Have your say on the Essex-based property firms: Equity plc, Equity Asset Management, Hull & Co, M.A.S, Regis, Regisport or Pier Management
Your comments on Regisport,
Regis and Equity
Regis info | Equity & Regis forum | Complain to Watchdog | Send a Grumbletext
From: Pete (consumerdeals)
Please no longer add comments to this page. Discussion of Equity and Regis has moved to the discussion forum.
Received on: Thu Aug 21 11:59:59 2003
From: DC (Email)
Comment: I have just come across this site when trying to find out if Pier Management is an ARMA member. I was going to complain about their lack of response to e-mails and faxes. It was depressing reading in viewing all the complaints, but at least I know I am not alone now. I am just so pleased that I am only paying Ground Rent to this company (despite the fact they still tried to charge us a "maintenance charge" on handover from Equity!!). It took 3 e-mails and 2 faxes to get an apology out of them on this matter. I count myself fortunate!
I was horrified to hear that Equity had taken over CPM. Heaven help the leaseholders paying maintenance to this company. When, oh when are property management companies going to get their act together? There must be a real gap in the market for a company to respond to its customers in a professional manner and deal with issues efficiently.
Received on: Tue Aug 12 13:53:27 2003 from IP address: Unknown
From: Pam (Email)
Comment: Sarah. I have just come across Pete's message regarding an alternative website for Equity. I have tried to get into it, without success. As you know, I am not very computer literate, and wondered if you could send me a massage via the regisbook/html address to guide me into the use of the new site. Sorry to be a pain, and thanks in anticipation.
Pam... basic instructions: Click here to open up the forum in a new window... At the forum, you'll see a list of messages. Press the "Start new topic" to start a new topic, or click on a subject to open and read existing messages. To add a reply, scroll to the bottom of the messages, and press reply. Pete
Received on: Thu Jul 24 18:36:00 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Pete (consumerdeals)
As you've probably noticed, Equity's own forum has been withdrawn, and this page is getting a little large. Accordingly, I've just set up a new format forum for this page. Please take a look at www.consumerdeals.co.uk/equity and see if this is a better home for discussion of Equity and Regis. Comments appreciated. Pete
Received on: Thu Jul 24 11:06:13 2003
From: Jayne (jayne.gibbs@zoom.co.uk)
Comment: I could never understand why Equity allowed this forum on their website, I mean who wants a noticeboard on their own website which complains and complains and COMPLAINS about that diabolical company. I am about to move and can't tell you how relieved I am to get shot of this management company. They want money for nothing. They are absolute rubbish!
Received on: Tue Jul 22 14:05:02 2003 from IP address: 194.201.9.157
From: Sarah (sarah@leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Hmmmmm, that sounds suspiciously like an advert Lee!
BTW, I blew up my computer a while ago and lost all that stuff you sent me for the site, do you think you could send it again? I also lost my ftp programme so it could be a while before I do it but I'd appreciate the input.
Received on: Sun Jul 20 23:00:53 2003 from IP address: 81.79.102.228
From: Lee (lee.simm@wthmanagement.com)
Comment: Ken, we do not advertise, if we advertise the money has to come from somewhere - guess where - yes, you the leaseholders so we don't do it! We beleive that a company offering services such as our own does not need to advertise, that simply by doing the job we are paid for effectively, we will increase our business, which I am pleased to say we do, every year at no cost to our clients. We produce no shiney leaflets, we have no large flash company cars and in fact, we operate on a non profit making basis....
Received on: Sun Jul 20 22:31:47 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Lee,
I unreservedly apologise.
Glad to hear there are large companies that do a good job.
I think, reading the other notes here, that there may be others holding the mistaken belief that Equity are the largest player in town. Maybe you need to up the advertising?
Received on: Sun Jul 20 12:01:27 2003 from IP address: 80.1.26.64
From: Lee Simm (lee.simm@wthmanagement.com)
Comment: Ken, thanks for the vote of confidence! Equity are maybe one of the largest Agents around, but they are not the only one. WTH Management started because of companies such as those and we continue to grow from strength to strength bringing a new style of Management to Leaseholders... my clients will be very disappointed to think that you believe Equity are the only players... there are more out there if you look and like WTH some of them do a bloody good job!
Received on: Sun Jul 20 10:58:20 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Mike Whitaker (Email)
Comment: I've just been speaking to a friend of mine who works for estates with CPM as their managing agents. Allegedly Equity will be keeping the CPM name. They may even be considering moving their head office to Hoddesdon, Herts which is where CPM moved to 2-3 years ago. Does this look like them trying to start again. Could Equity be about to 'merge' with CPM, with a new address, and nowhere near as much bad publicity?
Received on: Thu Jul 17 14:36:25 2003 from IP address: 80.1.26.211
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: FYI, I have just dropped Watchdog an email about the Equity forum being shut down, and about CPM takeover (suggested it was gorunds for OFT investigation). I do hope this doesn't emabarass Equity.
Maybe others who have direct contact with CPM, and who are worried about what will happen should drop Watchdog and OFT a note.
Received on: Thu Jul 17 12:28:16 2003 from IP address: 80.1.26.243
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Wrt the CPM issue, there are grounds for raising this with the OFT. Equity are worthless, and by growing they bring misery to more people who cannot find an alternative property management company (because Equity are the only player in town).
By the way Equity (I know you read this board), I haven't forgotten that you owe me damages...I have an action plan ready for implementation should you fail to compensate me.
Received on: Thu Jul 17 12:07:29 2003 from IP address: 80.1.26.243
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Just realised they shot themselves in the foot perhaps?
Received on: Thu Jul 17 00:00:49 2003 from IP address: 81.77.127.243
From: James (Email)
Comment: Hmm the equity forum is under construction, they are up to something!
Received on: Wed Jul 16 17:43:30 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.41
From: Baz Giddings ()
Comment: What I don't understand is why CPM would want to get into bed so to speak with a company like this ?
Received on: Wed Jul 16 15:56:46 2003 from IP address: 217.37.132.129
From: Lee (lee.simm@wthmanagement.com)
Comment: It is a shame if its true as I know blocks in the Essex area have in the past 12 months transferred from Equity to CPM (formally GEM), so the leaseholders I imagine are going to be slighty peeved after all their work to end up with the same agent they just disposed off!!!
I also noted on a recent visit to Equitys Office in Southend that in the reception, they were still displaying their Membership Certificate to ARMA
Received on: Wed Jul 16 12:14:06 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Mike Whitaker (mike.whitaker@virgin.net)
Comment: Yes, I can confirm the absolutely horrendous news. Equity are about to take over Corporate Property Management. I say horrendous because CPM are another of the biggest property management companies around. The combined entity is going to be a juggernaut! CPM also display many of the traits of Equity - take forever to answer letters/phone calls, if at all ... make dubious charges ... have you heard things like this before?
Received on: Tue Jul 15 21:16:30 2003 from IP address: 80.1.16.123
From: Baz Giddings ()
Comment: Is it true that Equity have taken over Corporate Property Management
Received on: Tue Jul 15 14:39:39 2003 from IP address: 217.37.132.129
From: James (Email)
Comment: Sent a letter out requesting the insurance information, and also enclosed a cheque for the increase (just so that they couldn't start slapping arrears charges on us again). Will keep you all informed if i get a reply within 30 days!
