************************

Companies House Search:

Company Details – Name & Registered Office:
GREENBELT GROUP LIMITED
ABBOTSFORD HOUSE
ABBOTSFORD PLACE
GLASGOW
G5 9SS
Company No. SC192378

Status: Active – Proposal to Strike off
Date of Incorporation: 04/01/1999
Country of Origin
: United Kingdom
Company Type
: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
9305 – Other service activities
Accounting Reference Date: 30/09
Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/09/2007 (SMALL)
Next Accounts Due: 30/07/2009 OVERDUE
Last Return Made Up To: 01/02/2009
Next Return Due: 01/03/2010
Last Members List
: 01/02/2009

Previous Names:
Date of change:
8/04/2003
THE GREENBELT GROUP OF COMPANIES LIMITED
10/05/1999
COMLAW NO. 495 LIMITED

**************

General Companies House Information:

You could be penalised up to £5000 if you fail to send us your Annual Accounts by the due date.

And if you are late filing your Annual Return as well, your company may be struck off and you could face a criminal charge.

Winding up a company
A company may be wound up voluntarily if it cannot pay its creditors. It may also be wound up by order of the court on the petition of a creditor. In either case, relevant documents need to be sent to Companies House.

The following guidance is provided to help you understand how to wind up a company and the legal requirements that you must adhere to.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Greenbelt Group – Policy on open spaces unresolved

Mixed response on maintenance move

Policy on open spaces unresolved

By Leanna MacLarty – Press and Journal

EFFORTS by Aberdeenshire Council to prevent a land maintenance company from gaining control of public open spaces has received a mixed response from housing developers.

The local authority wrote to all big developers in the north-east asking them to reconsider transferring land to the Greenbelt Group.

Councillors backed the move after the private firm received a string of complaints from Aberdeenshire residents about the quality of work being carried out.

Housing firms were asked to reconsider any agreement with the Greenbelt firm and discuss management of the land with the council instead.

Only seven of the 19 firms responded to the council, members of the infrastructure services committee heard yesterday.

One unnamed developer was happy to opt for local authority control but another raised concerns about the level of red tape and lack of resources that may be involved.

Councillors agreed that policy on the management of open space should be included in the upcoming local development plan which is currently out for consultation.

The local authority will have the opportunity to bid for maintenance contracts for public open spaces.

If a developer chooses not to work with the council, a bond must be lodged against satisfactory completion of landscaping work.

A letter from Greenbelt managing director Alex Middleton acknowledged a problem with services last year and says that issues have been rectified.

“There is a group of residents intent on fighting Greenbelt but there is also a majority of residents satisfied with our arrangement,” he continues.

“Some of the land which has been in question does not even belong to Greenbelt and therefore Greenbelt is wrongly being accused of not undertaking its responsibilities.”

Head of planning and environmental services Christine Gore rejected the firm’s concerns about the “anti-competitive nature” of the council’s efforts.

“All we are saying is the council should be given the opportunity to bid for the work,” she said.

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1269566
Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Office of Fair Trading finds significant problems in Scottish property management market

in Government News Network news

OFT finds significant problems in Scottish property management market
OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING News Release (12/09) issued by COI News Distribution Service. 12 February 2009
The OFT has today published a study into the Scottish property management market which has found that the market is not working well for consumers in Scotland.

Scottish property managers, also known as ‘factors’, manage common shared property such as roofs, staircases and gardens within tenements and other residential properties with a shared common space. Around 135,000 Scottish households rely on property management companies. The OFT’s study also looked at land maintenance companies which maintain open spaces, typically on new housing developments.

The OFT found that whilst the majority of people were happy with their property manager, around one in three said they were not. Two-thirds of consumers who had made a complaint about their management firm were dissatisfied with the way their complaint was handled.

The study says that:
* many people do not understand their complex legal rights and are unsure about the standard of service they should expect, and
* there is limited scope for redress when things go wrong, and
* owners rarely switch their property manager – and at the same time, there is little evidence of active competition between property management companies to attract business.

