Property

Problems mount for Peverel and Solitaire

by Editor.

No comments yet

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

Comments (26)

- Patrick Collinson
- The Guardian, Saturday 12 February 2011
- Article history

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:

Peverel Ownership Change

Feb 14th, 2011

by Editor.

No comments yet

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

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:

Highland Housing Fair / Expo – The wheels come off…

Jan 19th, 2011

by Editor.

2 comments

Months after the Highland Housing Fair closed little has changed with the development in Inverness, Highlands, Scotland.

Properties remain incomplete, landscaping leaves a lot to be desired and roads wait for Tarmac.

Not surprisingly, properties remain unsold and given the current financial climate it remains to be seen how those who organised the shambles will repay the reputed cost of £6Million funded mainly by the long suffering tax payer.

We are now told a “sales drive” will take place later this year – at what cost and who is going to pay?

Quite frankly, those who promoted the benefits of the event should be jailed. Little concern was demonstrated as the costs of the fiasco rocketed and this at a time that the Directors of Highland Council were fully aware that the council had massively overspent and was largely running out of control.

The term “Development at any Cost” springs to mind. The NIMBY’S who insisted that the location was suitable and would benefit the region should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves – will they all be eventually taken to court? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain, when the full financial facts are forced out the information will generate massive criticism.

Those who campaigned against the event have proven to be very accurate with their thoughts about the issue, yet still Susan Torrance and her team of supporters are in denial.

The only winner is Tulloch Homes, reported to have made a cool £500,000 profit on the sale of the land involved to Highland Housing Alliance!

Earlier this year, it emerged that taxpayers handed Inverness building firm Tulloch Homes a profit when land on the outskirts of the city was sold to the organisers of the fair.

Tulloch Homes bought around 40 acres of agricultural land at Balvonie Braes for £850,000 and sold it with one extra acre nine months later to the council-funded Highland Housing Alliance for £1,350,000.

Barrie Haycock, chairman of Planning Watch UK, said he was outraged by the way the Balvonie Braes project had been handled.

“I think the whole affair is a complete disgrace and indicates the contempt which the Scottish Government and the Highland Council demonstrate to the community and the planning process in general,” he said.

It transpired hundreds of brochures — designed to attract government support — had to be destroyed because they contained inaccurate information relating to community facilities claimed to be in place, but not provided at Milton of Leys.

This latest twist has prompted furious opponents to demand sackings at the highest management level.

Editor

Housing Expo to mount sales drive in bid to recoup £6m

Published: 18 January, 2011, Inverness Courier

ORGANISERS of Scotland’s Housing Expo are preparing for a major event to help boost the sale of 24-eco homes so that £6 million of public money can be repaid.

Highland Housing Alliance, which led the expo project, has a deadline of April 2012 to sell the houses – some worth in excess of £300,000 – which are still on the market five months after the event closed.

The Expo, a development of 52 homes at Balvonie Braes in Inverness, showcasing sustainable and energy efficient design, was open to the public throughout August last year and attracted more than 30,000 visitors.

Yesterday it was revealed only one of the 24 homes built by the alliance has been sold but the organisation’s chief executive Susan Torrance is unperturbed.

Cash from each sale is to be returned to the public purse as part of an agreement with the Scottish Government, which underwrote the controversial housing scheme with £6 million of taxpayer’s money.

As part of the deal, if the alliance fails to sell the homes, they will be converted to affordable housing either through low-cost ownership or affordable rented accommodation.

Mrs Torrance remains confident all the homes will sell by the time the deadline comes around.

“I would be extremely surprised if it takes longer than 18 months,” she said.

“Not a lot of new houses are being built but people are still looking for new homes.”

Whilst sales have been slow she revealed there have been expressions of interest from buyers in all the homes with some proving more popular than others.

She went on to reveal plans for a major event in April which would properly launch and market the expo homes for sale.

Scotland’s Housing Expo at the city’s Balvonie Braes where 24 eco-homes remain unsold. Gary Anthony

The alliance is waiting until spring because some work, such as laying roads and landscaping, is still to take place and it wants the site to be completely finished.

Prolonged snow and ice over recent weeks has caused some delays to the work schedule.

“What we want to do is really show off the houses to their best in April when all the landscaping is complete,” said Mrs Torrance, explaining until recently some of the houses also still required work.

Ideas for the April launch, which will form part of the alliance’s marketing strategy, include staging a farmer’s market, fashion show, music event and competition giveaways at the site.

Mrs Torrance also revealed plans were in the pipeline to host a professionals’ day on 18th March for architects, developers and other interested parties who may have missed the exhibition in August.

“Since the expo we have had umpteen folk wanting to see around the site,” she said.

“This will be the last chance for folk to see around the houses.”

The remainder of the expo development is made up of a further 20 affordable homes, built for local housing associations, and eight private houses funded directly by developers to the tune of £2.3 million.

Albyn Housing Society has sold 10 of its 11 homes and O’Brien and Robertson are understood to have sold each of their plots.

Link to original article

Courier reader comments:

Wee jamie
The Expo was a scam from the very start.
I visited with an architect. His opinion – Houses – Rubbish.

Today, 13:37:59

Jack

The Expo site is never going to feel like a proper housing estate. The houses are too close together

Yesterday, 16:31:52

Mmm

I bought one of the Albyn houses and feel very lucky. It’s very energy efficient and a great opportunity for myself and partner to get on the property ladder in such difficult times. The site is far from complete and it does feel like we’re living in a show room. We have ‘visitors’ constantly peering through our windows which has become very tiresome. I don’t think people realise that there are families living on site now.

Today, 14:17:39

Stewie

It looks like the Expo is being EXPOsed as a bad idea!

Today, 09:14:25

Be specific

“Umpteen”?. Such a comment is almost as much use as the imaginary 30,000 plus figure that those responsible for this shambles are still touting. Any chance of some ACTUAL accounts related to the none Common Good Fund income generated before April? Take away the £60,000 grant and the double counted free children used to inflate the numbers and the Expo is exposed as a joke.

Today, 09:12:22

Jack

Prepare to be discussing this in 18 months. The public will NOT take out mortgages to purchase experiemental houses on a cramped experimental estate which will contain a number of social housing units. The resale value of these egotistical follies is being indicated by the fact that the only one sold to date was bought by someone with a financial involvement in the project.

Yesterday, 22:26:48

Another MoL Resident

To recover £6M they would need to average £222,222 PROFIT on each of the 27 houses to recoup the monies spent. Clearly the cost of construction and the running of the event has to be covered.
Will the public purse see all its money back?

Yesterday, 22:11:23

James

I wish Mrs Torrance the best of luck in selling these houses, but with £300,000 a person could buy a very nice house in Crown or down by the river, so it’s difficult to see how these houses at Balvonie will take preference to such houses which are also on the market, despite what Susan Torrance says. Hopefully, for the sake of the public purse, the properties sell.

Yesterday, 21:34:11

Denise

This is a disgrace of monumental proportions.

Yesterday, 18:41:21

Anon

Watch for the begging bowl going to the Common Good Fund once more.

Yesterday, 12:17:42

M.O.L. Resident.

Were all these extra openings and events part of the original plans for the Housing Expo? Or are we now expected to suffer more disruption with visitors parking on the side of the roads or better yet, on the actual pavements without any say at all. I remember the words “No extended opening” being used at the end of the actual show, this sounds very much to me like the Housing Expo is being reopened. Lets hope they can sell some of the houses and pay the taxpayers back the £6 million they owe.

Yesterday, 08:37:42

BMac

“…Yesterday it was revealed only one of the 24 homes built by the alliance has been sold but the organisation’s chief executive Susan Torrance is unperturbed…”It’s wonderful how unconcerned one can be when it’s public money.

Yesterday, 00:44:27

Bogbain

Good Luck! to Ms Torrance with her marketing scheme. If it is half as good as the one that she executed for David Sutherland whereby all the new home builders had to contribute to the cost of his Milton of Leys link road then her latest scheme should land in clover.
For the uninitiated. Mr Sutherland’s Tulloch builders could not build more than 600 homes at Milton of Leys without building a new link road. Part of a planning condition. Enter Susan Torrance, ex Tulloch director who fronted the housing fair development for the benefit of Suds. Suds had bought the Balvonie farm fields for way above the agricultural rate in the belief that HC planners would nod another development through the system.
But up sprang disenchanted Milton of Leys Tulloch Home buyers who joined forces with Bogbain and exposed anomalies in the Highland Council planners system.A new Highland Council planning committee was formed which owed Suds no favours, so that the whole housing fair farce got a rough ride in the media.
Can Susan now explain to taxpayers just how much each new housebuilder has had to contribute to the cost of Tulloch’s new Milton of Leys link road. The question has been asked many times before but Susan and Suds remain silent. And why not? Nice little bit of Inverness business.

2 days ago, 17:53:24

laxdale

one word albatross

Yesterday, 20:33:39

Share and Enjoy:

Peverel ripping off more home owners – Daily Mail

Oct 27th, 2010

by Editor.