Received on: Mon Jul 14 13:56:39 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.41
From: Lee Simm (lee.simm@wthmanagement.com)
Comment: James, I would query that figure, as the 4.5 million insured value is the total re-intatement cover should the block need to be destroyed and rebuilt. At 4.5 million cover with 105 flats, they are stating just under £43,000 per flat, however that figure includes all costs for the communal areas, temporary accomodation etc, etc and that seem awfully low. In comparison, we manage a block of 53 whose insured value is £3,193,000 at a cost of £115.42 per leasehold, which as you can see gives a total of £60,000 per flat.... on average this year as a Managing Agent, we have seen increases overall, however the average cost per leasehold is somewhere between £110-£132. Terrorism cover is no longer part of the Buildings Insurance and is being charged as a separate policy, however even this is not expensive at an average of £110 per block dependant upon location of course.
Received on: Thu Jul 10 10:32:26 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: James, you have a legal right to that information. Section 30A of the Landlord and Tenant ACT 1985, para 2 of the schedule has effect.
Translated, it says that you should serve notice on the landlord that you require the landlord to supply you with a written summary of the insurance.
You should serve notice on (write to) the landlords agent, Pier Management.
Para 2 (4) of the schedule states that the landlord shall within one month of the request, comply with it by supplying to you:
a) the insured amount
b) the name of the insurer
c) the risks insured
Contact the insurer direct if it is not clear how many of the flats are covered by the policy.
Your lease will tell you what proportion of the total amount is due in respect of your individual flat.
Remember that you cannot compare a quote for the block as a whole with anything anyone quotes for one individual flat. That is not the same thing. When you get the info for the whole block you can then compare like for like.
Received on: Wed Jul 9 14:53:23 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.65
From: Justbrowsing ()
Comment: You are entitled to see a copy of the insurance schedule for your block - this will have on it the rebuild value. From that you can always get the details of the insurer. If there isnt an individual rebuild cost listed, generally you would divide the total amount by the number of dwelilngs. Or....the policy may state that the total development rebuild value is "£xxxx", with a maximum of £xxxx per dwelling. Sorry if not much help....!
Received on: Wed Jul 9 14:35:58 2003 from IP address: 62.30.47.88
From: James (Email)
Comment: Cheers Sarah, the only problem i have with comparing like for like is that Pier can't tell (wont tell me) me what the rebuild value for my flat is. He said the whole complex is £4.2Mil and there are 105 flats. But not my individual amount! What was even weirder was that in our comunal letter box There was only ONE Pier letter, could it be that everyone else doesn't have to pay?
Received on: Wed Jul 9 13:59:58 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.41
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: I don't know where these massive increases are coming from, yes insurance is going up and some landlords are insisting on an additional terrorism premium but it is nowhere near 60%, not even 10%.
If you want to challenge your landlord's choice of insurer you should first make sure you are comparing like for like. Obtain a summary of the insurance which will tell you the insured amount and the risks insured.
If you still feel the premium is excessive you can apply to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for a determination.
If you are successful, the tribunal will make an order requiring the landlord to nominate or approve another insurer who will be either specified in the order or who satisfies requirements set out in the order.
In other words they'll tell them to appoint someone reasonably priced.
For more information about how to apply to an LVT please go to LEASE
Received on: Wed Jul 9 11:23:24 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.71
From: James (Email)
Comment: Just a quick note to ask if anybody under the Pier ownership has just had there buildings insurance increased by 60%, because we have! I did a bit of research and found out nationwide would insure us for £35, Pier charge us £120! There must be a way to change insurance companies?
Received on: Wed Jul 9 09:47:11 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.41
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Unfortunately you are right Steve there is absolutely nothing you can reasonably do other than be a complete pain in the a** until you get what you want.
There is no governing body, only voluntary membership of ARMA. Pier have never been members and their alias Equity have just been thrown out (they claim to have left of their own accord...)
Good luck with it anyway.
Received on: Tue Jul 8 16:31:20 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.74
From: Steve Carroll (s_carroll@btinternet.com)
Comment: Whatever you do, dont try to sell your property if Pier Management own the lease. We are now in the 12th week of trying to sell our flat since we accepted an offer from a buyer. It is nearly six weeks since Pier received a letter from my solicitors asking for the lease information. Nearly 2 weeks after receiving this letter they said they needed £70+VAT to release this and it was 8-10 days from receipt of payment that the information would be provided. As of today (tue 8 Jul) this still has not been done!! They claim to have posted it, but it has not arrived with my solicitors. I have chased and so have my solicitors all in vain. Today my solicitors offered to pay for the information to be faxed over rather than posted (again?!?), However this cost £10+VAT and could only be done on receipt of payment, which had to be a cheque, a debit/credit card would not do. So we just have to wait to see if they bother to post it again, as that is quicker than posting them a cheque and asking to have it faxed.
My next property is now in jeopardy as we expected to complete weeks ago and it appears there is nothing I can do to make Pier do what they are supposed to do.
And I suppose there is no way of doing something about it legally or through any governing body.
Received on: Tue Jul 8 15:46:08 2003 from IP address: 212.137.21.206
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: John, excellent news.
May I suggest that you drop watchdog an email letting them know that your case has been taken up by the BBC.
Good luck
Received on: Tue Jul 8 10:11:40 2003 from IP address: 80.1.27.27
From: john mead (john@meadbwfcok.freeserve)
Comment: Just to report, one of our residents, Narinda, has twice gone live on 3 Counties Radio's consumer programme to highlight the plight of our estate.
The first time she was invited to send in hard facts, which were followed up last week, by presenter Steven Rhodes.
He reports that he spoke to Equity and that they refused to give a name or indeed their position within the company.
He proceeded to name them, and explained he was from the BBC.
Of course paranoia set in, and they refused to believe him.
He gave a nice little summary of what he thought of Equity thus far, (definately the leading Property Management Company, tho not in the league they were describing!)and told them that maybe one of his other colleagues in the BBC would like to take up the fight.
He hasn't finished with them yet,we await the next episode of sleighting with bated breath.
Thanks to Sarah for her invaluable input thus far, we are now officially at war with the vermin, watch this space!
Received on: Mon Jul 7 21:27:00 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.65
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Well I know what I think! Why would you leave the only recognised trade body for your business? They always seemed so proud of it before. As far as I know the subs are not exactly expensive and they get advertising on ARMA's site into the bargain. They seem to be saying that they are now too big for ARMA. Strange thing to say if you are committed to the same ideals.
Received on: Mon Jul 7 20:34:55 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.74
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: I see on Equity's forum they have finally replied to the growing number of queries as to why they have been dropped by ARMA.
Equity felt that ARMA was not appropriate for them to belong to therefore they did not renew their sub...well that makes perfect sense doesn't it?
Votes please as to whether we believe this...also do you think that this is the excuse they will use for not being members of ARHM as well.
The thread on their site is now locked..I guess they were getting fed up with peoples' comments.