As a result of its findings, the OFT has today recommended:
* early implementation of a Scottish Government promoted self-regulatory scheme, with an independent complaints redress mechanism, to ensure better accountability of property managers for their standards. If this fails, a statutory scheme should be introduced, and
* the development of an advice and mediation service by the Scottish Government – available to owners and managing agents – to help overcome the legal complexities and prevent the breakdown of arrangements.

In addition, the OFT study found similar problems in the market for land maintenance companies, with consumers experiencing particularly extreme barriers to switching land maintenance suppliers when ownership of open spaces had been transferred to private companies.

Following discussion with the OFT, Consumer Focus Scotland has agreed in principle to support home owners to bring forward a test case applying legislation which may allow owners to switch land maintenance company. If this proves to be an impractical option for home owners, then the OFT recommends that the Scottish Government should review the legislation.

The OFT’s recommendations have now been submitted to the Scottish Government which has agreed to respond within 90 days.

John Fingleton, OFT Chief Executive, said:
‘This is a market that is not working well for many homeowners in Scotland. People often have little or no understanding about their rights, households rarely switch factors, suppliers do not seem to be actively competing with each other and the options for consumers when things go wrong are very limited. The OFT’s recommendations for change should be to the benefit of many Scottish consumers.’

NOTES
1. Download a copy of the OFT Market Study of Property Managers in Scotland from the OFT website – http://www.oft.gov.uk.

2. In October 2007, Consumer Focus Scotland (formerly the Scottish Consumer Council) submitted evidence to the OFT which raised concerns about Scottish property managers. For more details about this go to the Scottish Property Managers webpage on the OFT website: http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/market- studies/current/scottish.

3. As part of its market study, the OFT commissioned Ipsos MORI to carry out a survey of flat owners to see how well the property managers market in Scotland was working from the perspective of consumers. In addition, the OFT sought information from property managers across Scotland, asking them to complete an online survey. To see this survey go to the Scottish Property Managers webpage on the OFT website:
http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/market- studies/current/scottish.

4. Consumers wishing to complain about residential property management services should in the first instance contact either Consumer Direct or their local Citizens Advice Bureaux for advice on how to deal with their concerns.

http://www.oft.gov.uk

PUBLIC enquiries: 0845 7224499
enquiries@oft.gov.uk
OFT reports and consumer information leaflets are available free from:
OFT, PO Box 366, Hayes UB3 1XB 0800 389 3158 oft@ecgroup.uk.com

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr

Affordable Homes – Beware the Hidden Cost of Management Charges

The benefit of buying in to the “affordable homes” schemes trumpeted by Government, Councils, Developers and Housing Associations is often stated, but the downside of the hidden cost of potentially fast rising management cost fees is never fully explained.

As with Land Management companies, the shock of rapidly rising bills is only discovered long after the happy purchase event.

The failure of consumer protection legislation is once more exampled in this excellent Guardian article written by Miles Brignall.

How soaring charges soured the dream of ‘affordable’ homes

Fighting mad – the shared equity tenants who have suffered more than their share of pain. Miles Brignall hears a salutary tale

m.brignall@guardian.co.uk

shared-equity

Shane Conway and his neighbours have seen service charges rocket. Photograph: Frank Baron/Guardian

If you have been thinking about buying one of those “shared equity” homes that are aimed at struggling first-time buyers, you may reconsider after reading Shane Conway’s story.

Six years ago, the corporate manager was one of seven tenants who bought shared-equity flats in a newly built scheme in Greenford, west London – lured in part by the government-promoted dream of owning his own “affordable home”.

Today these tenants are facing demands for £1,100 per household, on top of the £2,000 a year they pay in service charges, to cover overspending by the housing association that is supposed to look after their interests.

They say the dream of homeownership has turned into a nightmare, and they fear being stuck in flats no one wants to buy. They blame “appalling mismanagement” by Shepherd’s Bush Housing Association (SBHA), which owns and manages 5,000 homes.

Conway’s story is perhaps typical. It started in 2003 when, with his brother, he bought a 75% share in a two-bedroom flat then valued at £185,000.