2 comments

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

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.’

Share and Enjoy:

Residential Planning Application on Amenity Site causes further local conflict

Apr 3rd, 2010

by Editor.

No comments yet

Tulloch Homes, Inverness, Scotland hit the headlines again over controversial plans to build residential properties on land allocated for community amenity purposes.

Some nine years after the first property was built on the large development, residents are still waiting for their first real amenity facility following years of campaigning. A solitary post box has been featured in a number of press articles and underpins the failure of Highland Council to build integrated serviced communities.

Properties were sold on the basis of provision of a Primary School, shops and other essential services.
Property owners who live on the periphery of Inverness have been forced, until recently, to drive three miles to get a bottle of milk or loaf of bread, yet the developer has seemed determined to achieve a residential planning precedent on land reserved for community purposes

Communities across the greater Inverness region are questioning the failure of Highland Council to provide jobs and infrastructure within new development after development covering thousands of new homes.

Homes for Heroes Ltd was set up on 15th Oct 2008 by Ken McMillan & Ewan McAuley.
The initial aim was to procure affordable housing for members of the Armed Forces while they are still serving.
The initiative is aimed at providing a home for when the serviceman actually leaves the service and so preventing them from being subjected to the “mercy of Council waiting lists”

A whole lot different to what Mr Sutherland is portraying when he implies the housing is required to house servicemen with disabilies!

Editor

Gavin Norton, Chair of Milton of Leys Residents Association said:

Residents are desperate to see community facilities at An Inverness development, but have grave concerns that the developer is putting profit above much needed amenity space for this growing community, as well as paying lip service to planning regulations.

“When outline planning permission was given residents expected any residential units on the site to be service flats above shops. Instead we have been bombarded with differing indicative housing layouts finally culminating in approx 12 properties being sold under the Homes for Heroes Scheme.”

“As a serviceman myself I fully support the Homes for Heroes scheme, however Milton of Leys is a vast site, and these units can easily be accommodated elsewhere rather than taking up valuable amenity open space”.

“A Nursery is being sought on land outside that zoned for amenity land on Green Open Space, it is clear the developer knows this but wants to press ahead regardless of the planning regulations to the contrary.

“Should permission be given we fear the precedents that would be set by allowing building on Green open space, as well as residential properties in future amenity areas”.

“Milton of Leys has precious few play areas for children, and as a result of reshuffling the site an area of 1.9 acres for play equipment already passed by Highland Council has been compressed into almost half its original size. Once again the community and the children lose out”

“Despite years of consultation and work on forums with elected members regarding what Residents wanted to see on the site it is becoming clear that we will get what we are given and have to be thankful for it”.

“The responsibility lies on Highland Councils Planning department to ensure communities as large as Milton of Leys maximise the little amenity space they have in the best way possible to the benefit of the residents, not the developer”.

Residents are desperate for facilities and it is clear the parties concerned are using that to their advantage.

Residents hit out at Tulloch over their Homes for Heroes ‘ploy’

locals say builders playing emotional card to get scheme support

Published: 03/04/2010

SPEAKING OUT: Chairman of the residents association Gavin Norton says all previous plans have been for houses for profit

The north’s largest developer has been accused of “playing the emotional card” to try to win support for a housing scheme for disabled and injured service personnel.

Tulloch Homes wants to include 12 properties under the Houses for Heroes scheme in its plans for amenity land at Milton of Leys on the south-east edge of Inverness.

Residents have consistently opposed the Inverness-based firm’s proposals to build houses on the land, which has also been earmarked for a care home, nursery, school and shops.

The latest plans drawn up by Tulloch include houses for armed forces veterans, a move residents claim is a “good ploy” to try to win over opponents and Highland Council.

Milton of Leys Residents Association chairman Gavin Norton said: “All previous incarnations of the plans have been for residential houses for profit, not for Houses for Heroes.

“We think they are playing the emotional card by using Houses for Heroes to garner support for a residential development.”

Residents say they are not opposed to ex-service personnel living in the 600-home development, but are campaigning for the houses to be built elsewhere on the estate.

Tulloch Homes chief executive David Sutherland said he was “taken aback” by the opposition and insisted his firm would “certainly not be backtracking” on its decision to allocate land for Houses for Heroes on the amenity site.

Milton of Leys resident Barrie Haycock, who is chairman of the campaign group Planning Watch, said: “I am supportive of building Houses for Heroes, but the issue in Milton of Leys is, now that the link road has been built, Tulloch can build another 300 properties up here, taking the estate up to the original planning consent of 900 homes.

“Houses for Heroes can be built in these areas. Tulloch is using the emotional playing card with this application.”

The Houses for Heroes scheme was established in 2008 after it emerged that 5,000 ex-service personnel were homeless in Britain.

Mr Sutherland said Houses for Heroes planned to build five homes in a first phase within two years.

He said: “We have donated the site for 12 homes at Milton of Leys to Houses for Heroes out of sympathy for young injured servicemen and women, many with young families.

“I’m completely taken aback that the residents’ association has an objection to us housing these people, who have been wounded or suffered disabilities in the service of their country. They should be very proud to have them in their community. In this respect, I certainly don’t think the view is at all representative of the majority of Milton of Leys residents.

“Locating these homes beside the neighbourhood centre meets the charity’s requirements. People with disabilities need to be close to shops and services as often they cannot drive.”

Share and Enjoy:

Tories to give “struggling locals the chance to build own rural homes”

Dec 11th, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

Grant Shapps, the shadow housing minister is off to Cornwall today – a Tory/Lib Dem battleground county at the next election where the Lib Dems defend all six seats, most of which are pretty high on the Tory target list.

Mr Shapps will be there to announce a policy seeking to address the problem of local people being priced out of the housing market in rural areas.

According to today’s Daily Telegraph:

Under the Tory plans, local authorities will be asked to set up a register of families who want to join a self-build scheme. The council will then assess how much land needs to be put aside for a self-build community to be set up. Grant Shapps, the shadow housing minister, said he wants to tap into the vast number of people who are now willing to build their own homes.

He said: “Whilst house-building in general has been suffering, the self-build community has been growing. Most people will be surprised to learn that last year the second largest home builder wasn’t one of the big household names, but an army of individuals who call themselves self-builders.

“Across the country they’re creating affordable homes in the very places where young families struggle with sky high house prices. Under the next Conservative Government there will be an unprecedented shift in power back into the hands of local people.“

“We want to see a self-build movement spread across the country and particularly come to the rescue in rural areas. Local authorities will use the assessment of interest in self-build to help kick-start this rural housing revolution.”

This comes on a day when the Housing minister, John Healey, has said that he is not worried about the fact that fewer people are now unable to afford to become home owners. Read about his lecture to the Fabian Society in today’s Independent.

Jonathan Isaby

Original article link

Share and Enjoy:

Highland Housing Fair – Scotland’s Housing Expo – 2009 – 2010 – 2011 or Never?

Nov 18th, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

Taxpayers may face Housing Expo bill in the event of cancellation

Council chief makes clear public will pick up the tab if event does not go ahead

By jonny muir – Press and Journal

Published: 16/11/2009

The taxpayer will pick up the tab if a multimillion-pound exhibition showcasing environmentally friendly homes is cancelled, it has emerged.

Scotland’s Housing Expo is due to be held at Balvonie Braes, Inverness, in August 2010, but contingency plans have been prepared in case the event is abandoned or delayed.

In a report to councillors, Geoff Robson, Highland Council’s head of environment and development, said cancellation would lead to the liquidation of the Expo company, with “any outstanding debts being met from public sector resources”.

Identified risks that could lead to postponement of the 55-home event, which has already been delayed by a year, include failure to complete houses on time, low ticket sales or insufficient sponsorship.

Expo board chairman Jean Urquhart yesterday predicted “success, not disaster” and said a risk assessment had to be prepared to “reassure all our partners in the event of disaster”.

She said the prospect of cancellation was “simply not being contemplated”, but conceded there was a chance that the homes might not all be completed in time.

Despite the assurance, there were calls at the weekend to scrap the event, believed to be costing about £5million, to avoid it becoming a “white elephant”.

Barrie Haycock, a member of Inverness South Community Council, said: “There would be uproar from everybody if the event had to be cancelled.

“That money could have built a new school in Milton of Leys.”

Questioning the Expo’s potential to generate a budgeted £180,000 in ticket sales, he added: “Where they think these people are going to come from – given that large annual exhibitions with free admission are held in Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and London – is a mystery to anyone who has an understanding of marketing.”

Liz Gilchrist, who sits on a community liaison group of councillors, Expo representatives, residents and ward managers, said organisers had been upbeat about the event’s prospects at their last meeting on October 14.

She said: “They were very positive and hoping to get the site up and running by April. The public sector is already peeved at cuts, and having to carry the can for this would rub salt in the wound.”

Inverness South councillor John Holden added: “There is a great danger of it not happening, and I fear the public purse will have to pay for what is someone’s badly thought-out dream.”