Received on: Mon Jul 7 17:26:55 2003 from IP address: 80.1.8.14
From: Name Bill Noad (Email bill_noad@btinternet.com)
Comment: I have received an e-mail from ARMA, to the effect that Equity have been removed from their register. The reasons for this are confidential. Our battle for Columbia Wharf goes on, but may be nearing the end.
Received on: Fri Jul 4 16:31:41 2003 from IP address: 80.177.155.170
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: It looks like the logo of ARHM (retired housing body) has also been removed. I (although not retired) received an email from them a while ago saying that they were dealing with a number of issues wrt Equity.
Maybe they too have dumped them.
Time to start humming "Ode to Joy" again...all together now...
Received on: Fri Jul 4 15:38:02 2003 from IP address: 80.1.0.34
From: Becky (beckybumbly@hotmail.com)
Comment: Would just like to add that I got a letter too, from ARMA. I also wondered if they are going to remove the ARMA logo from their headed paper. It feels a bit like the Berlin wall coming down, it's just the beginning. We have only just tapped a small chink in Equity's armour. Wonder if anything has been put on Equity's website - or will it be locked? Let's see shall we??
Received on: Fri Jul 4 13:29:47 2003 from IP address: 194.205.96.233
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: I got one too! And I posted here about it about two hours ago - am I being censored Pete?? (Not guilty. Pete!)
Received on: Fri Jul 4 12:49:38 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.76
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: hello everyone.
I received a letter from ARMA today (I will post full text on my site later today).
However, it said that as from 26/3 Equity have been removed from membership.
I wonder if our barrage of complaints had anything to do with that?
Equity will now have to change all their advertising material and website which shows ARMA.
Received on: Fri Jul 4 11:55:58 2003 from IP address: 80.1.30.250
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Joycie, sorry can't help with a contact in your area but the part of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act that gives you the right to manage is not yet in force. It's expected to come in at the end of the summer I think, I did hear as early as August. Because of this you are unlikely to find someone with much "experience" but any solicitor familiar with landlord and tenant issues and company law should be able to help.
Received on: Wed Jul 2 23:08:03 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.74
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Erm, I looked at your site but could not see what your problems were with Goldfield. I don't know anything about them but lots about Equity. I have to say, the choice is yours, but why on earth are you appointing Equity???
If you think you have problems now, just wait til they get their claws into you. Believe me, you ain't seen nothing yet!
Received on: Wed Jul 2 22:42:55 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.74
From: Paul McCormack (paul@paulmccormack.co.uk)
Comment: For ease, here is a link to my web site:
http://www.paulmccormack.co.uk
Received on: Wed Jul 2 14:59:26 2003 from IP address: 62.60.125.67
From: Paul McCormack (paul@paulmccormack.co.uk)
Comment: I read with interest that Mr. Mark Donnellan is trying to poach customers from Equity to his company Goldfield Property Management Ltd. Equity are currently working with us to remove Goldfields and rectify a number of serious legal problems that Mark Donnellan has created. My advice is DO NOT MOVE TO GOLDFIELDS. For more info, see http://www.paulmccormack.co.uk
Received on: Wed Jul 2 14:36:23 2003 from IP address: 62.60.125.67
From: Joycie Lam (joycielam@hotmail.com)
Comment: Hello all.
Please can anyone advise of a solicitor (preferably in the north west) who has experience of dealing with Equity and Right to Manage legislation. Alternatively, just the latter.
If you represent a reputable and trustworthy management company who is looking for a contract in the northwest and are able to assist in the removal of equity as managing agent of my property, please get in touch.
Thanks
Received on: Mon Jun 30 15:45:09 2003 from IP address: 212.158.28.169
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Equity Freedom Day!!!!!!
Please read this whilst humming Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" (from his 9th symphony).
Oh happy days, Equity are no more; we now have, from this day, a new managing agent. A group who have taken over blocks previously mis-managed by Equity.
If you are passing The Bedford Arms tonight..drinks are on me. It is VE Day (Victory over Equity day) here.
Received on: Wed Jun 25 17:13:11 2003 from IP address: 80.1.2.191
From: ConsumerDeals (consumer)
Comment: Hi all... A couple of websites that may be of use when making a complaint...
Grumbletext - Register a complaint by text message
Howtocomplain.co.uk- make an online complaint.
Received on: Mon Jun 23 14:13:52 2003
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Sharon, if you mean John Mead's company this is not uncommon. The most likely reason for it normally is mismanagement by the managing agent. The directors (leaseholders) appoint the agent as company secretary. It is then the agents responsibility to send the accounts and annual returns to Companies House. If this does not happen they will strike the company off the register.
Received on: Sat Jun 21 18:55:12 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Sharon Collins (sharon_collins1@yahoo.com)
Comment: Why did the previous management companies fail twice?
Received on: Fri Jun 20 22:13:12 2003 from IP address: 81.134.96.145
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: I have today sent a well balanced, and clear, letter to Equity re claim for damages.
Posted on www.kenfrost.com under "Worse Than Worthless"
Received on: Fri Jun 20 17:43:48 2003 from IP address: 80.1.23.50
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: I spoke too soon.
Today I was called by equity to be told that the scaffolding etc has been cancelled.
We have appointed new managing agents who start here next week, and they have blocked Equity touching the place.
So near yet so far.
On the bright side at least we will be free of Equity.
Received on: Wed Jun 18 16:44:09 2003 from IP address: 80.1.17.66
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Large erection expected!
I have been told by Equity (see website) that I can expect scaffolding to be erected this week to investigate and repair roof.
Received on: Tue Jun 17 11:38:07 2003 from IP address: 80.1.18.245
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: John, sounds like a real mess. Have you written to Watchdog (they wrote to me today to let me know I am in their database), ARMA (who have been batting for me) and the papers?
If not, it's worth a shot.
I have put a proforma letter on the "Worse Than Worthelss" section of my website www.kenfrost.com which people are welcome to download and use. Maybe it is some help.
Received on: Tue Jun 10 11:39:04 2003 from IP address: 80.1.24.35
From: Steve (sowen_uk@hotmail.com)
Comment: John, I would suggest you contact someone at WTH Management Limited as I am aware the have recently handled a situation just like yours, resurected the old Management Company, appointed Leaseholders as Directors and were even able to stop Equity running the site, even though Equity had already appointed a 'Site Manager'.
Received on: Sun Jun 8 19:48:43 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Sarah (sarah@leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Oh my God what a nightmare! Because your residents management company was allowed to fold you are now at the mercy of Regis/Equity. Your solicitor has already advised you to set up a new company and that would appear to be the best way to go. The charges seem reasonable for the amount of work involved. The only thing is, Regis could be difficult about accepting the ammendment to the lease to the new name. Will Companies House not allow you to re-instate it in the old name? That will also cost you money though as there may be fines to pay under the old name. Try giving them a call, they are normally quite helpful.
It doesn't matter that Regis name is not on the lease, the responsibilities of the lessor were automatically transferred to them when they bought the freehold.
Are you actually paying service charges to Equity? Do they account for how the money has supposedly been spent?
