May 22, 2024

ARHM action over Cirrus has ‘involved ONE inquiry to Peverel’

The cosy insiderism at the heart of retirement leasehold management is displayed in an email exchange by Peverel to a Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation 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.

Owens writes

… 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.

Having first told Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation that he had no comment to make on the ARHM inquiry, published on Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation on July 4,  he subsequently wrote to us again with more detail which was published on July 5.

He says:

“…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?


  1. Simon Williams says

    Chris Owens states “As you are aware, there was no finding by the OFT against our actual member business, Peverel Retirement.” And he is correct – as usual?
    But this is where something has gone drastically wrong.
    Without Peverel Retirement this scandal could not have happened. It was Peverel Retirement who approved the three sub contractors as ‘genuine contractors’. It was Peverel Retirement who put out tenders to these contractors. It was Peverel Retirement who compiled the tenders having received them back (in fact after having received the Cirrus ones back and wrote tenders for the others). Usually this was done at Building Manager level for other works, but for warden call systems the building managers didn’t get a look in. Peverel Retirement placed the orders on Cirrus and Peverel Retirement knew Cirrus didn’t have the staff to carry out the works and would sub contract to one if the three stooges. Peverel Retirement then paid the bill, financed by the same residents as they deceived.
    How they got away with it, I will never know.
    Or do I?

    • Simon,
      I have now, after 4 years of asking, Peverel Retirement, a copy of the tender documents that were used at ABC in 2007/08 for the UPDATING OF THE WARDEN CALL SYSTEM?

      The Cirrus Communications Tender was on Peverel Management Services Ltd, headed paper, the name Cirrus Communication was in very small print, on the bottom of the Tender?

      Peverel Retirement is the Brand Name for Peverel Management Services Ltd, and the company that was involved was Peverel Management Services Ltd and Cirrus Communication ?

      A company called Peverel Retirement Ltd is shown on DUEDIL as an active company, but dormant???

      Peverel Retirement as seen on headed letters is not a limited company name, as found on DUEDIL, which is short for Due Diligence and is brilliant, it shows:-
      1. who owns a company
      2. its finance
      3. group structure
      4. directors
      5. subsidiaries

      Your comment regarding that Peverel Retirement AK (Peverel Management Services Ltd) could have carried out, and completed Tenders, for both Cirrus and Glyn Jackson?

      Glyn Jackson was the other contractor that Tendered for our WCS, the same contractor that was found guilty of Price Fixing, but then as a loosing contractor undertook the works as a sub-contractor at a cheaper price?

      The separate items were priced as for one item, on our Tender and some person from Peverel Retirement completed the additions, and also added £1,000 as a PC Sum which they added it to the contract sum and added VAT before it was required?

      The completion of Tender Documents is not allowed in Competitive Single Stage Selective Tendering COP or now ACOP produced by the RICS???

  2. Michael Epstein says

    Don’t worry Simon,
    They may think they have got away with it, but they are wrong!
    By not properly resolving the issues Peverel have left themselves with an open wound, which will not heal.All their efforts to put their past behind them is being thwarted at every stage and will contnue to do so. Nobody should forget that service charge trust funds (that are supposed to be protected) were used in the collusive tendering scam.

  3. Michael Epstein says

    Whilst ARHM conducted their “exhaustive” inquiry into Peverel, might i ask who Keith Edgar was working for at the time of the offences and at the time of the inquiry?

  4. ME

    I think you know the answer to both of your questions as KE was at the right place at the right time??