In a report to Wednesday’s planning, environment and development committee, Mr Robson said the Expo would be promoted by a 10-month travelling exhibition.

Budget forecasts indicate that, as well as generating £180,000 from ticket sales, the Expo must make £80,000 from sponsorship, £27,000 from parking charges and £20,000 from brochure sales.

The Expo, previously called the Highland Housing Fair, aims to showcase modern low-energy housing designs, stimulate the wider use of timber construction and promote the “creativity and quality of lifestyle” in the Highlands.

Read more: http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1484194#ixzz0XCmXpbQn

Planning Watch pictures of the forlorn and neglected site taken on 15th November 2009:

Entrance to the site

No evidence of house building commencement

Share and Enjoy:

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

Nov 10th, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

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 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 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:

Pollphail at Portavadie ‘Ghost village’ to be demolished

Jun 23rd, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

A village built in Argyll to meet the demands of the UK oil boom of the 1970s but abandoned without ever being occupied is set for a new role.

Pollphail at Portavadie was to house workers needed to construct concrete oil rigs, but the plan was abandoned.

The site’s owner Alan Bradley said changes would start to be seen within a year as demolition clears the area for the first of 270 new properties.

The “ghost village” revamp has been in the planning process for nine years.

Mr Bradley said it could be five to 10 years before the redevelopment was completed.

Previous owners of the site on the Cowal Peninsula have included the failed bank, BCCI.

Craig Anderson
BBC Scotland

This is one of the most bizarre places I’ve visited in Scotland – and I’ve been to a few.

Keys still dangle on a board waiting for tenants who would never arrive. Coat hangers remain in cupboards and rusting washing machines stand idle, dreaming of their first spin cycle.

It’s easy to write off the whole Portavadie development as a madcap government white elephant.

Yet the early 1970s were pioneering days for the fledgling UK oil industry and the government of the day would have been heavily criticised had it failed to grasp the nettle and provide construction facilities.

Had industry preferences been different, Portavadie might have become as important as Ardersier, Nigg and Methil, where thousands of workers built oil rigs and platforms for a generation.

With a top quality marina now open and plans to redevelop Pollphail village, some of that hoped-for prosperity may now be arriving by a different route.

The village – big enough to house 500 people – was built along with a dry dock as the UK government rushed to cash in on North Sea oil.

Similar yards were created at Nigg in Easter Ross and Whiteness, near Ardersier, in the Highlands.

Argyll and Bute councillor Bruce Marshall said the potential work for Portavadie dried up before the workers could arrive on site.

He said: “The houses were built, but the whole thing fell through and concrete oil rigs were no longer the flavour of the month.

“For the past 35 years these houses have been inhabited by sheep and bats and just fallen into disrepair.”

The dry dock, meanwhile, has been turned into a marina.

Local photographer Philippa Elliott has documented the derelict site in a series of photographs.

Her images include a rack of door keys hanging disused and rusting washing machines.

She said some locals believed Pollphail was actually built as a military base on par with Faslane on the Clyde, but other suggestions for what the site was to be used for differ “depending on who you talked to”.

Putting it to use for the construction of concrete rigs was always the last idea offered, the photographer said.

Efforts are also being made to breathe new life into the yards in the Highlands.

Government ministers have been urged to take a greater interest in efforts to put Nigg back into business.

Renewable energy

Highland Council has asked Enterprise Minister Jim Mather to chair a meeting discussing the future of Nigg.

It has also pressed Secretary of State Jim Murphy to encourage the UK Government to become involved.

Potential roles for the site include using it in the construction of renewable energy devices.

At Whiteness, situated on the shores of the Moray Firth, 2,000 homes are planned along with recreation, leisure and fitness facilities.

A marina for yachts and other craft would also be built.

The site’s life as a construction yard ended in 2002 when owners J Ray McDermott closed it down following almost 30 years of activity.

At its height, there were more than 3,000 workers employed there.

BBC article link

Secret Scotland

Share and Enjoy:

Affordable Homes – Beware the Hidden Cost of Management Charges

Feb 17th, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

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

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:

Land management firm could be taken to tribunal after complaints

Feb 13th, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

Dissatisfied north-east customers urged to sign up to campaign

By Gillian Bell – Press and Journal

Published: 13/02/2009

ANGRY: Carol Kidd, who lives on the Kirkstyle estate at Kemnay, has refused to pay Greenbelt charges

Article link and pictures

A land management company which has received complaints about poor service from people across the north-east could be taken to a tribunal.

Paula Hoogerbrugge, who has led a campaign against the Greenbelt Group, is appealing for others who are dissatisfied about the firm’s service to come forward and consider launching a test case against it.

It comes after the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) said contracts between land management companies and customers should be tested at the Lands Tribunal for Scotland.

Greenbelt Group is the largest land management company in Scotland with some 24,000 customers. Two other companies exist, Scottish Woodlands and Ethical Maintenance, which have around 1,000 customers in total. The companies buy open spaces on developments and charge developers, residents, or a combination of the two, for their upkeep. But because the companies own the land, it can prove very difficult for residents to switch to a competitor.

The OFT has been in discussions with Consumer Focus Scotland, which has offered to support a group of residents who want to change their land maintenance provider.

An OFT report released yesterday said the test of law was “desirable” and added: “The OFT cannot test the law, this needs to be done by a group of homeowners. But of course the costs, uncertainty and difficulty obtaining legal advice may be a deterrent to those seeking to take such a case so we are pleased to say that Consumer Focus Scotland has agreed to take on a role to help facilitate a test of the legislation.”

Mrs Hoogerbrugge, who runs the Greenbelt Group Action website, said she had received complaints about the company’s services from 15 of the 16 estates it maintains in Aberdeenshire.

She said it was “wonderful” that Consumer Focus Scotland has offered its support and appealed to dissatisfied residents to come forward through the website so they can mount a test case.

Carol Kidd, who lives on the Kirkstyle estate at Kemnay, has complained to Greenbelt about its “sporadic” service in the past and refused to pay its charges. She said Greenbelt were “modern-day cowboys”, adding: “It would be great if someone took them to the tribunal.”

Greenbelt managing director Alex Middleton said last night: “We broadly welcome the OFT report and its principle recommendation that Consumer Focus Scotland should support home owners in bringing forward a test case applying legislation which may allow owners to switch land maintenance company.

This is an avenue we have been pursuing with a small number of our customers and we believe the involvement of Consumer Focus Scotland will aid that process.

We are happy to cooperate with Consumer Focus Scotland and the Scottish Government in whatever way they feel is appropriate.”

Share and Enjoy:

Highland Housing Fair – Local Community Totally Misled

Jan 23rd, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

Housing fair brochure branded ‘fabrication of reality’

HUNDREDS of glossy brochures promoting a controversial housing project on the outskirts of Inverness are to be destroyed after it was discovered they contained misleading information.

By Val Sweeney – Inverness Courier

Copies of the 26-page booklet, showcasing the Highland Housing Fair, were distributed at the Scottish Parliament in a move by the organisers to secure £4.75 million of public money for the event, due to be held next year at Balvonie Braes.

The brochure clearly stated that the site was chosen because it is close to Milton of Leys which has a primary school, church hall, local shops and public house, surgery, day care facilities and playing field.

However, after angry local residents and community leaders pointed out that the only community facility in the area is a postbox, housing fair organisers were forced to acknowledge their error.

A spokesman said that 500 copies were printed in time for a reception held at the parliament on 13th January.

Some had been handed out to those present, including MSPs, but the rest will now be withdrawn and destroyed.

“There was no intention to mislead anyone,” the spokesman said. “It was an error made in the haste of getting the booklet ready for the reception. The error in the booklet will be corrected for future print runs.”

Barrie Haycock, a local resident and chairman of Planning Watch UK, described the document, which contains the Highland Council logo, as “greatly misleading”.

“It is a complete fabrication of reality,” he said. “There are no community facilities with the exception of a postbox at Milton of Leys.

“It is an absolute disgrace that Highland Council could put its name to a document which is misleading to any person who takes the time and trouble to read it.”

The brochure at the centre of the controversy. Alasdair Allen

Bob Roberts, chairman of the Inverness South Community Council, was equally bemused by the publication, which states: “The site is well-located next to the Milton of Leys local centre which is easily accessible on foot.”

The council gave an additional £40,000 to the housing fair’s board last year. The money was to be used for a range of things including ticket and brochure printing plus advertising and promotion of the fair.

“Is this what they are using the money for?” Mr Roberts queried.

“I am absolutely outraged at this. The community at Milton of Leys has been totally misled by this. We have been promised these facilities for years and years and still they never appear — yet they seem to say they exist in this publication. We would love them to exist.”

Such was the concern about the lack of facilities in the rapidly-expanding suburb that a steering group, including Highland councillors, community councillors and other community representatives, was set up last year. A wish-list of priorities included a school and a multi-purpose community hall with sports facilities.

