March 26, 2017

Find your Peverel site and contact your MP

Please follow and like us:

PeverelWestminster

Carlex today publishes a complete list of all Peverel’s retirement sites with links to contacting the constituency MP.

We are just at the start of analysing this data, but one feature that is immediately noticeable is that 73 per cent of retirement leasehold sites are in constituencies with Conservative MPs.

Click on link below:

Peverel Retirement homes

 

MPpiechart

 

And the full list with postcodes:

PeverelSites

Comments

  1. Thank you. I have emailed our MP drawing attention to the Cirrus scam and sent a copy to Sir Peter Bottomley, together with a note of thanks for what he has done.

  2. Hi Sebastian
    WOW, WOW, WOW what an achievement I have checked for my county and have found 10 developments in our area of Shropshire. Do think that we are in difficulty as the percentage are in Conservative areas??
    I have received you email and will contact ***** tomorrow.
    Thanks
    Chas

  3. Michael Epstein says:

    Well Done Carlex,
    At first glance it appears that out of all the Peverel Retirement developments, 19 are named Pegasus Court and 85 of the development names begin with the word “Home”
    How easy it must be to either allocate funds to the wrong development or invoice the wrong development, especially if the Peverel operative is working under immense pressure.

    • Michael
      I take your point regarding similar names, BUT how does on the 27/11/09 states in our
      Trial balance/Audit Trail for that year. Are you ready,

      RETIREMENT CLUB (GREAT BRITAIN) this doesn’t sound much like Ashbrook Court. or even when it stated Ashbrook Court it didn’t state Shropshire it stated Surrey , suppose Surrey does begin with a S.

      We are aware that the Peverel Operative is under pressure and can make mistakes, that is why their is an Area Manager who is involved in the works being undertaken and should be aware of the works being done mostly in their name. This is the person who we expected to check. the Invoices and also the Trail balance/Audit Trail but NO. We have been informed by our Area Manager RC that we do not have time to check we rely on the operatives to know what they are doing.

      Yes, we as the people who pay for the Invoices as they are placed in the Expenses File expect the Area Managers to check that we will only be paying for our own contractors work, not some other contractors work from another Development. or pay twice in different Cost Headings or even in two consecutive years.

      When we checked the last seven years Expenses Files we were astounded at the level of incompetence
      which of course was blamed on the poor operative.
      Chas

  4. ExConservativeNowUKIP says:

    This is a bit of shocker. Who would have though that the Conservative Party accepted six figure sums from the Tchenguiz Family Trust and then facilitated rape and pillage of the hard earned savings of the middle class?

    Make no mistake, this is exactly what’s happened. Work all your life to afford any kind of retirement in private housing, not in a council flat, and what will happen to you?

    The Conservative Party, in hock to the richest of the rich, the party of the country suppers, of privilege, of low taxes on the wealthy (because it discourages investment), will throw you to the wolves.

    When your development’s reserves are drained as result of criminal actions pressure will be brought to bear to ignore the crime. Would the OFT have reached the same deal with Peverel under a Labour government? Yet another reason to vote UKIP. Anything but Conservative if you are a leaseholder.

    • ExConservative,
      I have read what you have said and I think the comments are OK as a Political Statement but if you want us to believe in you then please leave us your name?
      Labour had 13 years to change things. I am not a political animal but have seen all parties fail to do anything with Leasehold.
      Chas

  5. Michael Epstein says:

    In the recently published Peverel Retirement trading statement, it was claimed Peverel Retirement managed 1500 developments plus 190 managed by Peverel Scotland.
    Even though i am certain the list published by Carlex is accurate, i have counted only 1466 developments in total including Scottish developments? According to Peverel’s statement they should have 1655 developments. If Peverel can miscount the number of developments, what chance do we have with our service charge accounts?
    if anyone spots one of the missing 189 developments do let me know!

    • Michael Epstein,
      Dopes your list of 1466 developments include those that Peverel manage on behalf on independent owners, Like ours?
      Lintie

  6. Michael Epstein says:

    Lintie,
    To the best of my knowledge the list is inclusive, but in the case of such an extensive project the odd error could creep in. Additionally it can also be the case that Peverel have either been sacked or are in the process of being sacked from listed developments.
    That said it should be noted that it has been estimated that around 90% of all Peverel managed retirement developments are as a result of connected company appointments and not as a result of willing resident appointments. This places Peverel in a uniquely vulnerable position.