Received on: Sat Jun 7 14:47:11 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: john mead (john@meadbwfcok.freeserve.co.uk)
Comment: Here is a potted history of the last three years, as described to www.lease-advice.org. if any of you know how to get rid of these scum, please advise!!
Hello, I was hoping for some clarification on the following points.
I am the Chairman of the Tenants Association for Peerless Drive. Our freeholder is Regis PLC Limited, that is not a PLC at all. It is owned by Peter and Nick Gould.
The Management Co. stated on the lease went under in 1992, and since then we have been controlled by Equity PLC, formerly known as MAS Ltd. This co. is also run by Peter and Nick Gould.
Basically we are being ripped off by this mob, who consitently break the terms and conditions of their own leases. No outside repairs have occured since 1992, when the lease states it must occur every 5 years. In December last year the Gardener/cleaner was disposed of, since then nothing has happened. We have to maintain the place ourselves now, as the grass was 2ft high, rats had moved into bin sheds, Ivy is destroying the outside of one block, paving slabs are rising up due to tree roots, windows are broken and doorframes are rotten in communal areas, people are falling down stairs where carpets are loose and threadbare, lighting is broken in all the blocks, spalled brickwork caused by leaky overflows is threatening damp onto the timber frames of the bulidings which will lead to demolition, gutters have not been cleared since 1992, bin stores have no felt roofing left, the visual condition of the interior of the blocks is appaling and the general health and well being of all residents is deteriorating due to the stress of dealing with a bunch of conmen and liars.
We have met with them once a year, when false promises have been made. Recently we were conned into believing that our choice of gardener/cleaner would be engaged as soon as we had made a choice. we contacted the suggested firms, brokered deals, and then Mr James Drummond in charge of our estate ( the 4th new one in 3 years) did nothing about it.
Now the telephonists at Equity will tell people it is my fault the grass is 2ft long as I have not contacted them, which is Slander.
They still send bills through, even though they do nothing, and we have had to take the situation into control by carrying out the work ourselves, as our properties are losing value as a result of their inaction, whilst still being expected to send them money every 6 months for work that we are carrying out, out of despair.
We tried to reinstate the Management Co on the lease to the role, however it had been struck off twice previously, so no go there.
Our solicitor Mr Noyce, of Lovell Son & Pitfield informs that to set up a new Management CO will cost us each around £1100 to change the lease and inform the mortgage lenders.Is this right?
Also, when we take up our Right to manage option, will the same costs apply?.
Also is he correct when he states that we have to change the wording on the leases. My point is that Regis PLC the freeholders do not appear on the lease, instead the Brook Street housing asociation. Also the old management company name still appears, wheras at present no Management Company exists.
We have been fighting this war for 3 years now. All we want is to form a management company ourselves, take control of our own destiny, and get rid of these complete bastards who continually ask us for money yet give nothing, and I mean nothing in return.
Thousands of faults have been reported through their switchboard, their preferred method (no trace or evidence), always promises are made and no one ever does anything about it.
please let us know the way forward, we are standing by ready to take control, we just need to get these money launderers off our backs.
yours sincerely, John Mead, Chairman Peerless Drive Tenants Association
Received on: Sat Jun 7 13:30:13 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.75
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Sorry Jane, mispelt your name!
Received on: Sat Jun 7 00:54:20 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.208
From: Sarah (sarah@leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Jayne, of course you can email me. Go ahead.
Received on: Sat Jun 7 00:51:44 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.208
From: Jane McGilivray (Email)
Comment: Sarah,
Would you mind me contacting you directly via e-mail, and if not could you supply me with an address?
Thanks.
Jane.
Received on: Fri Jun 6 19:11:31 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Sarah, ref your question; I took no charge to mean no charge to me or anyone else.
Further letter from them today.
regards to all
Ken
Received on: Fri Jun 6 18:36:49 2003 from IP address: 80.1.13.135
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Bill, is Mark your new agent or is that another 16 they just lost? Happy days!
Received on: Fri Jun 6 15:42:58 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Mark Donnellan (mark@goldfieldproperties.co.uk)
Comment: My company Golfield Properties Limited have taken 8 Managements From Equity and are in the process of taking many more. Without talking about all the problems that Directors/lessees have with Equity, if you wish to look to change Agent I would be happy to discuss this possibility with you?
Mark Donnellan
Office - 01895 274400 or mobile 07957 247798.
Received on: Fri Jun 6 09:57:15 2003 from IP address: 195.147.107.187
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Ken, no cost to you individually but will they recover the cost of the surveyors from the insurance company or charge your residents management company?
Received on: Thu Jun 5 13:03:48 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.74
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Hi Sarah,
thanks for the thought, but as you can see from my blog "Worse Than Worthless" on http://www.kenfrost.com, I have been told no charge.
I will keep it up to date as events progress.
Ken
Received on: Thu Jun 5 12:05:29 2003 from IP address: 80.1.9.84
From: Bill Noad (bill_noad@btinternet.com)
Comment: I am the director of Residents' Management Company for Columbia Wharf, Block A. In six years under Messrs Hull & Co, MAS & Equity, the block has fallen into a state of dilapidation. I have discovered that no formal contract exists between Equity and Block A, which is likely to be the same for many others. In which case, the Residents' directors can dismiss Equity on 30 days notice. I am assured through property lawyers that this is legal. Directors do not need a 51% vote of the lessees to do this, their mandate as directors is all that's needed. In the past year, Equity have lost seven blocks in this fashion, but are now fighting back on Block A. It is always difficult to go down the 51% route because of absent landlords who let out their units and are difficult to contact. I have located an alternative property management company, with excellent references, whose name I will supply on request.
Received on: Tue Jun 3 15:50:48 2003 from IP address: 80.177.155.170
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Hi Ken,
It looks like you finally got their attention! Be careful of the surveyors coming round though, they are almost definately charging for each visit.
Received on: Tue Jun 3 01:41:27 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.76
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Hello everyone,
I received a response from equity to my queries about the never ending saga of my roof repairs. I have posted this to the "Worse Than Worthless" page of http://www.kenfrost.com
I would be grateful to have your opinions as to the veracity, or otherwise, of their responses.
Thanks.
Ken
Received on: Sun Jun 1 17:30:57 2003 from IP address: 80.1.31.37
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Hi Jane
What you have to remember is that those unpleasant individuals are acting on the instuctions of others. They don't receive the training they need to properly fulfill the role of property manager and end up with so many properties to manage they don't know the first thing about any one of them.
Re the management charge - you know my opinion!
Received on: Sat May 31 00:38:05 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.76
From: Jane McGilivray (Email)
Comment: Further to your comment Sarah, I would have to say that over the last four years I have had the misfortune of having dealings with two extremely unpleasant individuals (no names mentioned), neither who could be described as Senior Management. Without wishing to sound pompous, I would sooner do almost anything than work for a company such MAS/Regis/Equity/Pier/Hull & Co.
Further to the (no)connection between Equity and Pier, I must advise that today I found out that one of our neighbours, who owns a flat in the same conversion, recently contacted Equity to make a claim on the buildings insurance. Equity contacted her today, on Equity headed paper, and put her in touch with the relevant broker, (yet another new one that none of us has heard of)! They advised - "since our procedures have changed please deal with the broker direct"!! So much for wanting to lay claim to a management charge! Absolutely no mention whatsoever of Pier! Hysterical!!