The housing fair, based on a Finnish model, is due to showcase 55 eco-homes which will be sold afterwards. The event, billed as the first of its kind in Scotland, had been due to be held in August but was postponed until 2010 due to the economic climate.

v.sweeney@inverness-courier.co.uk

Share and Enjoy:

Highland Housing Fair – Brochure described as “absolute fiction”

Jan 23rd, 2009

by Editor.

No comments yet

A new dawn for the Housing Fair at Milton of Leys looks increasingly unlikely. Gary Anthony

Is sun setting on housing fair?

By Val Sweeney – Inverness Courier

A CONTROVERSIAL housing project scheduled to take place in Inverness next year could be in doubt as all the funding is not yet in place.

The Highland Housing Fair, which is due to showcase more than 50 eco-friendly homes at Balvonie Braes, has already been postponed until 2010 due to the economic climate.

But unless the Scottish Government now agrees to underwrite the project to the tune of £4.75 million, and persuades banks to provide development funding, it is unclear how the event will proceed at all.

It comes amid further disarray after it transpired hundreds of brochures — designed to attract government support — are to be destroyed because they contain inaccurate information. And with time running out for work to start, this latest twist has prompted furious opponents to demand sackings at the highest management level.

The financial difficulties facing the housing fair are contained in the minutes of a meeting of the Scottish parliamentary cross party group on architecture and the built environment at which there was a presentation by housing fair representatives including the board’s chairman, Councillor Jean Urquhart, and Susan Torrance, chief executive of the Highland Housing Alliance.

The December meeting also included discussion on the economic requirements for the fair to proceed.

Although the cost of the affordable houses will be met from housing association grants, the current economic climate has resulted in a reluctance from banks to fund individual private developers.

“Currently, plan A is to ask the Scottish Government to underwrite the costs and encourage the private finance sector to support the developers,” the minutes state. “No official application has been submitted to the government in this respect at present. It was not clear how the fair would proceed without this support.”

The minutes also summarise comments made by Ms Torrance. “The key message from her team is that they need some serious influence and support to persuade the banks to provide the development funding and allow the project to proceed,” it is reported.

Yesterday, however, she insisted the housing fair was going ahead and that infrastructure was already in place. “We are not applying for public money,” she said. “We are asking the government to steady the nerves of the banks.”

But opponents of the project, which has been dogged by controversy from the start, think the government should not support it, while some queried whether it would now go ahead. There was also continuing anger about a brochure showcasing the event which wrongly claimed the nearby Milton of Leys area had an array of shops, a school, pubs, church and sports facilities.

Councillor John Holden (Inverness South) described the brochure as “absolute fiction”.

“Heads should roll over this,” he declared. “This has to go to the top of the tree in relation to the Highland Housing Fair.”

He said the event, which was to be developed on designated green belt land, was tainted from day one. “I can never see a situation where I personally would support one more penny going to the housing fair,” he said. “I can never see it taking off.”

Mary Scanlon, Highlands and Islands Conservative MSP, who was present at last month’s parliamentary presentation, also questioned the management of the project.

“They have not worked with the community and their recent charm offensive at the Scottish Parliament was based on a brochure of lies and untruths,” she said. “I think the management of this project is rapidly losing credibility and trust from funders.

“The management of this housing fair is highly regrettable because I have not met anyone who does not support the idea of the housing fair of environmentally-friendly sustainable houses.”

v.sweeney@inverness-courier.co.uk

Share and Enjoy:

West Lothian Council Sleaze charge alleged

Jan 5th, 2009

by Editor.

2 comments

Sleaze charge rocks West Lothian Council

Dec 24 2008 by Alistair Watson, West Lothian Courier

AN award winning council is in turmoil as allegations of corruption and sleaze threaten to tear it apart.

Council leader Peter Johnston faces calls for his resignation after Councillor Gordon Beurskens was reported to police over his role in an £8 million planning application for a mixed development scheme at Whitrigg, Whitburn.

Councillor Beurskens, who helps prop up the SNP administration, was working as a consultant for Aftondale Ltd, the firm who lodged the application, while sitting on the local authority’s development committee.

Councillors on the committee must show impartiality on planning applications but the Action to Save St John’s councillor is at the centre of a row regarding a financial interest in the plan being approved.

Despite the plan being rejected by planning officials the proposal was pushed through by councillors at a meeting last month with the casting vote coming from SNP committee chairman Jim Dickson. Councillor Dickson has since stood down from his post pending an independent inquiry.

Graeme Morrice, Labour group leader on the council, claims the allegations of wrong-doing go straight to the heart of the administration. He has called on Councillor Johnston to step down while the police and Standards Commission investigate.

But the council leader called the complaints a politically motivated campaign from the Labour party to discredit his administration.

He added that he was unaware of any substance to the allegations, which will also be investigated in an independent inquiry.

Councillor Johnston continued: “I think it’s important to recognise that the council has no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claims made by Labour councillors in relation to irregularities by Councillor Beurskens.

“The council has, quite rightly I think, passed them on to the police for them to investigate.

“I would expect any responsible political party to wait for the results of the inquiry before celebrating.

“I am confident that the matters will be fully investigated and he will be completely exonerated.

“The results will be fully published and we will do that in an open and transparent manner and there will be no hiding anything.

“I think the political administration will come out of this clear and clean.”

It has also been revealed that council leader Peter Johnston was copied into e-mails sent to planning staff by Councillor Beurskens in his capacity as a consultant on the Whitrigg plans.

In some he uses choice and threatening language and in one he wrote it would take him “two minutes to change the complexion of a council”.

Councillor Johnston added: “I can’t condone his use of language in the e-mails. It wasn’t appropriate for council officers to be addressed in this way.

“We want the officers working in an environment that they are completely comfortable with.

“I think everyone will learn lessons from this. One of them will be that officers are to be treated with respect and not as political footballs.”

Labour leader, Councillor Morrice, said the council leader couldn’t distance himself from the actions of those members of his administration.

He added: “These actions go to the heart of the administration. It has now been revealed that Councillor Johnston was aware of these alleged wrong doings and did nothing about it. He is therefore complicit.

“Public confidence in the planning system is essential and people need to know that they can trust those who are taking the decisions.

“Before the SNP, Conservative and single issue local hospital councillors took over control of the council from Labour at the election, West Lothian Council was regarded as one of the best politically managed and highly regarded local authorities in Britain.

“Today, this reputation has been left in tatters.”

As the Courier went to press, Councillor Beurskens was unavailable for comment.

A West Lothian Council spokesman commented: “A serious complaint about a planning issue was made to the council. Given the nature of the allegation we have asked the police to investigate. As this is now an on-going enquiry it is not appropriate to comment further.”

Link to original article

Share and Enjoy:

UK Government Eco-towns plan ‘may be unlawful’

Jul 23rd, 2008

by Editor.

No comments yet

Eco-towns of up to 20,000 people each are proposed

The government’s approach to delivering up to 10 eco-towns could be “unlawful”, councils have warned.

Ministers are to publish a planning policy statement to set out standards and potential locations in England.

But the Local Government Association said the proposals went against the principle of development through plans drawn up by local authorities.

This might show a wish to avoid “proper scrutiny”, it added. But the government said it “absolutely” disagreed.

‘Deeply flawed’

The eco-towns scheme aims to deliver settlements of 5,000 to 20,000 homes which are zero-carbon overall.

The government shortlisted 15 proposals for new settlements in April and has said up to 10 final approved bids will have to go through the planning process once they have been chosen later this year.

Lawyers John Steel QC and James Strachan, representing the LGA, said an existing planning policy statement covered the concept of providing housing in new settlements in an environmentally sustainable way.

‘ECO-TOWNS’ SHORTLIST

Bordon, Hampshire

Coltishall, Norfolk

Elsenham, Essex

Ford, West Sussex

Hanley Grange, Cambridgeshire

Imerys, nr St Austell, Cornwall

Leeds city region, West Yorkshire

Marston Vale and New Marston, Bedfordshire

Middle Quinton, Warwickshire

Pennbury, Leicestershire

Rossington, South Yorkshire

Rushcliffe, Nottinghamshire

Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire

Source: Department of Communities and Local Government

The plans: Site-by-site

There did not seem to be any justification for promoting eco-towns outside the existing rules, “other than the government’s wish to avoid the system due to the proper need for scrutiny, which takes time”, they added.

The LGA said the legal advice showed the government’s approach to eco-towns was “deeply flawed”.

Chairman Sir Simon Milton said the LGA was not opposed to the eco-towns as a way of meeting housing needs and combating climate change.

But he urged: “Ministers must talk to council leaders about adopting a new approach that will deliver development in places where councils and local people agree that eco-towns can work.

“Eco-towns must be delivered without bypassing the planning processes and ensure that new developments have good transport connections alongside the schools, health and leisure facilities which are needed to create places where people would want to live.”

Bidders for eco-towns at Manby, in Lincolnshire, and Curborough, Staffordshire, have pulled out, while part of a third bid at New Marston, in Bedfordshire, has also been withdrawn.

‘Stretching standards’

A Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: “We absolutely disagree with the LGA’s claims and believe this legal advice can only have been obtained on the basis of a misrepresentation of our policy.

