Michael Hollands, a Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation reader who comments frequently on the site, has been informed by the Office of Fair Trading that its long-awaited infringement decision over the Peverel / Cirrus price-fixing scandal will be published in December.
“We are very nearly ready to make an announcement and anticipate the additional delay will be relatively short,” an OFT official writes to Hollands.
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation assumes that an infringement decision will be made, given that Peverel admits that its warden call and electronic door subsidiary Cirrus ran bogus tendering operations against three stooge companies.
The result is it “won” hundreds of thousands of pounds of contracts at retirement sites around the country, and figure could be many millions.
The official adds in his letter to Hollands:
[Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation thanks Michael for sharing this information: you could staff a pretty impressive newsroom with the contributors to this site! ]“Please also note that, if the final outcome in this investigation is an Infringement Decision, we will not be able to make that available on our website on the day of the announcement. This is because we are obliged to ensure that the public version of any Decision does not contain any confidential information before it is published on the website. This would mean a delay before any Decision is actually published.”
Related posts:
OFT will report on the Peverel / Cirrus price-fixing scandal on Friday
Guardian covers more fall out from Peverel’s price-fixing scam with Cirrus Communications
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation interview with BBC raises Peverel price-fixing scandal and AgeUK logos
Peverel showed no ‘leniency’ for elderly leaseholders, so why should OFT? The Oldie reports price-fixing scandal …
If as seems probable the infringement notice is issued, that would leave the way open for victims of the price fixing to claim against Peverel.
Should Peverel decide to be awkward over refunds leading to leaseholders having to pursue court action, perhaps the matter could be referred back to the OFT?
Depending on the decision itself, I am more interested in the scope for widespread claims against the “landlord” under S19 and S 20. Sites with similar or “common format” leases might consider a, in simple terms, “class action” in the FTT. A swathe of applications may well result in these being called in for one mammoth hearing.