November 26, 2022

Anyone at these sites involved in the Peverel / Cirrus price-fixing scam, please contact Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation

Here is the list of all the sites involved in the OFT investigation into Peverel’s price-fixing cartel.
Can any residents at these sites please contact me as soon as possible.

Thanks,

Sebastian

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

07808 328 230

 

Abbey Court, Priestpopple, Hexham, Northumberland, NE46 1RN

Fire system

April – June 2009

CCSL and Owens

Albion Court, Queen Street, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 0UT

Warden call/ door entry system

November – December 2006

CCSL and O’Rourke

 

Alexander Court, Chapel St, Poulton Le Fylde, Lancashire, FY6 7BQ

Warden call/ door entry system

March 2007

CCSL and O’Rourke

 

Alexandria Court, Glenmoor Road, West Parley, Ferndown, Dorset, BH22 8PW –

Warden call system

July – October 2009

CCSL and Jackson

 

Angel Court, Cromer Road, North Walsham, Norfolk, NR28 0UN

Warden call system

May 2009

CCSL and Jackson

 

Ashdene Gardens, Whitemoor Road, Kenilworth, Warwickshire CV8 2TS

Fire system

September – October 2009

CCSL and Jackson

 

Ashridge Court, Station Road, Newbury, Berks RG14 7LL

Warden call/ door entry system

May 2009

CCSL and Jackson

 

Averill Court, Hill Road, Clevedon, Somerset, BS21 7NE

Warden call/ door entry system

August 2006

CCSL and O’Rourke

 

Averill Court, Hill Road, Clevedon Avon BS21 7NE

Fire system

May – June 2009

CCSL and Jackson

 

Beech Court, Plains Road, Mapperley, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG3 5PZ

Warden call/ door entry system

November 2005

CCSL and O’Rourke

 

Beechwood Court, Corfton Drive, Tettenhall, West Midlands, WV6 8PE

Warden call system

May 2009

CCSL and Owens

 

CA98/03/2013 (CE/9284-10): Investigation into collusive tendering in relation to the supply and

installation of certain access control and alarm systems

NB: It should be noted that while the aim was for Cirrus to win each contract, it did not do so on every

occasion. For instance, it would appear that on some occasions there was a third bidder which was not

involved in the collusive tendering arrangement.

Name and address of properties at which the OFT has found a bidding process that has involved collusive tendering

Type of System involved in the relevant bidding process

Approximate dates of the bidding process in question

Name of companies found to have been involved in collusive tendering for that bidding process

 

Birnbeck Court, Carlton Street, Weston-super-Mare, North Somerset, BS23 1UL

Fire system

October – November 2006

CCSL and O’Rourke

 

Brandreth Court, Sheepcote Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 2JU

Warden call/ door entry system

November/ December 2006

CCSL and O’Rourke

 

Carfax Court, 31-33 Durdham Park, Bristol, BS6 6XC

Fire system

January 2007

CCSL and O’Rourke

 

Chapel Lodge, Upminster Road South, Rainham, Essx RM13 9AG

Warden call system

August – October 2009

CCSL and Jackson

 

Chapel Lodge, Upminster Road South, Rainham, Essx RM13 9AG

Door entry system

August – October 2009

CCSL and Jackson

 

Chatsworth Lodge, 2-8 Wickham Court Road, West Wickham, Kent, BR4 0LY

Fire system

April 2009

CCSL and Jackson

 

Court Lodge, 21-25 Erith Road, Belvedere, Kent, DA17 6HB

Fire system

November 2009

CCSL and Owens

 

East Haven Court, Old Road, Clacton-on-Sea, Essex CO15 3PG

Warden call/ door entry system

October 2009

CCSL and Jackson

 

Fairview Court, Galsworthy Road, Kingston on Thames, KT2 7LE

Warden call/ door entry system

March 2009

CCSL and Jackson

 

Fayre Green, Norwich Road, Fakenham, Norfolk, NR21 8HE

Warden call system

May – June 2009

CCSL and Jackson

 

Forest Dene Court, Cedar Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5LP

Warden call/ door entry system

March – April 2009

CCSL and Jackson

 

Glendale, The Bayle, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 1SH

Fire system

August – October 2009

CCSL and Jackson

 

Glendale, The Bayle, Folkestone, Kent, CT20 1SH

Warden call system

August – October 2009

CCSL and Jackson

%0

Comments

  1. Sebastian
    I have sent a detailed email to ME and will send to you.
    NO Guardian phoned me?

  2. A total of 2,514 flats are involved. All but those at Sefton Court are still managed by this demonstrably corrupt organisation.

    The average cost per flat of this scam was £556.88. Failure to follow proper Section 20 procedures should indeed mean that that maximum payable by any any leaseholder should be £250.

    250 x 2,514 = £628,500.

    Therefore, Peverel must repay any amount spent in excess of this figure: £771,500 at a minimum (55%).

    That’s assuming all of the works were reasonably required in the first place. It is very likely that the desirability of the works was directly related to the health of the reserve funds at the developments concerned and were not otherwise reasonable.

    Why should Orchard Dene escape being scammed but Chapel Lodge get hit twice? Both have 21 units and were built a year apart. I think the health of the reserves will explain the difference.

    It’s time, not just for restitution in these cases, but for a full parliamentary inquiry into the systematic looting of funds held in trust by an unregulated industry riddled with crooks.

  3. Michael Epstein says

    Paul Joseph,
    Your post, like many others serves to demonstrate to Peverel that any notion they may have had of being able to draw a line in the sand under the price fixing scandal by offering a £100,000 goodwill payment is false. Subjected to proper challenge (which they will be) they will end up paying back a considerably larger amount. That such a goodwill payment was offered should serve as warning that service charge funds are not protected against fraud. For that to be the case, Peverel would not have needed to make any offer at all. All that would have happened is that once identified service charge funds that were used as part of the fraud would automatically be refunded. i would urge everyone to simply ask their property manager, if service charge funds are protected against fraud? Don’t settle for the usual Peverel “speak” answer.Insist on a written “Yes or No”
    Peverel would have known that the £100,000 goodwill payment would have stirred up a wave of protest, so i ask why make an offer for such a small amount, knowing it would not be accepted?
    Possibly they hope (and have allowed for) payments being increased to £250,000.
    This would be a bonus for Peverel as their true liability is around £700,000.
    What would have happened if instead of £100,000 Peverel had offered £460,000? That could well have taken the anger out of the situation, as clearly to many that would appear to be a substantial amount.
    Possibly the answer to that is contained in Peverel’s accounts. After repayment of loans Peverel Group Profits were about £12,000. (Twelve thousand) in case anyone thought it was a typo) Do Peverel have the funds to make repayments?
    Remember the “in it for the long term” Electra made sure they took £6,000,000 out of the company ahead of cheated residents getting the refunds they were entitled to!