“We have made it absolutely clear throughout that eco-towns will be different and will have higher environmental standards than a normal development and the applications will also have to be considered through the normal planning process.”

Shadow housing minister Grant Shapps said the legal advice would add weight to the argument that ministers had “effectively destroyed their own eco-town project”.

Liberal Democrat communities spokeswoman Julia Goldsworthy said: “What this government fails to understand is that centrally imposed solutions are doomed to failure.”

Share and Enjoy:

Government Affordable Housing Targets at risk

Jul 11th, 2008

by Editor.

No comments yet

Slowdown ‘risks housing targets’

The CIH said more people will need affordable homes as mortgages dry up

Concerns have been raised that the credit crunch could prevent government affordable housing targets being met.

The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) called for “imaginative” measures to build 35,000 homes a year by 2015.

It said the Scottish Government should work with housing associations or councils to use homes or land started by private firms which are lying empty.

The communities minister said he was open to working with others to buy unsold privately built homes.

The CIH’s director in Scotland, Alan Ferguson, said the current financial climate made it harder for those building affordable homes to borrow the money needed for their developments.

He said this must lead to concerns that targets would not be met for affordable housing.

The housing association sector is in a very strong position to weather the credit crunch

Scottish Government spokesman

“As the credit crunch bites, we may also expect to see more people in need of an affordable solution as access to mortgages continue to dry up,” he said.

“At the same time we are seeing private housing developers struggling, leading to job losses and severely reduced building programmes.

“We believe it is time for the Scottish Government to promote some more imaginative solutions that will help deliver more affordable houses, assist first-time buyers and assist struggling private builders.”

Ministers have set a goal of increasing the rate of house building to 35,000 new homes a year by the middle of the next decade.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “We welcome the CIH’s support for our efforts to improve the supply of affordable housing.

“The changes we have made to our subsidies to housing associations are essential if we are to achieve that objective at a time of great pressure on public expenditure.

“The housing association sector is in a very strong position to weather the credit crunch and the Scottish Government will continue to work with them in the meantime.”

Earlier, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon announced a £25m package to build new council homes.

Mr Maxwell said action was already being taken to increase social housing

Last month, she also revealed details of a range of housing measures, including a £250m boost for shared equity schemes that allow people to own part of a property.

The government also plans to launch a Homeowners Support Fund, providing £25m over the next two years to help those at risk of repossession.

Communities Minister Stewart Maxwell said the measures announced by the government showed it was taking action.

He stressed the importance of dealing with the underlying problem – the “under-supply” of housing – and said he would consider working with others agencies to buy unsold privately built homes.

The minister said: “I’m open to that suggestion.

“I think the issue here is housing associations and house builders have to get together and find out what is the most appropriate way forward bring forward projects which provide houses of the right type in the right place and at the right price.

“When that’s done we’ll certainly look at them and see whether that’s affordable and that’s the right thing to do.”

Link to original article

Share and Enjoy:

Human cost of Yorkshire floods – 2007

Jun 16th, 2008

by Editor.

No comments yet

BBC Survey shows flood toll a year on

By Mike Chilvers
BBC News, South Yorkshire

Catcliffe near Rotherham during the 2007 floods

Much of the village of Catcliffe was left under water for several days

The human cost of last summer’s floods in South Yorkshire has been revealed in a survey of the worst-hit communities.

More than eight out of 10 of those who answered a BBC Yorkshire questionnaire said they suffered mental or physical ill health as a result of the floods.

More than a fifth (22%) were so traumatised they had taken medication.

And one in five said they were not insured for the damage caused to their property in the deluge which hit the area on 25 June 2007.

Thousands of people were forced to leave their homes as flood waters rose in towns and villages around Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield.

Last month, BBC Yorkshire carried out a survey in some of the worst-affected streets, selecting 2,000 addresses from areas known to have requested the most aid from the South Yorkshire Flood Disaster Relief Fund.

Of the 242 people who replied, 43% had been forced out of their homes for more than six months.

The average time away from their homes was nine months, but many more have yet to return to properties which are still awaiting repair.

See full survey results

Almost a third (32%) of those who replied to the survey said the strain of coping with the aftermath of the floods had had a detrimental effect on their family life and relationships.

The Downson family, of Hunt Lane in Bentley, near Doncaster, is still living in temporary rented accommodation because of delays to house repairs.

Mark Downson told the BBC his efforts to repair the property had been dogged by a catalogue of wrangles with his insurance company and builders.

He and his wife had suffered depression and the stress had taken its toll on his two sons, aged 15 and 10.

“They’re used to having their own space and we’ve lived in four different houses since the floods,” he said.

“I’ve seen their behaviour change – they’ve become more disobedient.

“If your home life’s not as it should be everything else becomes a problem, it wears you down.”

In total 84% of those who responded said their health had suffered to some degree, either mentally or physically.

Some 67% had suffered physical ill health, including chest infections, stomach upsets and skin complaints.

Meanwhile, 70% had seen a deterioration in their mental health, including 26% who said they had suffered significant problems.

Several families said their children had been left scared of heavy rain.

‘Very confused’

Mother-of-four Lyndsey Hamblett, whose family spent 10 months living in a caravan, moved back into her house in Toll Bar 11 weeks ago.

She said: “When it started raining badly again the other week, my two boys were running around with school rulers measuring the depth of the water in the garden.

“They remembered how quickly the water had risen in the floods and were saying: ‘We’ve only got two hours to get out of the house’.

“My youngest is only just three years old and when we moved back into the house she kept saying she wanted to go home to the caravan. She’s very confused because she can’t really remember living here.”

The survey also gives an insight into the financial impact of the deluge, with 20% of those who responded saying they were not insured, leaving them with hefty bills to replace damaged possessions.

The Association of British Insurers said: “The people who do not take out home contents insurance usually make that decision because they are on a tight budget.

“They are the ones who can least afford to replace stuff once it’s damaged.”

The majority who were insured have also been adversely affected as insurance companies raised premiums when they renewed their policies.

Flooded street in Catcliffe, South Yorkshire

Some residents in Catcliffe said the floods brought the community together

Before the floods, Pauline Warburton, of Bickerton Road, in the Hillsborough area of Sheffield, paid £250 for a policy with flood cover, but says she has now been asked to pay up to £900 without flood cover for a new policy.

Property values in many areas also dropped immediately after the flooding.

Jon and Andrea Smith, of Wombwell near Barnsley, told the BBC survey that two neighbouring houses which had been on the market at about £180,000 before the floods were re-valued at £130,000 to £140,000 in the immediate aftermath.

Despite their problems, 48% of the survey respondents said they had received a good or very good response from their insurance companies when they submitted their claims.

Amid the trauma of the flooding, the survey reveals a significant number of people felt the emergency brought communities and even families closer together.

One third (33%) said the experiences of last June had had a positive impact.

Michael Torr, who lives in Catcliffe near Rotherham, said before the floods he had not known his next door neighbours, but now they were best friends.

Both families had been forced to live in caravans during the clear-up, and since moving back into their homes they have taken their caravans on holiday together.

Mr Torr and about 10 other neighbours set up a flood wardens scheme to alert each other to imminent flooding.

He said: “People have got more pride now in Catcliffe.

“As much as I’d like to move for fear of flooding, I wouldn’t like to because of the neighbours.”

Share and Enjoy:

House building targets warning – Professor Stephen Nickell

Jun 7th, 2008

by Editor.

No comments yet

Ministers are “very unlikely” to achieve housing targets, the UK’s chief advisor on home building has warned.

Stephen Nickell
Fears housing chances are becoming social polarised.

Professor Stephen Nickell said that, unless conditions change, the target of three million new homes in England by 2020 will not be met.

To get to this target, the housing industry needs to be building 240,000 homes a year, a figure that few think they will achieve this year.

The industry is already behind in its construction targets.

Just over 200,000 new homes were built last year.

Priced out

Homebuilders have cut back new building this year as a lack of mortgage products and falling house prices have cut demand.

Mr Nickell, who heads the National Housing and Planning Advice Unit, believes that alongside the financial constraints local authorities are also holding up new house building.

The wealthier people in society can satisfy their housing demands, more or less, as they get richer

Professor Stephen Nickell

“Unless local authorities are given a strong incentive to allow house building in their locality, it seems to me very unlikely that we will hit the housing targets,” he said.

“And if you don’t keep building these houses the prices just keep going up relative to people’s incomes.”

Government figures published recently showed that new housing work was down 5% in the first quarter of this year compared with the same period in 2007.

The Home Builders Federation, which represents major house builders, said that new building work did not show any signs of picking up.

“Right now the credit crunch is stopping people from getting the finance that people need to buy homes,” said John Slaughter, director of external affairs at the Federation.

“Longer term we need a better business environment and less regulatory cost to get the industry moving.”

The big building companies are beginning to show the strain with rumours that they may have to raise new capital to survive.

The two giants of the industry, Taylor Wimpey and Barratt Developments, carry a total of more than £2.5 billion of debt.