I have recently been communicating with Pier by e-mail, and the 'properties' clearly state that their e-mail is being received from Equityplc.com!!
Jane.
Received on: Fri May 30 18:46:31 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: I just flicked back through the forum and could find very few mentions of names and they were mostly used when discussing the connections between Equity and Pier management. Nothing was said about the individuals themselves other than the fact that they work there. Two members of their staff have actually posted here and so it was fair to mention their names in later replies.
I think most people here realise that the problems Equity have are not down to individual employees but the overall structure and management of the company. That is who we are hounding, not you if any of you are reading this.
Having said that, I would feel embarrassed if I worked for them, it must be a bit like admitting to being traffic warden.
Oh and Tony Dean is fair game in my humble opinion.
Received on: Fri May 30 17:44:52 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Pete (Webmaster)
Comment: My assumption is that one or more of the staff at Regis are upset about a comment like "Person X is useless, he doesn't phone me back" type of comments that appear in the forums, as opposed to "Person X happens to work for Regis" (which is implied by the forum message anyway). Just having a name listed with no context is less likely to offend (unless people are ashamed of being employees of Regis/Equity).
The purpose of the list is so that people can address complaints to the correct person, using the correct job title. All of the listed names have been collected from the two forums.
Received on: Fri May 30 14:25:28 2003
From: JustBrowsing ()
Comment: I think that the employee naming thing must have been more about the list of named employees that appears on the consumerdeals website on the information page, rather than rather than the appearance of names in posts from disgruntled clients. I cant imagine that they would have a leg to stand on to object to that kind of thing. The list with the names may have been the problem. Also - I have to ask....with all this on the forum, has anyone actually noticed any improvements recently? It doenst seem to get any better?
Received on: Thu May 29 14:04:48 2003 from IP address: 217.155.57.46
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Pete, I think it is fair comment that employees should not be personally named; as usually the performance of a company is down to the quality of management.
That being said, I think your mystery emailer was a little unfair; this site rarely mentions employees (CEO excluded). However, the Equity site often has references (in some cases quite strongly worded) about employees.
That site is regulated by Equity..they must put their house in order as well.
Received on: Wed May 28 17:30:56 2003 from IP address: 80.1.14.78
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Nice to know they are still monitoring the site. Maybe one day they will learn from it.
Received on: Wed May 28 01:32:16 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.71
From: Pete (webmaster)
Comment: I have today received from an unnamed source stating "I don't think that its fair for you to put the names of the employees that you think work at the company on the website. Those that work behind the scenes are really hurt that you are gunning for them without good cause. I think that you have been vindictive in your naming of the staff at that company."
The names on this and the petesipple site have come from postings to this site, and to the Equity forum, and so are beyond my control, but as this is a fair request, I'm happy to remove individual names from this page on receipt of an email from the individual asking to be removed.
Received on: Mon May 27 19:02:29 2003
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Acutally I think the signs are a splendid idea!!!
I will be very disappointed if I don't a get one to attach to my apartment door; that way everyone who visits and sees the water running down my wall, and the damp patches, knows precisely which company is responsible.
The sign says "managed by Equity", easily adjusted by adding the three letters "Mis" at the front.
Serious point tho' they must have spent some money thinking up this design..what a waste. Also in an emergency I cannot think of anyone I would be less inclined to call to sort it out.
Re designing fancy signs, that usually is the first indication of a company going down the pan.
Received on: Mon May 26 12:09:38 2003 from IP address: 80.1.12.60
From: Steve O (sowen_uk@hotmail.com)
Comment: Check your lease, most leases prohibit the placement of any advertisement or sign on the building or it's boundaries, therefore the signs may place you in a Breach of Lease and you can demand Equity remove them or you can and post them back to them quoting your lease!
Received on: Mon May 26 02:17:19 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Sarah ()
Comment: Ken, it was the bit about the signage that made me laugh, they've had all those shiney signs made in the interests of Health and Safety?? If you have an emergency in the middle of the night you're gonna run down to the outside of your block to read the sign and call them on that number they rarely answer in the daytime? I just tried it - longwinded recorded message inviting me to e-mail, leave voicemail or visit website.
Since it is obviously an advert I wonder if they'll put them on the blocks which are in a state. Try asking them to put one on your roof Ken!
Received on: Sun May 25 17:27:21 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.209
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Yeah I know what you mean Jane, sometimes you get to the stage where it is just easier to pay up and get out. Maybe if you know your neighbours you could mention to them that the charge looks "iffy" and leave it to them to sort out if they want to. That way it won't affect your sale. Good luck with your move when it happens.
Martyn, if you do need more help try http://www.lease-advice.org.uk/ for free legal advice. They know a lot more about that sort of situation than me.
Received on: Sun May 25 17:13:10 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.208
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Pam, re your comment about the brochure and the Chemlsford office being closed...that is quite something; the brochure claims to be the first in a series. Not a good start really is it?
Received on: Sun May 25 17:03:28 2003 from IP address: 80.1.20.17
From: Martyn (Email)
Comment: Sarah thanks
Received on: Sun May 25 14:51:42 2003 from IP address: 213.106.192.60
From: Jane McGilivray (Email)
Comment: Hi Sarah,
Thanks (again) for that!
As I am in the process of (hopefully) moving I will see how my solictor gets along with his enquiries. If the charge is reasonable (!?!) say £100+vat, and the service received is also reasonable (!?!) then I will sign all necessary papers and gleefully move on! If, however, they start to demand excessive fees and/or are slow and obstructive in providing the requested information, then I will not hesitate to challenge them! Shamefully, I have to admit that I am anxious to simply move on and buy freehold! Once you lock horns with these people, whether justified or not, you are legally obliged to state as much on any relevant questionnaires when trying to sell. It is an added complication that frankly I could do without! That said though, all respect to those who take them on!! Keep it up!
Jane.
Received on: Sat May 24 23:21:21 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Sarah (sarah@leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: On another subject, if anyone comes by here who has, or who knows anyone who has Southend based Clientele Associates Ltd as their managing agent, please contact me urgently.
Received on: Sat May 24 20:34:58 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Sarah (sarah@lease)
Comment: Hi Jane,
As you say, the first quote from your lease means you pay 1/3 of the insurance premium. Your second paragraph looks like your freeholder can also recover any other costs involved in arranging the insurance such as tax or brokers commission which should be included in the premium anyway.
It's difficult to be sure without seeing your lease but I believe it does not say they can charge for submitting demands and collecting ground rents; managing buildings and other insurances; preparing and submitting statements; and many others! therefore they can't. It's as simple as that. The services which can be provided and charged for are defined in your lease. They can't just make them up as they see fit. It is possible that they could claim that the cost of billing you for the insurance is "maintaining" the insurance but £96 quid would not be considered a reasonable amount by any tribunal.
There is nothing in the RICS code that says "thou shalt stiff your customers" so ignore that drivel.
It is true that you are entitled to much of the information your solicitor requires but there is no entitlement to have it in writing, at the time you want it. Your purchaser's solicitor will want the information direct from the agent via your solicitor so that he can be sure it is accurate. This is a service direct to one lessee and therefore outside the terms of your lease. When your solicitor writes to them he is in effect asking for the service on your behalf and they charge accordingly. Since you don't have a management company though, the required info should be much simpler and hopefully cheaper.
Make sure you keep hold of their explanation of the management charge if it was in writing and challenge them again. If possible, get your solicitor to look at your lease and determine whether you should pay. If not, make sure you get last years back and report them to ARMA, sending them copies of all correspondance.
Received on: Sat May 24 17:43:25 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.67
From: Name Pam (Email)
Ken: the brochure you received from Equity is out of date as their Chelmsford office closed down in the Autumn of 2002.
Received on: Sat May 24 13:55:59 2003 from IP address: 195.92.198.72
From: Jane McGilivray (Email)
Comment: Query: As mentioned previously we were recently transferred from Equity, who we had been with since 1999, to Pier Managament. Last year we were invoiced, for the first time, a yearly management charge of £96.82. We live in a flat within a victorian conversion, comprising three flats in total. All maintenance is undertaken, as and when, by leaseholders although we do not have a management company. Equity (now Pier) simply collect our yearly Ground Rent and (very expensive) Buildings Insurance premium. Question(s): Are we liable for this management charge and if so, why has it only been levied since last year? My understanding of our lease is that we are liable to pay ground rent, and 'by way of a further and additional rent a fair proportion to be determined by the agent of all such sums as the Lessor shall pay by way of premium for insuring and keeping insured the building of which the flat forms part...' - ie. one third of the total buildings insurance premium.
Another covenant does state 'To repay the Lessor the amount or amounts from time to time expended by the Lessor in effecting or maintaining insurance on the demised premises at the times in the manner aforesaid'. Does this support charging a management fee that represents 30% of the insurance premium, and if it does then I can't understand why Equity haven't levied one from the start.
When I queried it last year I received the standard reply advising that the charge is defined according to the RICS code of practice etc etc, and covers costs incurred to operate the wide variety of services including: submitting demands and collecting ground rents; managing buildings and other insurances; preparing and submitting statements; and many others!
Interestingly one service included is 'producing and distributing service charge accounts and supplying other information to which tenants are entitled'. Surely this must include replying to solicitors enquiries when a leaseholder is selling, as I am in the process of doing.
I begrudingly paid last years management charge in the knowledge that I would (hopefully) be soon moving. I do not wish to continue paying it, however, if it is not legally due, and if I do have to pay it then I don't want to be paying additional costs relative to solicitors enquiries!
Any pointers (as usual) gratefully received!
Jane.
Received on: Sat May 24 13:50:04 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: I received yet another letter from Equity today, this time an insurance claim form. Which states that I should make a claim within 30 days of the incident...problem being that I reported this "incident" back in October 2002!!!
I have placed details on the "Worse Than Worthless" section of my website www.kenfrost.com along with a copy of a letter I have sent them today in response.
Note, I have copied my letter to ARMA, Watchdog, The Times and Sir Teddy Taylor.
I recommend that with those of you who make written complaints email or snail mail copy them to the above as well.
Received on: Fri May 23 17:10:33 2003 from IP address: 80.1.16.182
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: For you information people, here is ARMA's response to two emails I sent regarding the dodgy management charges and the connection with Equity and Pier Management.
Quote
Thank you for your emails of last month and I apologise for the delay in
responding.
I have approached Equity regarding your concerns over management charges
that are possibly not due under the terms of your leases and Equity has
responded as follows:-
"... with regard to Equity, I would advise that we only manage properties
where there is a service charge, and fees are recoverable from service
charge funds. In the past, other forms of management instruction existed
regarding properties that did not necessarily have service charges but,
where the lease provided for a management fee to be charged, one was levied.
"I do know that in the past, clerical errors have occurred on a small number
of properties by mistake. These were removed from all units of a particular
property, when the error was noticed or brought to our attention. Equity
has never had a policy of intentionally levying charges, which are not
recoverable."
I hope this clarifies the situation but please contact me if you wish to
take the matter further.
Kind regards
and
I would refer to yours of 6.4.03 regarding Equity and Pier Management.
I have now had it confirmed that Nick and Peter Gould are both the
beneficial owners and directors of Pier Management and that the 8000 units
transferred thereto by Equity are in Regis owned properties.
As far as Equity Asset Management Ltd (EAM) is concerned there is a sole
director, namely Tony Dean. EAM is owned by Equity Asset Management
Holdings Ltd (EAMH) of which again Tony Dean is the sole director. Nick and
Peter Gould have a controlling shareholding in EAMH. Nick and Peter Gould
also have a controlling shareholding of the Regis Group.
I hope this provides the clarity you were seeking.
Regards
Received on: Fri May 23 00:44:58 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Hi Martyn, are you sure there is no Management Company? Equity recently dumped all those properties which were Regis owned and had no Company onto Pier Management and if you are still with Equity I would think that there is a Company.
Anyway, assuming that you do not have one, you have 3 options.
1. You could force the sale of your freehold if enough of you are in agreement/have the money and appoint who you like.
2. You could go to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and have your landlords management judged ineffective and they will appoint a new manager.
3. Under the new law you may be able to set up a "Right to Manage" company. You will not have to prove any inefficiency on the landlords part and will then be able to appoint who you like.
All of the above will cost you dear in legal costs though so be sure that you have the full agreement of other tenants to share the costs.
Hope this helps.
Received on: Fri May 23 00:25:43 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Martyn (Email)
Comment: sadly there is no management committee. Its pay your service charge to Equity and get nowt in return. Any ideas on ditching them and setting up our own.
Received on: Thu May 22 16:53:17 2003 from IP address: 213.106.192.60
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Martin,
go to the following sites
www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk for the step by step method to dump Equity
and the "Worse Than Worthless" section of www.kenfrost.com which has a proforma letter to download for you to write to Teddy Taylor, Watchdog, newspapers etc to raise public awareness and to help you get some action.
Received on: Thu May 22 16:25:14 2003 from IP address: 80.1.30.200
From: Martyn (digger.cole@ntlworld.com)
Comment: Hi very interesting site. I have Regis as the freeholder and Equity as the managing agent. Whole block ex BPT and poorly maintained for years. All surveyors are downgrading property values on basis of v scruffy block and huge service charge. How do I get rid of Equity as the managing agents. Thanks
Received on: Thu May 22 15:59:01 2003 from IP address: 213.106.192.60
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: I received 3 letters from equity in the last 2 days.
I will put the details on my wbesite. However, in brief:
The first one says they received word from ARMA about my problems, they went on to say that the problem is in hand.
The second one noted that they have received a letter from Sir Teddy Taylor, and that they have drafted him a reply.
The third is a brochure explaining that there have been regional offices set up in Docklands, South Bank, Enfield, Standon, Beckenham and Chelmsford. It goes on about customer care etc, and is signed by Tony Dean.
