Be like Tchenguiz (your freeholder and former Peverel owner) and claim:
The residents are eager to take legal action against the property manager. Carlex is not naming them or the sites, for obvious reasons.
If your site was on the OFT list contact with complete discretion:
07808 328 230
Peverel claims it has paid a total of £100,000 as a “goodwill” gesture over the Cirrus scandal, which has been divided up and passed to the contingency funds of the cheated sites.
But the residents believe that they are entitled to much more.
Lawyers are preparing a no-win, no-fee class action to make Peverel re-pay the money wrongly taken from them.
The Office of Fair Trading investigated collusive tendering at 65 sites, where its subsidiary Cirrus won contracts for warden call and electronic door entry systems.
In the Cirrus scandal it was bidding against three stooge companies – two have since gone bust, so avoiding OFT fines – that put in failed higher bids.
As the OFT has established that collusive tendering has taken place the legal argument simply concerns the degree of loss suffered by a site. The OFT confined itself to saying that the sites were “likely” to have suffered financial loss.
Residents have not been asked to accept Peverel’s “goodwill” payment as a binding conclusion to the Cirrus scandal.
Ken Kilmister, a former banker and Carlex whistleblower who originally reported the Cirrus scandal, has dismissed the sum as a “sop”. It amounts to only 10 per cent of the value of the contracts.
“In the reasonable assumption that most upgrades could have been done (even where necessary) for 50 per cent of what Cirrus charged, Peverel owes leaseholders around £700,000 based on the OFT’s assessment of the value of contracts affected (£1.4 million),” Kilmister told Peverel CEO Janet Entwistle in December.
“Add to this the fines you have avoided (10 per cent of turnover as a benchmark?) and £100,000 is shown up for exactly what it is, a typical Peverel sop to leaseholders.”
Kilmister argues that the sham tenders breached section 20 of the 1985 Landlord and Tenant Act – which requires that procedural standards be followed when leaseholders are consulted on expenditure above £250 per flat.
“I cannot imagine that any Tribunal would find any consultation knowingly and deliberately based on quotations that were rigged in favour of your own subsidiary, met those required consultation standards. Failure in this regard means that the managing agent is not entitled to collect any more than the £250 limit per flat.
“Perhaps you might like to reconsider your offer before leaseholders mobilise?”
It is now clear that retirement leaseholders are mobilising and demanding a court settlement for the Cirrus scandal.
Residents are following the lead in demanding “compo” from Vincent and Robert Tchenguiz, whose Tchenguiz Family Trust, based in the British Virgin Islands, owns most retirement freeholds where Peverel is employed.
Indeed, Tchenguiz owned Peverel itself from late 2005 to March 2011. The period of the collusive tendering Cirrus scandal investigated by the OFT was 2006-2009.
The Tchenguizs’ house of cards property empire collapsed after their arrest on wrong evidence by the Serious Fraud Office in March 2011. They are now demanding £300 million compensation from British taxpayers. The case will be heard in September.
Evidently, elderly residents in Peverel-run sites feel that they are entitled to some compo of their own.