That equates to more than double their combined market worth.

The financial pain being felt by the companies has already forced one of them, Persimmon, to put a halt on all new building projects.

Falling prices

Figures from the Nationwide this month showed a 2.5% drop in house prices in May, with some predicting a 20% drop by the end of 2008.

But despite falling house prices, Professor Nickell said the current situation seemed to be only benefiting the richer parts of society.

“The wealthier people in society can satisfy their housing demands, more or less, as they get richer. While the rest of us get squashed into smaller and smaller houses.” he said.

And he added that if present trends continue, things are looking bleak for the future of housing in England.

“If the present situation continues we will be less well housed than the majority of people in Europe, Australia or the United States,” he said.

Original Article

Stephen Nickell

Is currently Warden of Nuffield College, Oxford. He was an External Member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee from 2000-2006 writing a number of pieces on the subject of the UK housing market. Until 2005 he was School Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, following this role from 1984-1998 as Professor of Economics and Director of the Institute of Economics and Statistics at the University of Oxford. He has also had earlier roles as an economist at the London School of Economics, in Paris and at the University of Princeton. He has been awarded a number of academic honours including Fellow of the British Academy and Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He has published widely in numerous branches of applied economics.

Share and Enjoy:

Growth being led by developers, says campaigner

May 31st, 2008

by Editor.

No comments yet

ASK Barrie Haycock why he decided to move to Inverness, he will tell you it is because he thought the Highland Capital was a good place to come to.

Growth being led by developers, says campaigner
By Calum Macleod – Inverness Courier

Four and a half years on, ask him if it is still a good place to come to and he hesitates.

“It’s difficult,” he said.

“It’s no better than other areas throughout the UK. The bottom line is that Inverness has the opportunity to learn from other areas and plan accordingly but no-one seems willing to do it.”

This apparent unwillingness to get to grips with the area’s planning deficiencies seems even more surprising to Barrie given the Highlands’ economic reliance on tourism.

“Tourists do not travel to see rows of soulless housing,” he pointed out.

For Barrie, who retired from a career in business at the age of 50, coming to the Highlands was an easy move to make as communications technology allowed his own public relations and allied services firm to operate from anywhere he chose.

He still enjoys getting out on the hills at the weekends and journeying to the unspoiled West Highlands, but soon learned that other parts of the region, not least Inverness itself, were going through what he describes as a quantum change.

To Barrie, Inverness’s rapid growth is being led by developers at the expense of community benefit and with little or no strategic planning or effective planning control “The emphasis in Inverness is on trying to build houses and then try and sort out the problems afterwards,” he said. “Exhibit A is the new trunk road with talk of bulldozing the new church at Inshes and compulsory purchase of properties. You would have thought they would have reserved the land, but that would be too easy.

“There is a growing view of many people in Inverness that the council should firmly get to grips with the situation and control planning so that development can take place in a properly thought out manner.

“Consultation is a joke. It’s a meaningless word in the planning process. Objections are rarely listened to and it’s the will of the developer that prevails over the will of the community.”

His awareness of discontent with the planning situation in Inverness was only heightened by his involvement with local community organisations.

Barrie is a founder member of the Milton of Leys local residents association, a member of Inverness Crime Prevention Panel and an Inverness South Community Councillor. More recently he has become involved with the Highlands and Islands Resilience Group, a disaster planning initiative designed to look at how threats such as pandemic influenza and terrorism could affect the Highlands.

These activities bring him into regular contact with a range of business owners, chamber of commerce members, police officers, community leaders, MPs, MSPs and Highland Council officials and local councillors.

A common topic of conversation has been concern at the way Highland Council is being run and its rapidly growing external debt problem which, by March this year, stood at a gross figure of 580 million.

The loss of prime farm land to residential housing with no meaningful infrastructure is another area of concern.

It was a prominent local councillor who initially suggested that a “Planning Watch” organisation was needed.

Barrie took up the suggestion and, as communities throughout Britain have similar issues to Inverness, widened the remit to create Planning Watch UK.

The organisation’s aims, objectives and interests are not confined to property matters. The regulation of the building industry, including land maintenance and property management companies, remains of prime importance.

“At present the new house build purchaser has been described by the National Consumer Council as having less consumer protection in law than when buying a kettle. This cannot continue and in general allows developers to make huge profits at the expense of the unsuspecting purchaser,” Barrie declared.

Nationally, Planning Watch UK members and contributors are working with MPs, MSPs and other organisations to introduce legislative changes to give houseowners the protection they need, just as locally the organisation wants to see more evidence of meaningful strategic planning.

Barrie Haycock, Planning Watch UK campaigner.

“The developer profit-driven process ignores the crucial requirement of infrastructure,” Barrie commented.

“Any future development must also look at education, health and transport services through to the massive number of jobs required to support the growing communities.”

Equally important are forward planning for roads, sewage and water supply and potential flood risk in certain areas. While there are plenty of bad examples of planning in Britain Telford in Shropshire or Scotland’s post-war New Towns there are also more positive designs which the Highlands could look to, such as Poundbury in Dorset. Designed by architect Leon Krier for landowner Prince Charles, this is an integrated community of shops, businesses and private and social housing and one which the planners of the Highlands would be advised to follow, Barrie suggested.

There are similar projects proposed for the Highlands, such as the “New Urbanist” community at Tornagrain, but for Barrie these being built are on too limited a scale and the principles which they adopt should be applied throughout the Highland region.

His work for Planning Watch UK and his other activities does take up a lot of his time and includes researching and studying local authority documents or fielding inquiries from journalists, but it is something he enjoys. “I don’t like to see people misled or ripped off and I have particular empathy and concerns for elderly people who are hung out to dry by the process. Who do they turn to for support?”

Barrie is scathing of a council which, he says, “would rather spend 300,000 on a fireworks display than care of the elderly.”

“The elderly are always the first to suffer when councils run into funding problems, yet the fat cat desk jockeys who decide the financial cuts continue to thrive,” he stated.

“This issue is constantly being raised by those who suffer and is a high priority for Planning Watch UK. Care of the elderly, young and disabled has to be of major importance but is so often put at the end of the bureaucrats’ list.”

Which is why Planning Watch UK highlights anything it regards as a waste of taxpayers’ money and wants to see local authority and government quango spending kept under strict financial control.

“A local example seems to be the bizarre reported redundancy payouts made to HIE members of staff, some of whom seem to have moved to highly paid new jobs some within Highland Council while collecting massive redundancy payments. This is an absolute disgrace!” he declared.

Barrie stood as an Independent candidate in the 2007 Highland Council election for Inverness South and came last, but reveals that he feels happier outside the political system.

“If you are part of the current system, you could very quickly get drowned under the current method of operation,” he said.

That system has been made even less effective, he believes, by the recent move to a party political council from one with a tradition of political independence and the creation of multi-member wards.

“The multi-councillor ward system isn’t working, full stop. None of the councillors can agree amongst themselves. End result: chaos,” Barrie said.

“Our councillors are paid salaries now, so there should be accountability all the way down from the chief executive to the most junior councillor.”

What is not so important, to Barrie at least, is the political hue of those councillors or even the MPs and MSPs.

“I’m apolitical,” Barrie stated.

“I don’t give a damn what party is in power as long as there are sensible policies from that party and I believe most people think the same.”

c.macleod@inverness-courier.co.uk

Confidential government study seen by the BBC suggests hundreds of UK power substations and water treatment plants are potentially at risk from flooding

May 7th, 2008

by Editor.

No comments yet

Another year gone by and little or nothing has been done by government to address the flooding problems

The following two BBC articles illustrate the extent of the problem:

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has rejected claims by a committee of MPs that Britain’s flood preparations are in a “chaotic state”.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs committee said the UK is still not prepared for the sort of flooding which hit much of the country last summer.

And it warned an extra £800m pledged to improve readiness was not enough.

Mr Benn said the government was already taking action in many of the areas identified in the report.

More than 55,000 homes and businesses across central, northern and South West England were devastated by last year’s floods, which killed nine people and left an insurance bill of about £3bn.

‘Confused and chaotic’

In its report, the select committee said there had been a “total lack of awareness” about how vulnerable many parts of the country were to flooding before the downpours.

“The public will not forgive the government if it is not seen to be responding to the lessons learnt from the floods of last summer,” said Michael Jack, the committee’s chairman.

“Our report has shown how confused and chaotic was the infrastructure when it came to preventing and dealing with surface water flooding.”

The report said flood defence measures have been focused almost solely on river and coastal defences, with plans to cope with heavy rainfall in an “unclear and chaotic state”.

No organisation had responsibility for dealing with surface water at a local or national level, and when drains began to overflow it was hard to see who was responsible for the drainage system, the committee said.

Planning changes

Ministers had repeatedly suggested the £800m a year for flood management by 2010/2011 would allow the government to deal effectively with future crises, the committee said.

But the settlement for flood defences made under the Comprehensive Spending Review was “far less impressive under close analysis”, it added.