Received on: Thu May 22 11:56:33 2003 from IP address: 80.1.29.26
From: Name Pam (Email)
Comment:
Sarah: I have today received my ground rent demand from Pier Management. I am happy to report that there was no charge levied for its collection. So, you were right in saying that you did not think we would be charged this additional fee, probably because we were more aware than some.
Have drafted a letter to Sir Teddy Taylor as suggested by Ken Frost. Hope I will get this off in the next day or so.
Had a phone call from Equity this morning saying that they were dealing with the ARMA complaints procedure and I would be getting a letter shortly relating to this.
Received on: Tue May 20 11:41:25 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.75
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: I have received a response from Sir Teddy Taylor. He is distressed about my experience, and has let Equity know about my concerns.
He states that he will let me know when he has news from them.
Please write to him.
Received on: Sun May 18 20:19:29 2003 from IP address: 80.1.29.161
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Makes interesting reading doesn't it? It certainly re-affirmed my feeling that we did the right thing getting rid (not that that was in any doubt anyway!)It's good that the paper highlighted that particular problem but I just wish one of them would realise the real scale of all this and actually help to make a difference.
Received on: Sat May 17 22:20:07 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.208
From: Jane McGilivray (Email)
Comment: Interesting article Sarah!!
The problem seems to be that the complaints just go on and on and on ...........! The author of the article wrote to the boss man, got no reply - and what? It is absolutely incredulous that these bandits (and any similar bandits) can work the way they do, and supposedly be within the law! I for one will never buy a leashold property again (hopefully)!!
Jane.
Received on: Sat May 17 22:12:14 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Here's an article that may interest you....
Go to www.telegraph.co.uk, click on the property section and search in that section for "The bargains that could cost you a fortune". You have to register to view otherwise I would have put the direct link here.
Thanks Pam for pointing it out to me.
Received on: Sat May 17 17:43:42 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Jane McGilivray (E.Mail)
Comment: Thank Sarah, very helpful.
Jane.
PS. Great website!
Received on: Sat May 17 10:28:49 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Well I have never seen any limitation on the number of questions a solicitor can ask for the standard price. I would suggest that your solicitor should ask the normal ones (he'll know what they are) and if your buyer wants another hundred answered and there is an extra charge, you ask that he/she pays for them.
You do have a right to have the questions answered but in the absence of any contract which states the charges for that particular service (which is the normal situation) they can charge pretty much what they like.
As for the timescale, I've seen them take anything from a month to 3 months to answer a solicitors letter. Make sure your solicitor is aware of this and ask him to be persistant if he does not receive a response in what he considers to be a reasonable time.
Received on: Sat May 17 00:47:40 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Jane McGilivray (Email)
Comment: Sarah, thanks for that. Yes, Regis are the freeholders! I remember ringing Equity last year (when we had an original sale that fell through) to ascertain their fees,and being told that they charged £90(ish) + Vat and that they could also offer their wonderful 'fast track' service (talk about a licence to print money!). Worryingly though, I seem to remember also that this fee only covered answering a specific amount of queries (perhaps 6?) and that any extra requested by our solicitor would incur charges of £16.50(?) + Vat EACH!! I know that our previous purchasers solicitor wanted hundreds of queries answered!! Can they legally do this? Do I not have a legal right to such information, without excessive charge?
What timescale would you guess if you don't take them up on their kind offer of a 'fast track'? All monies paid up to date. Lease drawn up in 1998 and relatively simple.
Thanks in advance.
Jane.
Received on: Fri May 16 19:44:03 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Your solicitor will write to Pier with a load of initial enquiries for which they normally charge £100 + VAT. It is not normally necessary for you to also inform them but may speed the process if you do. They will send out the answers to his questions plus the accounts etc. if requested. There will also be a demand for any unpaid service charges and ground rent. If it is necessary in your case to obtain a receipt for Ground Rent there may be an additional charge for that. Assuming Pier are working on behalf of your freeholder (Regis?) there will then be charges for filing the Notices of Transfer and Mortgage but these will be for your buyer to pay.
Basically, it depends on the terms of your lease whether there are any other charges but your solicitor should be able to weed out any unnecessary ones.
If they are anything like Equity, they will take ages to reply to letters and Equity used to have the cheek to offer a fast track reply if you pay an additional amount. They would then try (but not guarantee) to answer within 8 - 10 working days. Very good of them!
Good luck.
Received on: Fri May 16 11:03:21 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Jane McGilvray (bollybeau@blueyonder.co.uk)
Comment: Our property has recently been shipped over to Pier from Equity!! We have just received an offer for our flat and hope to move asap. Can anyone tell me what fees/nonsense we can expect from Pier? Our flat is one of three in a Victorian conversion and they have never done anything over and above collect our ground rent and fleece us for ridiculous buildings insurance premiums, and more recently management charges (ha ha)!! Are they not obliged to confirm any detail requested by our solicitor regarding company accounts, our account etc? Should we advise them that we are in the process of selling? Please try not to depress us too much!! Thanks in advance.
Received on: Thu May 15 23:09:43 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Jane McGilvray (bollybeau@blueyonder.co.uk)
Comment: Our property has recently been shipped over to Pier from Equity!! We have just received an offer for our flat and hope to move asap. Can anyone tell me what fees/nonsense we can expect from Pier? Our flat is one of three in a Victorian conversion and they have never done anything over and above collect our ground rent and fleece us for ridiculous buildings insurance premiums, and more recently management charges (ha ha)!! Are they not obliged to confirm any detail requested by our solicitor regarding company accounts, our account etc? Should we advise them that we are in the process of selling? Please try not to depress us too much!!
Received on: Thu May 15 23:09:26 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Aprille (Email)
Comment: Mr Hewett from the ARMA called me this morning. They are well aware of the problems we have been facing with Equity. He asked me to send him the details of the problems we've been facing with regards to our property and that he would call one of the Directors at Equity to ask them to send us an action plan within the next few days.
He seemed very empathetic .... and said he was taking a personal interest in trying to resolve our problems with Equity.
Received on: Thu May 15 15:59:17 2003 from IP address: 194.203.135.254
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Sorry, the link would have been useful! http://www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk/
Received on: Thu May 15 00:24:03 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.65
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: I've put together a site for those of you who have resident management companies. It gives a step by step guide to how to sack your managing agent. It is based purely on my experiences and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. I will be adding to it soon, links pages etc. but the basics are there. I will be very disappointed if any of you are still with you know who in 3 months time ;-)
Received on: Thu May 15 00:22:35 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.65
From: Ken Frost (kenfrostcia@kenfrost.com)
Comment: If it is of any help to people, I have drafted a proforma letter which can be used to try to raise public awareness of this issue. It can be sent to the media, Tedy Taylor, ARMA etc.
To download it go to the "Worse Than Worthless" section of my website www.kenfrost.com and click on the Equity section.
Received on: Wed May 14 19:00:21 2003 from IP address: 80.1.10.22
From: Aprille (Email)
Comment: I called ARMA this morning ...... to speak with a Mr Hewitt, as I was given his name when I emaild them. He was away for the day .. so am will probablt speak with him tomorrow.
Am glad to hear that they are well aware of this HORRID company .... we are still having tough times with them.
