June 17, 2024

Engage Liverpool meeting with leaseholders and CMA

Retirement leaseholders in the north west should attend Competition and Markets Authority meeting in Liverpool

Retirement leaseholders in the north west should attend Competition and Markets Authority meeting in Liverpool

Engage Liverpool, which represents flat owners in the centre of the city, is holding an open meeting with leaseholders on May 21.

It has invited Douglas Cooper, of the Competition and Markets Authority, to hear from leaseholders, particularly those who have experience of self-management.

Engage Liverpool represents leaseholders who have bought flats in the city centre.

Gerry Proctor, of Engage Liverpool

Gerry Proctor, of Engage Liverpool

Headed by Gerry Proctor, MBE, Engage Liverpool has successfully avoided expensive and failed litigation by angry individual leaseholders.

There have been tribunal cases, but not involving the expense and acrimony of those reported on LKP / Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation.

Freeholders in Liverpool seem to be less enthusiastic to play the system. This may be because the downturn has made the revival of the city centre precarious, and they feel it is better to co-operate fairly rather than monetise.

A number of Liverpool blocks have resident management companies or RTMs, and where they do not exist Engage Liverpool holds consultation with the freeholders to ensure that residents’ interests are not ignored.

Plenty of leaseholders in the wider Merseyside area contact LKP / Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, so there are no shortage of disputes in the area.

The areas that the CMA is interested in are:

  • Leaseholder perception of quality of services and value for money and – in particular – whether this differs with right to manage.
  • Effectiveness on consultation over major works.
  • Effectiveness of redress procedures
  • Freeholders choice of property manager.

It is essential that a balanced leaseholder view emerges from this meeting, including those who have fought tribunal cases or have set up right to manage companies.

The vested interests in leasehold seek to claim that RTM in particular is not an answer, and that pensioners have been bullied into participating in RTM initiatives.

Pre-registration for the meeting is required, and it takes place:

Engage Liverpool
May 21
Cotton Exchange Building,
Old Hall Street,
Bixteth Street,
Liverpool L3 9JR.

(The entrance is off Old Hall Street on Bixteth Street)

Further details here


  1. I hope that the CMA is better than the OFT who in my opinion failed us pensioners and leaseholders when they decided to allow Peverel/Cirrus amnesty against fines and prosecution because they informed on Cirrus Communications who had been involved in £1.4 million worth of contracts where they used stooge companies to bid for contracts so Cirrus could charge up to twice the going rate and still win the contract.

    Peverel/Cirrus then allowed the losing bidder to undertake the works at the correct costs and pocketed the difference, which meant that they cheated us pensioners three time on each contract.

    Firstly by stating that the Warden Call System/Fire System was obsolete?
    Price Fixing the Bids for the Tenders?
    Allowing the losing tenderers to subcontract the work?

    This is were the TEE HEE email shows the total disrespect for us pensioners by Peverel/Cirrus work force which then leads on the Area/Regional Managers who were in post at the time?

    If any pensioner wishers to name these Managers who were in position between 2004 and 2010 on the QT to me then it will give us an idea of who we need to name in the FTT.


    Peverel Head of Customer Services Chris Owens, having previously agreed that Peverel Management Services had Colluded with another Peverel Company, Cirrus Communications Services Ltd, from 2005 until they were rumbled by Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation in 2009?

    Chris Owens, has finally after 6 years admitted that they used Glyn Jackson and the other stooge companies to undertake the work for less than, the Cirrus Tenders?

    Chris Owens started in his last email after being asked many, many individual questions, to find out what had really happened over our replacement Warden Call System..

    Chris Owens replied on the 22/05/14:-

    “You had not previously asked any question about the installation process itself, but Cirrus did indeed sub-contract to Jackson the installation at Ashbrook Court”

    Can you believe this statement when Janet states “Peverel are open and Transparent”

    This question was asked of Peverel Retirement in 2010/11, when it became known that the losing Bidder for Warden Call Systems, were undertaking the works, wearing Cirrus Jumpers, to give the impression that it was Cirrus on site, replacing the WCS?

    Chris Owens has decided that Peverel Retirement:-

    “have now exhausted all reasonable lines of enquiry and now need to close this dialogue down, so we will not correspond any further with you about this subject”

    Chris Owens is aware that I believe that we at Ashbrook Court were Price Fixed but because we claimed for the WCS replacement through an Insurance Claim which paid out the full amount £20,277 less the £200 excess for a WCS which Peverel Retirement informed us was OBSOLETE?

    Would an insurance company pay 99% of a CLAIM when the system (was obsolete) was updated instead of replaced with a similar system costing £5,500 less????

    Can any one explain how this would happen?

  3. Not only has Chris Owens refused any further dialogue with me, he also states that askjanetaquestion is no longer available for me to use.

    All dialogue will now need to be in writing to Peverel Retirement in Birmingham, or sent to customerservice@peverel.co.uk.

    Myself and Michael Epstein and other customers, have been refused contact with Janet Entwistle and Chris Owens?

    We have got under their skin and slowly are uncovering the TRUTH ABOUT PEVEREL?

    Because our House Manager was sacked in 2012, our Area Manager was to visit and answer questions that were posed by some of our residents and he was informed that he would have to visit every month to show that Peverel Retirement cared?

    He has visited I believe 5 times this year but the last 3 visits have been on the QT, so much for being OPEN & TRANSPARENT?

    Items that had been asked needing maintenance have been ignored, yet the replacement of facia and shiplap boarding, less than 5 years after being painted or stained has been raised as a requirement?

    The Area Manager had PVCu gutters and downpipes painted some time ago and has now become a maintenance requirement when it was not required?

    Any Professional Surveyor with HNC or above will tell you, never paint PVCu as the finish is natural and after painting become brittle?

    Our external lighting has not been reset since the clocks went forward, they now come on in the light and go off at 13.30am?

    Doors poorly painted in 2008/09 are slowly rotting whilst not maintained, the doors mentioned were pointed out last year by me to our Area manager.

    After recent external cupboard had been left open and items stolen the Area Manager who was asked last year before the items were stolen, can we have external lighting that only comes on at night when people are around?

    No communication on the important matters have been broached by the Area Manager?

    Our new House Manager is also aware and is helpful?

  4. SOK, Gibson Court Inquest?

    This, whilst very important has brought the comments to a stop?