Mr Benn said he “welcomed” the committee’s report but said action was already being taken to improve readiness for another major incident.

Changes to the planning laws would make it more difficult for homeowners to “concrete over” their front gardens – which he said was one of the causes of surface water flooding.

“The truth is that if we concrete over, pave over, tarmac over ground in our towns and cities and it rains like that then the drains get overwhelmed and the select committee recognises that,” he told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme.

“And what we need to sort out – what we had already recognised – is clarity of responsibility for making sure that the bits of the surface water drainage system fit together.”

Spending ‘doubled’

The right of new developments to automatically connect to the public sewerage system was also being reviewed, he added.

And the environment agency had been given “overall responsibility” for dealing with flooding and there was now a “single chain of command”.

Walham electricity switching station had a close escape after last summer’s floods

He denied there was a shortage of funds for flood defences.

“We’ve doubled the spending on flood defence in the last ten years.

“We’re increasing it by about another two hundred million pounds a year by 2010-11.

“Last summer, the Association of British Insurers said we should be spending about £750m a year by 2010-11 – actually we’re going to be spending £800m – and that’s going to mean the environment agency has more money to spend on more flood defence schemes to protect more peoples’ homes.”

Meanwhile, a confidential government study seen by the BBC suggests hundreds of UK power substations and water treatment plants are potentially at risk from flooding.

The report warns that “there are likely to be hundreds of sites at the highest levels of criticality” and says that “the risks posed by natural hazards are already rising and are predicted to rise further”.

It concludes that it would “be imprudent to rest on the basis that events on the lines of those which happened last summer were so infrequent as to reply on a reactive response alone”.

Link to original article

Most homeowners hit by last summer’s floods remain unprepared for a repeat, an insurance company survey suggests.

Some 83% of residents of Gloucester, Tewkesbury, Hull, Sheffield and Rotherham believe there is nothing they can do to protect their homes.

Of 1,500 people surveyed for Norwich Union, 95% had not secured their properties ahead of the threat of further flooding this summer.

A total of 29% also were unaware that their homes were at risk again.

Yorkshire, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire were worst hit by last year’s floods, which the Association of British Insurers says led to 180,000 claims totalling about £3bn.

Mary Dhonau, chief executive of the National Flood Forum, said: “Having been flooded myself, I know what an awful experience it can be.

“The findings of this report have shocked me because there is so much more people can do than using the humble, not to mention ineffective, sandbag.

“As someone who has witnessed the huge benefits of flood-resilient repairs, I’m a huge advocate of taking measures to protect your home.

“Adapting or altering your home can significantly lessen both the practical and emotional impact of flood.

“Not only can damage to your personal possessions and furnishings be reduced, you could be back in your home quicker after a flood if you have to move out at all.”

Flood defences

Simon Black, head of flood mapping at Norwich Union who produced the survey, said: “We believe that everyone has a responsibility to help reduce the risk of flood damage.

“That includes the government, with continued investment in flood defences, and the homeowner.

“While home insurance will protect people from the majority of costs caused by flooding, no insurance policy can replace those significant personal belongings with sentimental value.

“Similarly, no policy will be able to spare families the inconvenience and stress of being forced from their homes while it is being dried out and repaired.”

Flood protection for houses includes flood boards for door frames in case of flash floods, one-way valves on water outlet pipes and water-resistant sealants around doors, window frames and on bricks and mortar.

Link to original article

Share and Enjoy:

OFT issues statement of objections against 112 construction companies alleged to have engaged in bid rigging activities

Apr 17th, 2008

by Editor.

No comments yet

Following one of the largest ever Competition Act investigations, the OFT has today issued a Statement of Objections (SO) against 112 firms in the construction sector in England.

The OFT formally alleges that the construction companies named in the SO have engaged in bid rigging activities, and in particular cover pricing. Cover pricing describes a situation where one or more bidders collude with a competitor during a tender process to obtain a price or prices which are intended to be too high to win the contract. The tendering authority, for example a local council or other customer, is not made aware of the contacts between bidders, leaving it with a false impression of the level of competition and this may result in it paying inflated prices.

Cover pricing arrangements have previously been found by the OFT and the Competition Appeal Tribunal to be illegal and in breach of the Competition Act 1998 due to the restrictions on competition that arise.

In addition, the SO formally alleges that a minority of the construction companies have variously entered into one or more arrangements whereby it was agreed that the successful tenderer would pay an agreed sum of money to the unsuccessful tenderer (known as a ‘compensation payment’). These more serious forms of bid rigging are usually facilitated by false invoices.

The construction companies under investigation carry out general building work including construction of housing, as well as commercial and industrial construction both in the public and private sector. The SO allegations cover a diverse range of projects, including tenders for schools, universities and hospitals.

The OFT’s investigation originated from a specific complaint in the East Midlands in 2004, but it quickly became clear from the evidence that the practice of cover pricing was widespread. The SO’s formal allegations therefore cover neighbouring areas including Yorkshire and Humberside and also elsewhere in England. The OFT has also received evidence of cover pricing implicating many more companies on thousands of tender processes, but has focused its investigation on approximately 240 alleged infringements which are being pursued in the SO.

During the course of the investigation, the OFT carried out site visits at the premises of 57 firms. The OFT received 37 leniency applications in the investigation leading to this SO, and all other parties received an offer of a reduced financial penalty (see press notices 49/07 and 50/07), which led to over 40 further companies subsequently admitting participation in some bid rigging activities.

No assumption should be made at this stage that there has been an infringement of competition law by any of the companies named in the SO. The 112 parties concerned now have the opportunity to make written and oral representations which the OFT will take into account before making a final decision as to whether competition law has been infringed, and as to the appropriate amount of any penalties the OFT may decide to impose on each of the firms concerned.

John Fingleton, OFT Chief Executive, said:

‘Cartel activity of the type alleged today harms the economy by distorting competition and keeping prices artificially high. This investigation, together with the OFT’s previous decisions in the roofing sector, will hopefully send out a strong message to the construction industry about the seriousness with which we view suspected anti-competitive behaviour. Businesses have no excuses for not knowing and abiding by the law.’

NOTES

1. Under the Competition Act 1998 and Article 81 of the EC Treaty, cartels are prohibited. Any business found to be a member of a cartel could be fined up to 10 per cent of its worldwide turnover. In calculating financial penalties, the OFT takes into account a number of factors including seriousness of the infringement(s), turnover in the relevant market and any mitigating and/or aggravating factors. The basis of the OFT’s considerations are set out in the OFT’s guidance as to the appropriate amount of a penalty (pdf 145 kb).

2. An SO gives notice of a proposed infringement decision under the Competition Act 1998 to the parties involved. The parties then have the opportunity to make written and oral representations in response to the case set out by the OFT. Such representations will be considered by the OFT before any final decision is made.

3. The SO will not be published. In accordance with the OFT’s guidance on Involving third parties in Competition Act investigations (pdf 289 kb), any person who wishes to comment on the OFT’s provisional findings, and who is in a position to materially assist the OFT in testing its factual, legal or economic arguments, may request a non-confidential version of the statement of objections by contacting the OFT no later than 30 April 2008.

4. The OFT has previously found infringements of the Competition Act in relation to cover pricing and other bid rigging infringements in the roofing sector in five decisions between 2004 and 2006 (see press notices 46/04, 48/05, 126/05 and 34/06). Appeals of the first and last of these decisions to the Competition Appeal Tribunal confirmed the illegality of cover pricing (see press notices 36/05 and 32/07).

5. The OFT has also today published an information note to local authorities and other procuring entities on the implications for them of this announcement. Download the information note (pdf 49 kb).

6. Under the OFT’s leniency policy an undertaking may be granted immunity from penalties or a significant reduction in penalty in return for reporting certain categories of Competition Act infringement and assisting the OFT with its investigation.

7. Anyone who has information about cartels is asked to call the cartels hotline on 0800 085 1664 or email cartelshotline@oft.gsi.gov.uk. The OFT has a policy under which it will pay financial incentives of up to £100,000 in return for information which helps it to identify and take action against illegal cartels. Rewards will be paid only where information is accurate, verifiable and proves to be useful in the OFT’s anti-cartel enforcement work, and will be calculated according to a set formula and not subject to negotiation.

