The cosy insiderism at the heart of retirement leasehold management is displayed in an email exchange by Peverel to a Carlex reader.
It suggests that the resolve of the Association of Retirement Housing Managers to hold Peverel / Cirrus to task over the collusive tendering scandal is a rather less robust than the ARHM claims.
Chris Owens, Peverel’s head of customer relations, appears to claim that the ARHM contacted Peverel / Cirrus on only ONE occasion since the OFT made its finding on December 6 last year.
“… the facts are that the ARHM contacted us earlier this year about the OFT’s review on tendering and our response to it.
“As you are aware, there was no finding by the OFT against our actual member business, Peverel Retirement.
“However, we have fully responded to the ARHM’s questions and have offered to meet to discuss this further with them should they wish.”
This indicates an altogether less pro-active resolution of the issue than that suggested by Paul Silk, the ARHM chairman, who is employed by the Hanover housing association.
“…we are currently working with Peverel to try and secure an outcome to this matter which is fair and reasonable for residents. As such, it wouldn’t be appropriate to try and conjecture what the outcome of this might be were this not to be the case so as not to affect the dialogue we are currently in.”
It now appears that there has been one chat with Peverel – the ARHM’s biggest paymaster – and the company is quite happy to have another.
Meanwhile, the ARHM’s annual conference three weeks ago was co-sponsored by Cirrus.
The ARHM’s code of practice is under review at the DCLG and requires the endorsement of the Secretary of State (Eric Pickles).
Why on earth should the government endorse a trade body that has revealed itself to be so utterly feeble over this matter?
And why should elderly, vulnerable residents be reassured that their property managers are members of the ARHM?