Planning Watch UK Rotating Header Image

Wales

Peverel Ownership Change

Tchenguiz forfeits £220m offshore companies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peverel ripping off more home owners – Daily Mail

Homeowners ripped off by managing agents charging sky-high fees

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

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

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

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

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

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

Complaints include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CASE STUDY

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

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

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

Land management firm could be taken to tribunal after complaints

Dissatisfied north-east customers urged to sign up to campaign

Published: 13/02/2009

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

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

Tax Payers Alliance – Council Spending Uncovered: Councils spend average of £1 million a year on publicity

In December 2007, the TaxPayers’ Alliance produced the first ever examination of the growth of town hall spending on publicity over the last decade, which is itemised in the annual accounts of the 450-plus local authorities in the UK.  It found that councils had doubled their spending on publicity, creating a £450 million publicity machine, at the same time as doubling council tax.  A year later, in the midst of the economic crisis, the first paper in the new Council Spending Uncovered series updates the data for the last financial year.

The report, released today, shows that the average local authority spends almost £1 million (£971,985) on publicity. There are 6 local authorities spending more than £5 million on publicity and the 20 councils spending the most money on publicity accumulated an over £100 million bill. However, it’s not all bad news. At least 217 councils have decreased spending on publicity, collectively cutting over £25 million from their budgets and proving that councils can cut unnecessary spending. To read the full report, please click here.
The media coverage is coming in thick and fast, and so far includes:
Liverpool Daily Post, £7.5m bill for council publicity
St Alban’s & Harpenden Review, Council’s PR spend revealed
Boston Standard, Lincolnshire council named in top 10 publicity spenders
TPA spokesmen also appeared on BBC London, BBC Radio Humberside, BBC Radio Essex, ITV Central, ITV North East, BBC Radio Solent, Time FM and Town 102 FM
Gordon Brown responds to the TPA
You may remember TPA Campaign Manager Susie Squire’s ‘Ask the PM’ question, which was included in the bulletin a few weeks ago.
Thanks to all your votes, Gordon has answered – well, sort of. He posted this last night.
Susie is in the process of compiling a video response, but you may have noticed there are a few things he has neglected to mention. Yes, depsite that winning smile Gordon, you can’t get anything past us! Even by official estimates, our current debt stands at £633 billion. But, when you include such off balance-sheet costs as PFI debt created under Brown (£110 billion), the Nuclear Decomissioning bill (£73 billion), Public Sector Pensions (£1,071 billion) and Network Rail (£20 billion) our debt adds up to a whopping £1.9 trillion, or 129% of GDP.
Crucially, Mr Brown doesn’t answer Susie’s question. Ultimately, Britain’s economic picture, as shown by the above figures, is bad enough. But what about going forward? The picture is bleak. Alistair Darling announced in the recent pre Budget report that a gigantic £512 billion will be added to this our nation’s debt. This will amount to more money (taking into account RPI inflation) than we borrowed to win World War 1. This is terrifying, as it will double official debt to £1 trillion, and push up the cost of servicing our debt from £30.8 billion to £40 billion. The longer term implications of this are higher interest rates – markets will decide we are not such a safe economic bet any more, sterling will devalue further, and everyone will feel even worse off than they do now.
But the real question is: why all this borrowing in the first place? Because the other side of this equation is that public spending has gone through the roof under Brown. And if we constantly have to feed this government’s addiction to a big state and a bloated, costly public sector, we won’t ever be able to stop the steam train of debt.
A bittersweet victory for the ‘No’ campaign

It was announced this afternoon that the people of Greater Manchester voted in force against the proposed congestion charge, with the 53.2% (1,030,000) turnout voting overwhelmingly against this additional road tax.

No less than 79% of those who voted wanted to reject the charge, and no more than 28% voted ‘yes’ in one any local authority area. This landslide victory marks the death of the Manchester TIF bid and has hopefully discouraged other areas  -  not least the West Midlands councils -  from further pursuing this unpopular scheme.

Yet, though our congratulations go out to the ‘No’ campaign, it is worth noting that this is a very bittersweet victory with huge amounts already having been spent on a project that was disliked from its inception. Though families in Greater Manchester will no longer have to pay the hefty £1,200 per year that a congestion charge would mean, a startling £34million has already been spent consulting, debating, drawing-up and promoting the TIF bid according to the Drivers’ Alliance, all funded by ordinary taxpayers. It just makes it worse that the very residents who’ve paid for this road pricing ambition seem to have been dead against it from the start, and in the end this £34million bought  218,860 ‘yes’ votes – that’s £155 each.

This money has been frittered away by those with a blind commitment to the congestion charge, encouraged by those who stood to benefit. Perhaps, at this very moment the proponents of road charging are busy wondering how to bring its spectre back to life – with a different guise and new spin – and, if they manage a successful resuscitation, let’s hope our councils recognise it for what it is and remember this Manchester vote.

Letters to follow up our reports

As you will have seen in the papers, on the radio or local TV today, our report on local council publicity spending has hit the headlines. But we need your help to follow up our reports with short, sharp letters to your local paper making the points that councils spend and waste too much of our money. TPA activist Bruce Lawson emailed in a letter he got in the Shropshire Star to promote our Public Sector Rich List 2008. You can read his letter here. If you get any letters printed in your local paper, do let us know. We’ve already seen here the publicity our supporters can get when they write into their local papers.

2009 Action Days

We’re busy compiling a list of leafleting and petition days across the country for 2009. If you’d like us to have an action day in your area with other TPA supporters and campaigners, email our grassroots coordinator Tim Aker and we’ll organise an action day near you.

In response to last week’s bulletin we have action days already booked for 2009. The dates and venues are:
Swanage – 6 February and 30 April
Shipley – 6 June
If you’d like to come to these campaign days, please email Tim
.

Bristol and South West TPA branch established

Last Saturday our Bristol branch met to formally set up a branch to monitor Bristol council and, for the time being, other councils in the South West. If you’d like to get involved please email our organiser James Barlow. You can keep up with the campaign by visiting their blog.

A council is not a bank

We found this week that Lancashire County Council has been using taxpayers’ money to lend to other councils in the UK. Today TPA activist Steve Atkinson found through a Freedom of Information request that Cumbria County Council has £112 million deposited in foreign and domestic banks. You can ask Lancashire County Council’s leader why they’re lending to other councils instead of cutting tax here.

Stoke Council rejects TPA offer to find savings

TPA supporter and Stoke councillor Gavin Webb recently tabled a motion at Stoke Council’s full council meeting inviting the TPA to come in and find savings in the council budget. Sadly, the motion failed – Stoke’s councillors are clearly happy with politics as usual and higher taxes for all. You can read our blog on the debate and Gavin’s comments here.

Best of the blogs

Campaign: Leek TPA Action Day attracts attention
Campaign: The us and them Olympics

Better Government: Fiddling with Human Rights Law

Better Government: Ageing Britain

Burning our Money: Servicing The Government’s Debt

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

New laws to stop companies selling plots of agricultural land at inflated prices is demanded

MP demands end to ‘landbanking’

A Liberal Democrat MP is calling for the introduction of new laws to stop companies selling plots of agricultural land at inflated prices.

By Paul Lewis – BBC Radio 4′s Money Box

The land is sold on the hope that planning permission will be granted and the investors will make a big return.

Greg Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP

Greg Mulholland has campaigned on landbanking for many years.

But Greg Mulholland wants legislation to end those schemes which are “obviously a scam”.

A government spokesman said a number of schemes had already been closed down under existing laws.

Recent action

Mr Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP for Leeds North West, was speaking after the Financial Services Authority (FSA) declared the UK’s biggest landbanking scheme illegal.

It’s time the government woke up and took action
Greg Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP

The FSA asked the High Court to wind up the company which ran it, UK Land Investments Limited (UKLI).