8. The SO has been issued to the following undertakings:

1. A. H. Willis & Sons Limited
2. ARG (Mansfield) Limited
3. Ackroyd & Abbott Limited together with its subsidiary Ackroyd & Abbott Construction Limited
4. Adam Eastwood & Sons Limited together with its controlling party the Sir John Eastwood Foundation
5. Admiral Construction Limited together with (for alleged infringements from 31 October 2003) its ultimate parent company A C Holdings Limited
6. Adonis Construction Limited
7. Allenbuild Limited and Bullock Construction Limited together with their ultimate parent company Renew Holdings plc
8. Apollo Property Services Group Limited formerly known as Apollo London Limited together with its former ultimate parent company Apollo Holdco Limited formerly known as Apollo Group Holdings Limited
9. Arthur M. Griffiths & Sons Limited
10. B & A Construction (Leicester) Limited
11. Baggaley & Jenkins Limited
12. Balfour Beatty Construction Limited, Balfour Beatty Refurbishment Limited, and Balfour Beatty Group Limited (for alleged infringements from 2000 onwards) and Mansell Construction Services Limited (for alleged infringements from 19 December 2003), together with their current ultimate parent company Balfour Beatty plc. For alleged infringements involving Mansell prior to 19 December 2003, Mansell and its former ultimate parent company Mansell plc
13.Ballast Nedam N.V. as the ultimate parent company of its dissolved subsidiary Ballast plc
14.Beaufort Construction (S-in-A) Limited together with its ultimate parent company Beaufort Holdings U.K. Limited
15.Bodill & Sons (Contractors) Limited
16.Bowmer & Kirkland Limited together with its subsidiaries B & K Building Services Limited and B & K Property Services Limited
17.Bramall Construction Limited and Frank Haslam Milan & Company Limited together with their current ultimate parent company Keepmoat Limited, formerly known as Keepmoat plc
18.C. J. Ellmore & Company Limited
19.Caddick Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Caddick Group plc
20.Carillion JM Limited
21.Chase Norton Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Chase Midland plc
22.Clegg Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Clegg Group Limited formerly known as D E Clegg Holdings Limited
23.Connaught Partnerships Limited together with its ultimate parent company Connaught plc
24.Crown Point Maintenance Group Limited as the ultimate parent company of its dissolved subsidiary Greenwood Building Contractors (Mansfield) Limited, for Greenwood’s alleged infringements after 11 June 2002
25.Davlyn Construction Limited
26.Derwent Valley Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Chevin Holdings Limited
27.Dukeries Building Company Limited together with its ultimate parent company Gavco 159 Limited
28.Durkan Pudelek Limited together with its ultimate parent company Durkan Holdings Limited
29.E. G. Carter & Company Limited
30.E. Manton Limited
31.E. Taylor & Sons (Southwell) Limited, trading as Carmalor Construction
32.F. Parkinson Limited together with its ultimate parent company Mowbray Holdings Limited
33.Francis Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Barrett Estates Services Limited
34.Frank Galliers Limited together with its former ultimate parent company Frank Galliers Holdings Limited
35.Frudd Construction Limited
36.GAJ Construction Limited together with its current ultimate parent company GAJ (Holdings) Limited
37.G Carter Construction Limited
38.G. F. Tomlinson Building Limited together with its ultimate parent company G. F. Tomlinson Group Limited
39.G G Middleton and Sons Limited
40.G. & J. Seddon Limited together with its ultimate parent company Seddon Group Limited
41.GMI Construction Group plc together with (for alleged infringements after 6 February 2005) its current ultimate parent company GMI Construction Holdings plc
42.Geo Houlton & Sons Limited together with its ultimate parent company Geo Houlton & Sons (Holdings) Limited
43.George Law Limited together with its ultimate parent company Bosworth & Wakeford Limited
44.Greswolde Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Mantisson Limited
45.Hall Construction Group Limited
46.Harlow & Milner Limited
47.Harold Adkin & Sons (Sutton-In-Ashfield) Limited
48.Harper Group Construction Limited and J. Harper & Sons (Leominster) Limited together with their ultimate parent company Harper Group plc
49.Haymills (Contractors) Limited together with (for alleged infringements prior to 26 May 2004) its former ultimate parent company Corringway Conclusions plc and (for alleged infringements after 26 May 2004) its current ultimate parent company Haymills Group Limited
50.Henry Boot Construction (UK) Limited together with its ultimate parent company Henry Boot plc
51.Herbert Baggaley Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Baggaley Group Limited
52.Hill Bros. (Nottingham) Limited
53.Hobson & Porter Limited
54.Holroyd Construction Limited together with (for alleged infringements prior to 30 March 2005) its former ultimate parent company Holderness Investments Limited and (for alleged infringements after 30 March 2005) its current ultimate parent company Holroyd Construction Group Limited
55.Interclass Public Limited Company together with its ultimate parent company Interclass Holdings Limited
56.Interserve Project Services Limited together with its ultimate parent company Interserve plc
57.Irwins Limited and Jack Lunn (Construction) Limited together with their ultimate parent company Jack Lunn (Holdings) Limited
58.J. Guest Limited
59.J H Hallam (Contracts) Limited together with its ultimate parent company J H Hallam (R & J) Limited
60.J. J. & A. R. Jackson Limited
61.J. J. McGinley Limited, together with its former ultimate parent company McGinley Holdings Limited
62.John Cawley Limited
63.John Sisk & Son Limited together with its ultimate parent company Sicon Limited
64.K. J. Bryan (Builders) Limited
65.Kier Regional Limited together with its ultimate parent company Kier Group plc
66.Lemmeleg Limited together with its ultimate parent company Rok plc
67.Lindum Construction Co. Limited and Lindum Homes Limited together with their ultimate parent company Lindum Group Limited
68.Linford Group Limited together with its ultimate parent company F. & E. V. Linford Limited
69.Loach Construction & Development Limited
70.Lotus Construction Limited
71.Milward Construction (Belper) Limited
72.Morgan Ashurt plc formerly known as Bluestone Plc together with its ultimate parent company Morgan Sindall plc
73.North Midland Construction plc
74.P D H Developments Limited (formerly trading as G. Hurst & Sons (Contractors) Limited) together with its ultimate parent company G. Hurst & Sons Limited
75.P. Casey & Co. Limited together with its current ultimate parent company The Casey Group Limited
76.P. Waller Limited
77.Pearce Construction (Midlands) Limited together with its former ultimate parent company Crest Nicholson plc
78.Peter Baines Limited
79.Phoenix Contracts (Leicester) Limited
80.Piper Construction Midlands Limited together with its ultimate parent company Piper Securities Holdings Limited
81.Propencity Group Limited together with its wholly owned subsidiary companies, ISG Jackson Limited, ISG Regions Limited formerly known as ISG Totty Limited, ISG Totty Building Limited and Propencity Limited
82.Quarmby Construction Company Limited together with its ultimate parent company St James Securities Holdings Limited
83.Quarmby Construction (Special Projects) Limited together with its ultimate parent company Justgrade Limited
84.R Durtnell & Sons Limited together with its ultimate parent company R Durtnell & Sons (Holdings) Limited
85.R. G. Carter Limited, R. G. Carter Building Limited and R. G. Carter Construction Limited together with their current ultimate parent company R. G. Carter Holdings Limited
86.Richardson Projects Limited
87.Robert Bruce Construction Limited
88.Robert Woodhead Limited together with its ultimate parent company Robert Woodhead Holdings Limited
89.Robinson & Sawdon Limited
90.Shaylor Construction Limited
91.Simons Construction Limited and Wrights Construction (Lincoln) Limited together with their ultimate parent company Simons Group Limited
92.Sol Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Barkbury Limited
93.Speller-Metcalfe Limited
94.Spicers (Builders) Limited
95.Stainforth Construction Limited
96.Strata Construction Limited (formerly trading as Weaver)
97.T. & C. Williams (Builders) Limited
98.T. Denman & Sons (Melton Mowbray) Limited
99.Thomas Fish & Sons Limited together with its ultimate parent company Fish Holdings Limited
100.Thomas Long & Sons Limited together with its ultimate parent company Radford Holdings Limited
101.Thomas Vale Construction Plc together with its ultimate parent company Thomas Vale Holdings Limited
102.Thorndyke Limited
103.Try Accord Limited and Galliford Try Construction Limited together with their ultimate parent company Galliford Try plc
104.W. R. Bloodworth & Sons Limited
105.Wiggett Bros & Co Limited
106.Wildgoose Construction Limited
107.William Sapcote and Sons Limited together with its ultimate parent company Sapcote Holdings Limited
108.William Woodsend Limited
109.Willmott Dixon Construction Limited together with its ultimate parent company Willmott Dixon Limited
110.Wright (Hull) Limited together with its ultimate parent company T. Wright & Son (Holdings) Limited
111.Wygar Construction Co Limited together with its ultimate parent company Wygar (Holdings) Limited
112.York House Construction Limited

Share and Enjoy:

Property

Peverel property management faces tenant rebellion over service

Peverel replies

Tchenguiz forfeits £220m offshore companies

Homeowners ripped off by managing agents charging sky-high fees

Gavin Norton, Chair of Milton of Leys Residents Association said:

Residents hit out at Tulloch over their Homes for Heroes ‘ploy’

locals say builders playing emotional card to get scheme support

Taxpayers may face Housing Expo bill in the event of cancellation

Council chief makes clear public will pick up the tab if event does not go ahead

Closure looms for land firm over late accounts

Companies House Search:

How soaring charges soured the dream of ‘affordable’ homes

Dissatisfied north-east customers urged to sign up to campaign

Sleaze charge rocks West Lothian Council

Slowdown ‘risks housing targets’

Register & Log In:

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Tags

Authors

Categories

Contributors

Links