“It was a brand-new and very smart apartment block being offered through the government’s shared ownership scheme,” says Conway. “We had all saved for our deposits, and this was our first step on the property ladder. The scheme was advertised as a means of affordable housing, and we all agreed a monthly service charge of £90 to pay for the upkeep of the block through the housing association, Bush Homes, which later became Shepherd’s Bush Housing Association.”

Within months of his moving in, it became clear that the building had problems. “The housing association had also put council flat tenants into the block and a minority of them quickly went about vandalising the premises. We endured graffiti, damage to walls and doors, young children running wild and a woman with mental health problems who slashed her arms and bled heavily in the corridors.”

As a result, Conway says, the service charges started rising steadily and within two years hit £160 per month, or almost £2,000 per year.

The residents felt this figure rather made a mockery of the “affordable housing” tag and, distinctly unimpressed with the service they were getting for such high fees, got together to fight the increases. They took Bush Homes to the Leaseholders Valuation Tribunal in 2006, arguing the charges were excessive. The tribunal found in their favour and was critical of the association, saying the higher charges were unjustifiable because Bush Homes could not produce details of, or vouchers for, any repairs carried out.

“The judges also said that the absence of all receipts was ‘suspicious’ and ordered the association to pay each of us a partial refund on the services charges we had paid, and to cap the service charges for a period of one year at £119 a month,” says Conway.

However, as soon as the year ended, SBHA raised its service charges again, this time to £167 per month. The final straw came last October, when SBHA demanded that the tenants pay £1,149 each on top of what they had already paid for 2007-08, because it had overspent for the last financial year. The group, who had bought all of, or part shares in, their affordable homes found themselves paying up to £3,153 year.

“The whole thing is incredible,” says Conway. “I have friends in South Kensington who aren’t paying this much in service charges. We are apparently being asked to pay for the housing association’s incompetence. We are perfectly willing to pay charges that are fair and reasonable, but these are absurd. We have asked them to justify the figures and they won’t. They have treated us with utter disdain. I would advise anyone else thinking of buying a shared equity home to think carefully.”

Fellow resident Allison Clancy says: “The charges have gone crazy at a time we can least afford it. I’ve just gone back to work after maternity leave, and the whole thing has been very stressful. We were supposed to have a meeting with the bodies concerned last week and they didn’t turn up. We’ve asked for information and they’ve ignored us. How can you deal with people who behave like this?”

A spokeswoman for SBHA blamed the big increases on the privately run management company, Ringley, that controls most of the costs associated with the service charge. She said there had been an emergency lift door replacement, and that the association had failed to include water charges.

“We recognise that a request for payments of between £800 and £1,000 for under-recovery of service charges in 2007/08 is unwelcome. We are pursuing Ringley for clarification and proof of the charges, but we have a legal duty to collect it and then refund if necessary,” a statement said. “SBHA arranged a meeting between residents and Ringley on 13 January, but Ringley didn’t attend as planned. SBHA will continue to pursue Ringley.”

It said that the service charge would return to previous levels next year, but offered no explanation as to why many of its charges had risen so much, or why it had not acted sooner to try to reduce the tenants’ costs. Ringley said it was unaware of the planned meeting and that the increase in charges reflects problems with car park gates. “The early service charge levels were based on projected day-to-day running costs. This did not allow for the cost of future major works projects. We have estimated that the external decorations, programmed for 2010, will cost in the order of £65,000. From 2005 we phased in reserve fund collection gradually,” it said. It added that someone in a privately-owned flat in the same block and of similar size to Conway’s is paying a £1,700 service charge this year – substantially less than the £3,153 he is paying for the year.

Conway is unimpressed. “They have been blaming Ringley for five years, and the excuse doesn’t wash any more. My contract is with them, but they have failed us. I would caution anyone thinking of buying a shared equity home to take a long look at the housing association and how it’s managed before signing up.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Add to favorites
  • blogmarks
  • Blogosphere
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • Netvouz
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • RSS
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr