August 20, 2018

Bob Bessell: Expelled from ARHM, but this is how retirement residents should be set free

Bob Bessell: there is an alternative to the freeholder making all decisions in retirement housing

Bob Bessell: residents in retirement housing should chose their management

Bob Bessell, the chairman of the developer Retirement Security, has issued a statement to Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation explaining why his company was expelled from the ARHM.

The ARHM announced the decision to expel the Stratford Upon Avon company, but gave no details of the dispute.

Bessell gives his explanation below, and adds his view that alternatives to the current state of retirement leasehold need to be considered:

“In particular, [Bessell] believes that the model of the management company being wholly owned by the leaseholders, which is the model in all of the Retirement Security developments, avoids many of the difficulties which have caused so much strife between freeholders and leaseholders.”

This is the first time a senior retirement house builder has urged an alternative to the long established retirement leasehold model, with all the controversial monetising opportunities that are involved.

Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation is eager to ensure that ministers, their shadows and ALL stakeholders become aware of Mr Bessell’s views on the sector.

 Statement from Retirement Security:

Retirement Security Ltd was expelled from the ARHM because its Chairman, Bob Bessell, who was a member of the Executive Committee, believed that one of the ARHM long-standing employees was being badly treated and he informed her of what was going on.

In the event, the member of staff was made redundant and a subsequent independent enquiry came to the conclusion that the executive committee were in the right.

Bob Bessell does not agree with the conclusion of the enquiry, but as it was set up at his request, he believes that there is nothing more to be said on the subject.

It remains to be decided whether Retirement Security Ltd will re-join the ARHM, or if renewed membership is acceptable to the Executive Committee.

However, he believes that whatever decision is made, a great deal of work is necessary either to ensure that leasehold retirement housing meets the needs of a significant number of older people, or that alternative models of tenure need to be devised.

In particular, he believes that the model of the management company being wholly owned by the leaseholders, which is the model in all of the Retirement Security developments, avoids many of the difficulties which have caused so much strife between freeholders and leaseholders.

There are many other issues on which an informed debate is urgent if the needs of older people are to have the priority which they need and it is his hope that this will be the focus of the ARHM in the future.

Comments

  1. M. Epstein says:

    At face value then, Bob Bessell has admitted passing information to an employee of ARHM that he believed was being treated badly.
    Since it appears Bob Bessell was acting in an individual capacity, why was it that Retirement Security were expelled and not soley Bob Bessell?
    Perhaps ARHM could clarify if indeed Retirement Security had any part to play in the story?

    • Companies are members of ARHM, not individuals. So Retirement Security was expelled because of Mr Bessell’s actions.

  2. Michael Epstein says:

    Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation,
    You are right to say that companies are members of ARHM, so that only companies can be expelled from ARHM.
    However, based on what has been given as the reason for expulsion, it does appear that Mr Bessell was acting in an individual capacity regarding ARHM management issues.
    This being the case, there does not appear to be a reason for the expulsion of Retirement Security,as any issue is between ARHM and Mr Bessell.
    Thus far, unless ARHM venture any other statement on the matter, i can see no excuse for the treatment of Retirement Security, which is damaging to them and their residents.

  3. Paul Joseph says:

    It appears that Mr Bessell was happily complicit in industry malpractices until he was thrown out of the club. Retirement Security’s customers have been more damaged by this than its expulsion.

    Is this repentance to be taken seriously?

    Will he be readmitted having signed a confidentiality agreement not to reveal malpractices?

    • M. Epstein says:

      Paul Joseph,
      I am not sure the expulsion of Retirement Security was paricularly due to the conduct of Retirement Security. After all, despite the OFT anti- competitive collusive tendering against Cirrus/Careline/ Peverel, they remain members of ARHM.
      Clearly ARHM are not too fussy over who they have as members.
      It is more likely to be about an individual spat within ARHM, in my opinion

  4. Insider says:

    Interstingly, Bob Bessell’s model of leasehold housing lead to him losing the management of one of his developements. The leaseholders (and therefore shareholders in the management company) decided to remove Reitrement Security as their agent and appoint someone else. Just goes to prove that his philosophy is the right one, even though he lost a management contract.

    And any retired leaseholder exercising RTM effectively take control and can hire or fire the agent.

    Such arrangement should be mandatory i.e through commonhold and give power to the people who pay the service charge money.

  5. Price Fixing Latest information from ABC.

    Peverel Management Services Ltd used, the losing contractor, Glyn Jackson to undertake the work at our Warden Call Service Up-Date in 2007/08.

    After a meeting of a few residents on the 06/05/14 at ABC which included a 20 page document that was put together from the Expenses Files, and the few document, eventually sent by Chris Owens, 18 months after they were first asked for.

    This has resulted in new information which links Glyn Jackson to have undertaken the work at ABC as a Sub-Contractor.

    So, not only did Peverel Management Services, charge up to 50% more for the work to replace our Warden Call System they also used the losing contractor, Glyn Jackson to undertake the work pretending to be Cirrus?

    We had been informed that this is was happening, but to find the truth is another thing. We are aware that the 2 operatives who worked for 3 weeks on the update were from Doncaster as the Police informed us.

    one operative was known to have a Police Record.

    A resident had valuables removed from their flat whilst they were on holiday, (same time as the new system was up-dated) the Police will be asked for further information under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Our Area/Regional Manager have refused to answer questions regarding Price Fixing and inform me I have to speak to Chris Owens?

    Chris Owens then informs me that Peverel are whiter than white and provides snippets of the answers asked, so it has taken 18 months to find out that the works were not undertaken by the winner of the tender Peverel Sister Company Careline/Cirrus Communication.

    Has any other development had any similar news?

  6. Price Fixing Latest information from ABC.

    Peverel Management Services Ltd used, the losing contractor, Glyn Jackson to undertake the work at our Warden Call Service Up-Date in 2007/08.

    After a meeting of a few residents on the 06/05/14 at ABC which included a 20 page document that was put together from the Expenses Files, and the few document, eventually sent by Chris Owens, 18 months after they were first asked for.

    This has resulted in new information which links Glyn Jackson to have undertaken the work at ABC as a Sub-Contractor.

    I am having problems sending this???????

    So, not only did Peverel Management Services, charge up to 50% more for the work to replace our Warden Call System they also used the losing contractor, Glyn Jackson to undertake the work pretending to be Cirrus?

    We had been informed that this is was happening, but to find the truth is another thing. We are aware that the 2 operatives who worked for 3 weeks on the update were from Doncaster as the Police informed us.

    one operative was known to have a Police Record.

    A resident had valuables removed from their flat whilst they were on holiday, (same time as the new system was up-dated) the Police will be asked for further information under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Our Area/Regional Manager have refused to answer questions regarding Price Fixing and inform me I have to speak to Chris Owens?

    Chris Owens then informs me that Peverel are whiter than white and provides snippets of the answers asked, so it has taken 18 months to find out that the works were not undertaken by the winner of the tender Peverel Sister Company Careline/Cirrus Communication.

    Has any other development had any similar news?

  7. OMhostage says:

    I know of a development where an employee of Peverel who … REDACTED. FURTHER DETAILS REQUESTED FROM COMMENT AUTHOR

  8. OMhostage,
    Sebastian has my email address, I would like to contact you?

    Since the Price Fixing Scandal, I have looked for other information from residents and recently after receiving replies from The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) had also considered whether the infringements were wider than found in their Report Decision.

    Annexe 2

    Extract from the OFT`s Decision
    Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.9:

    During the course of the investigation, the OFT has also considered whether the Infringements were wider than found in their Report Decision regarding Peverel/Cirrus and involved Collusive Tendering (Price Fixing) in relation to more of or all the Peverel Management Services Ltd contracts involving Cirrus Communications Systems Ltd and O`Rourke, Jackson or Owens between 2005 and 2009.

    Peverel Group Ltd (PGL) informed the OFT that, at least from late 2006, it was their view,that there was Collusive Tendering (Price Fixing) in respect of every such contract.

    This means that a substantially larger number of bids (tenders) would have been the subject of Price Fixing than was found in their Decision.

    With this in mind,and the fact that we had a Warden Call System Updated in 2008, we also found in the Report Decision that Glyn Jackson, had undertook sub-contracting work for Cirrus on a number of occasion’s.

    We were informed earlier this week that the 2 operatives that under took our WCS update were from Doncaster and the Tenderer who lost the bid, Glyn Jackson was also from Doncaster and that our WCS was installed by Sub- Contractors?

    This is how Peverel Management Services Ltd allowed their Management to behave for a four year period that we know of?

Skip to toolbar