December 8, 2022

Tchenguiz Family Trust seeks £5,000 for conservatory ‘built 25 years ago’ … and Peverel will not permit their house manager to confirm when it was built

The Tookey's retirement bungalow, which the family bought 17 years ago

The Tookey’s retirement bungalow, which the family bought 17 years ago

A couple who own a retirement bungalow with a conservatory face a demand for £5,000 from the Tchenguiz Family Trust freeholder.

And the money might not need to be paid at all if the Peverel house manager were permitted to confirm the date when the conservatory was built – but she has been instructed not to get involved.

The £5,000 demand presented to Simon and Susan Tookey is for retrospective consent to erect the conservatory at Sheraton Close, in Northampton.

“But my mother lived here for 17 years and the conservatory was already built when she bought the bungalow,” says Mr Tookey, a lorry driver.

There were two previous owners before his mother, and the Tookeys say the conservatory was built by the first owner as far back as 1989.

The Tchenguiz Family Trust only purchased the freehold to the site in 2008, it is stated.

 

The small conservatory, built in 1989, for which the Tchenguiz freehold company wants £5,000

The small conservatory, built in 1989, for which the Tchenguiz freehold company wants £5,000

The issue came to light because the Tookeys were trying to sell the bungalow for £140,000 last November. The sale fell through as the buyers’ solicitor wanted evidence of the freeholders’ consent for the conservatory.

“We contacted Estates and Management and the result was a demand for retrospective consent amounting to £5,000,” said Mr Tookey.

It is claimed that the house manager at the site, Alice Kearns, who has been employed there since it was built in 1988/9, has stated verbally to the Tookeys that the conservatory was, indeed, built in 1989.

But she has been stopped from confirming this in writing by Peverel, most of whose business comes from managing freeholds owned by the Tchenguiz Family Trust.

This is because the interests of the Tookeys clash with those of Peverel’s principal client.

“Although Alice was commendably looking to help you, we have a general duty of care for both yourselves as lessees and for your landlord,” the Tookeys were told by Chris Owens, Peverel’s head of customer relations on December 9th.

“As your respective interests clearly differ here, I am afraid that it would not therefore be appropriate for us to get involved on behalf of either party, which is why her Area Manager regrettably had to decline her suggested action.”

The Tookeys are appalled by this “fence-sitting”. Mr Tookey cannot afford the sum as he only earns £380 a week. In addition, he is ill with prostate cancer.

The Tookeys have offered to pay £870 to obtain the consent.

As the conservatory did not require planning consent the Tookeys lack a paper trail confirming when the structure was built.

But they can rely on affidavits from two friends of Mr Tookey’s mother, who will confirm that this property had a conservatory for the entire 17 years that she owned it.

Many other bungalows at the site also have conservatories that were built at the same time. Two properties were sold last year, without solicitors questioning the consents, or the issue being brought to the attention of Tchenguiz.

Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation has contacted Northampton council for aerial photographs of 20 years ago that will show the site.

It has also contacted Estates and Management for an explanation for its £5,000 fee.

Correspondence has been copied in to the local MP Michael Ellis, as well as Sir Peter Bottomley and Labour MP Barry Sheerman, who has spoken in the Commons about similar demands from Tchenguiz in Huddersfield.

Peverel has indicated that its house manager could reply to a request for information from the freeholder, but this has not been done.

Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation has urged Estates and Management to seek a statement from Miss Kearns, who has worked at the site since it was built, as it would surely not wish to profit wrongly from this matter.

On December 4 2013, Mr Suhail Qureshi of Estates and Management informed the Tookeys that “a letter from Ms Kearns would not be sufficient, and it is not our responsibility to contact her”.

The alternative to this not being settled is for the Tookeys to withdraw their offer of £870 and to obtain a tribunal ruling.

If successful, they could then seek costs from the county court from Estates and Management for the loss of their house sale.

Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation has contacted both Tchenguiz and Peverel and will publish responses.

Comments

  1. Michael Epstein says

    It may be of help to Simon and Susan Tookey to know that the Peverel website states that the fee for retrospective assessments concerning alterations is £360 , slightly less than the £5000 demanded by Tchenguiz Family Trust.
    I am sure all of us wish Simon a speedy recovery.

    • Michael
      The word PEVEREL is used time after time who is PEVEREL, which one of the 16 companies is PEVEREL?

      We receive letters from:
      Peverel Group
      Peverel Retirement
      Peverel Services Ltd
      Peverel Management Services Ltd

      All under the headings PEVEREL?

      I note from a photo sent in the post, that this PEVEREL might be PEVEREL RETIREMENT, which is a Brand Name only, not a company?

      PEVEREL RETIREMENT LTD, no longer exists, so why use part of a company that no longer trades unless it is to confuse?

      • Michael,

        The photo I mentioned opens up stating:

        Peverel Retirement, Peverel act as Managing Agents for the Landlord? (no mention who is the landlord)

        We are appointed by the landlord who is Proxima GR Ltd to manage his (not mentioned who, his, is) property in this case?

        Whilst the freeholder (no name for freeholder) is responsible for maintaining and supplying the services to, he has (no name for him) delegated this responsibility to PEVEREL, (WHICH PEVEREL) as his agent?

        This is part one?

      • SOK,
        The complete comment has not been seen?????

      • Again this website is either not working correctly or is being censored?

        • What relationship is there between Proxima GR and Peverel Group that were placed into administration?

          Can only use short comments?

        • same problem as you it wont accept a post from me on a one liner like this. Seb says it treats some inputs as spam….

    • If it is simply consent then only professional fees related to giving that consent are recoverable and the amount can be challenged at the FTT. A premium can only be charged if it damages the reversion, which unless it was made out of cornflakes boxes and erected by monkeys, a conservatory invariably adds value.

      If however the £5k is for permission to erect a conservatory where the lease restricts any sort of development extension or alteration of what was a garden or patio, such as change is, in most cases, at the discretion of the freeholder, and a premium can be charged and is not subject to tribunal review.

      Their argument is in the story – an agent of the landlord be it the MA or the House Manager, over many years, was aware of the change and having since demanded or accepted service charge or ground rent, they can argue that the right to enforce the matter by forfeiture is lost through waiver. There is therefore not a lot that they can do. The £5k is therefore pitched at a level where is it is cheaper to pay than argue……

      If they can, I suggest they us the £5k to buy the freehold

  2. 1. Owners of leasehold houses have the right to buy their freehold title under the 1967 Act and cancel the lease terms and remove all the chains of feudalism from their land.

    What is the annual ground rent and unexpired lease term?

    2. If the demand for retrospective consent on the conservatory which was built over 6 years ago , it may be invalidated by the limitations Act.

    3. The matter may be reported to the local police station under the Fraud Act 2006 ( see section fraud by withholding information).

    • For leasehold houses on 999 tears lease and paying low annual ground rent such as 10 pds per year, the cost to buy the freehold title determined by LVT has been approx 14 times annual ground rent i.e 10 x 14 = 140 pds plus legal costs.

  3. If it is simply consent then only professional fees related to giving that consent are recoverable and the amount can be challenged at the FTT. A premium can only be charged if it damages the reversion, which unless it was made out of cornflakes boxes and erected by monkeys, a conservatory invariably adds value.

    If however the £5k is for permission to erect a conservatory where the lease restricts any sort of development extension or alteration of what was a garden or patio, such as change is, in most cases, at the discretion of the freeholder, and a premium can be charged and is not subject to tribunal review.

    Their argument is in the story – an agent of the landlord be it the MA or the House Manager, over many years, was aware of the change and having since demanded or accepted service charge or ground rent, they can argue that the right to enforce the matter by forfeiture is lost through waiver. There is therefore not a lot that they can do. The £5k is therefore pitched at a level where is it is cheaper to pay than argue……

    If they can, I suggest they

  4. trying to reply once again its not posting and saying duplicate comment of a comment that hasn’t appeared

    • If it is simply consent then only professional fees related to giving that consent are recoverable and the amount can be challenged at the FTT. A premium can only be charged if it damages the reversion, which unless it was made out of cornflakes boxes and erected by monkeys, a conservatory invariably adds value.

      If however the £5k is for permission to erect a conservatory where the lease restricts any sort of development extension or alteration of what was a garden or patio, such as change is, in most cases, at the discretion of the freeholder, and a premium can be charged and is not subject to tribunal review.

      Their argument is in the story – an agent of the landlord be it the MA or the House Manager, over many years, was aware of the change and having since demanded or accepted service charge or ground rent, they can argue that the right to enforce the matter by forfeiture is lost through waiver. There is therefore not a lot that they can do. The £5k is therefore pitched at a level where is it is cheaper to pay than argue……

      If they can, I suggest they us the £5k to buy the freehold

  5. 1 If it is simply consent then only professional fees related to giving that consent are recoverable and the amount can be challenged at the FTT. A premium can only be charged if it damages the reversion, which unless it was made out of cornflakes boxes and erected by monkeys, a conservatory invariably adds value.

  6. 2 If however the £5k is for permission to erect a conservatory where the lease restricts any sort of development extension or alteration of what was a garden or patio, such as change is, in most cases, at the discretion of the freeholder, and a premium can be charged and is not subject to tribunal review

  7. 3 Their argument is in the story – an agent of the landlord be it the MA or the House Manager, over many years, was aware of the change and having since demanded or accepted service charge or ground rent, they can argue that the right to enforce the matter by forfeiture is lost through waiver. There is therefore not a lot that they can do. The £5k is therefore pitched at a level where is it is cheaper to pay than argue……

    If they can, I suggest they us the £5k to buy the freehold

  8. 3 Their argument is in the story – an agent of the landlord be it the MA or the House Manager, over many years, was aware of the change and having since demanded or accepted service charge or ground rent, they can argue that the right to enforce the matter by forfeiture is lost through waiver. There is therefore not a lot that they can do. The £5k is therefore pitched at a level where is it is cheaper to pay than argue.

  9. Chas ,

    On 19 th Feb, you asked about the relationship between Proxima GR and Peverel Group (in Administration ), Please see structure at Charter Quay website.

    http://www.cqra.org/tchenquiz-structure/

    line 6. Peverel Group Ltd in Administration was member of Euro Investments Overseas Inc ( BVI)

    Line 371 – Proxima GR Properties is part of Wiskay Ltd ( I think is also BVI company ?) –

  10. Proxima GR Properties was previously named Peverel Properties Ltd from 1999, Fairhold properties from 15 March 2011 and Aztec GR Properties Ltd from 24 March 2011 .

    Directors to watch are William Proctor and Christopher McGill.
    Secretary : Paul Hallam.

    The Issued Capital is GBP 28,000,001 and assets of about 0.89 Billion.
    One of the Peverel Group companies was owed GBP 540 Mil by Proxima GR but miraculously it gave a waiver of debt to Proxima GR before it was dissolved by Zolfo Cooper.