Mr Mulholland told Money Box on BBC Radio 4,

“I’m delighted that the Financial Services Authority has taken this action and is now homing in on other companies who are carrying out what is clearly an illegal as well as an immoral activity”

The FSA confirmed it was aware of 70 landbanking schemes that had sprung up since 2005.

A warning

Jonathan Phelan, head of retail enforcement at the FSA, said,

“Our action against UKLI, should serve as a warning to other companies that might be breaking the law in this way.”

But Greg Mulholland called for legislation to bring about “the end of landbanking which we have seen blight so many people’s lives over the last few years.

“It’s time the government woke up and took action so that by 2009 or 2010 we can look back and say… it can’t happen again in this country.”

Companies Investigation Branch has investigated a number of these cases
BERR spokesman

More than 4,500 people were persuaded by UKLI to invest £69m in small plots of land, none of which has been given planning permission.

They paid around £15,000 for each plot, some of which have been valued at a few hundred pounds.

Lee Manning, the joint administrator of UKLI and a partner with Deloitte, told the BBC,

“The company itself has very little net assets left.

“I would doubt if creditors would get more than a few pence in the pound.”

Crack down

A spokesman for the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) said it was able to take action against such schemes under existing laws.

“Companies Investigation Branch has investigated a number of these cases and in many instances has brought proceedings to wind up the companies concerned.

“We will continue to crack down on companies which mislead the public in this way.

“Anyone approached by companies offering plots of land on the promise of future planning permission should be very wary and thoroughly question the information they are given.”


BBC Radio 4′s Money Box was broadcast on Saturday, 7 June 2008 at 1204 BST.

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

House building targets warning – Professor Stephen Nickell

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

Growth being led by developers, says campaigner

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

Related links

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

The true cost of Quangos to the UK Tax Payer

Quangos: The Unseen Government of the UK

The most comprehensive picture ever of the UK’s 1,162 Quangos

The TaxPayers’ Alliance (TPA) presents the full list of the UK’s vast quango industry, a detailed run-down of the staff and cost of the 1,162 bodies, boards and agencies that make up Britain’s Unseen Government. It is now five years since the Parliamentary Select Committee on Public Administration recommended that the Government publish such a list, a recommendation that the Government has failed to fulfil. In the absence of an official list, the TPA has compiled one instead, providing the public with the most comprehensive information available on the organisations that increasingly spend their money and influence their lives without democratic oversight. The report can be found here (PDF).

Key Findings:

  • There are 1,162 quangos in the UK, running at a total cost to the taxpayer of £64 billion, equivalent to £2,550 per household.
  • Even under the Cabinet Office’s restrictive definition of quangos, the cost of these bodies has risen 50% in the last ten years.
  • UK quangos now employ an army of almost 700,000 bureaucrats.
  • Even the Government itself does not know the full extent of the unaccountable quango industry, which range from the massive e.g. Job Centre Plus (Staff: 70,042, Cost: £3.5 billion) and the Courts Service (Staff: 19,986, Cost: £704.8 million); to the bizarre e.g. the British Potato Council (Staff: 49); or the West Northants Development Corporation (Staff: 34, Cost: £15.3 million)
  • When the total number of quangos is added to the other government subsidiaries such as local authorities and NHS trusts, the total number of organisations controlled by the UK Government rises to 2,063, costing the taxpayer £257 billion and employing over 5.1 million people.

Ben Farrugia, author of the report and Policy Analyst at the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

“Government in the UK is now so large, diverse and complex that it is impossible for anyone to manage effectively, let alone by Ministers with no prior experience of management and little in-depth understanding of the work carried out by their departments. Government today tries to do too much, and consequently fails; the structure of government needs to change if we hope to see better value and significant improvements in our public services.”

The full report provides a full list of the quangos along with individual data on staff numbers, taxpayer funding and expenditure as well as national totals and can be found here (PDF).

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

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

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