They take apathy to a whole new dimension!
Received on: Wed May 14 13:06:22 2003 from IP address: 194.203.135.254
From: Phil (pik3@student.open.ac.uk)
Comment: I sent an e-mail to ARMA (info@arma.org.uk) outlining the basics of my issues with Equity. They phoned me within a couple of hours and were interested to hear the details. They offered to take up my complaints but since these have been resolved (for now) he agreed to keep my comments on the Equity file and get in touch if he needed documentary evidence.
I was impressed with ARMA's knowledge about Equity and I got the impression that they are not too keen on companies abusing their membership scheme.
A very therapeutic experience - I recommend it!
Received on: Wed May 14 10:57:57 2003 from IP address: 62.172.229.8
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: By the way I have written to one other person who may be able to help, Sir Teddy Taylor. He is MP for the constituency in which Equity are based.
I guess if his post bag fills up with letters about this, he may consider looking into this; even if we don't live in his constituency.
You can write to him at the House of Commons, or email him by going to www.parliament.uk and looking him up in the members' directory then click on the email link.
Received on: Tue May 13 12:34:36 2003 from IP address: 81.103.218.185
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Love the "Sun Tzu" quote Ken, think I'll stick that on my wall!
Re the invoices, I think it is s22 of Landlord & Tenant Act that says you have the right to inspect documents, not sure if there is a time limit on it so will have to dig out the law books tomorrow and have a look at the exact wording (too knackered right now!) Anyway, Equity do not put that on their site for our benefit - it is the law.
Received on: Tue May 13 00:23:37 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.74
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Pam, ARHM is the association of retired housing management (or something like that). I am not retired, but they have a logo on equity's site; and so I clicked on it and got through to their site and sent them an email.
Suggest you do the same, retired or not, we are doing our bit for others; by alerting them to the problems we are encountering with equity. I for one would not want to be retired and having to deal with this organisation.
Please could you send me Dean's address to my email? Thanks
Sarah, point taken about the MD of Equity adding value to this. However, I suspect that by pushing the media angle ARMA may be worried they get shown to be not so good at their job. Aagin this is another angle to push for media coverage, let the papers etc know that equity are members of ARMA and ARHM; and that these bodies have had complaints...yet have not kicked them out.
Sun Tzu (I know I have not spelt this correctly) in his treatise on The Art of War; said that if your enemy is more powerful than you, do all you can to annoy him...
Re your comments on seeing invoices held by Equity. Their website clearly says that as "customers" we have the right to inspect the books of account etc. I have run internal audit depts both in the UK and abroad, and indeed have run the international fraud investigation bureau of Philips; I can assure you that if the comment about letting the customers see the books is genuine, then that has to include being able to view the invoices etc.
Push them hard, and if they still refuse; then remind them they are in breach of their policy as per their website.
On another matter, the fact that their website implies (by the name) that they are a plc seems to me (I am a qualified chartered accountant) a slight exaggeration. I will look into telling Companies House about this.
Received on: Mon May 12 17:19:02 2003 from IP address: 81.103.218.236
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Oh and no, I am not sure there is no fraud involved. I just have no evidence of it in our case. Others have said that they were charged for work that wasn't done but there was no indication of that in our current financial year. Equity would not give me the invoices for previous years so I have to rely on the integrity of the accountant. In our case they seemed to rely on huge charges for apparently legitimate services such as £400 for being Company Secretary, £350 for being a director even though they had made no effort to recruit these posts from within the leaseholders and had not informed us of the charges. Then there is the £50 charge each time you sublet (they told us that the insurers had to be informed - complete bollocks) and the ridiculous charges for answering solicitors enquiries when flats are sold.
Received on: Mon May 12 13:12:52 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.208
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Don't hold your breath Ken, I got a letter from Tony Dean after complaining to ARMA, it was sent to the wrong address so I did'nt get it until about two months later and I think it must have been meant for someone else since it did not address any of the problems I had complained about. I complained again on January the 17th and have received no response other than a phone call from ARMA.
Sorry Pam, I thought you were saying that you did not want Equity's membership rescinded - my mistake. I am beginning to doubt ARMA's willingness to act though. I would have thought there was enough just in yours and my case to suspend Equity yet 4 and a half months on they are still members and can advertise on their site.
I've just recorded an interview with BBC radio 4 about the problems with managing agents and what happened to us. Unfortunately it is only 6 minutes long and I had to keep it general to avoid getting my ass sued but hopefully it will help to highlight the problem.
Received on: Mon May 12 13:01:41 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.208
From: Name Pam (Email)
Comment: Ken - very interested in what you had to say in your latest 'Comment'. Will be interesting to see if Tony Dean does contact you. By the way, I have his home address which I got from the list of Directors at Companies House last year. Ifyou want it I can let you have it. Who are ARHM, I have not come across that organisation. Can you let me have their address and I will write to them detailing the problems we had with Equity. Do you still have Equity as your Managing Agent? Will speak to my co-Directors about getting letters off to the media.
Many thanks. I look forward to another entry from you regarding the result of ARMA asking Tony Dean to contact you.
Received on: Mon May 12 12:18:58 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.75
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Pam, funny you should say that about contacting ARMA. Feeling on a roll yesterday I dropped ARMA and ARHM (no I am not retired, or living in sheltered accommodation!) a couple of notes yesterday.
I emphasised that I have posted my troubles on my website and written to newspapers and Watchdog.
ARMA rang me today and said that they would call Tony Dean and ask him to contact me in the next few days. ARMA then will call me back in a week to see what happens. I said I will go through the procedure, but am scpetical about the result.
ARHM wrote to me saying that they have had a number of complaints, and that they are in discussions with Equity.
It seems to me that we are at a nexus here.
Namely, if others who are unhappy with Equity, write to the papers, watchdog and ARMA/ARHM; then we may be able to tip the balance in our favour.
I really do think that if we make a co-odinated push together we can get somewhere.
Please do write/email the media.
Received on: Mon May 12 11:27:20 2003 from IP address: 81.103.216.71
From: Name Pam (Email)
Comment: Sarah: I said the worse thing that could happen to Equity would be to have their membership of ARMA rescinded because of the shame of having this published in ARMA's Journal. I hope you are right that we won't be charged the management fee for collecting ground rent. I know that ARMA are interested in all the problems people are having with Equity's apalling performance and are also interested in hearing from anyone who has had a bad hand-over of paperwork etc. once Equity have been sacked. So, anyone reading this posting would be well advised to make ARMA aware of all the problems they are having/had with Equity. I notice Ken Frost has written to the main broadsheets. Just what can we do to get justice for the long suffering leaseholders? Where do we go from here? Are you quite sure, Sarah, that there is no fraud involved here?
Received on: Sun May 11 20:25:11 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.69
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: No Pam, I now run the two blocks myself and we have nothing to do with Equity/Pier/Regis or any that bunch thankfully! I'm sure you will not get the "management charge" if they know that you know about it already. Why do you say the "worse" thing would be for Equity to have their membership rescinded? I used to think that because if they lost their membership they would be answerable to no one but they take no notice of ARMA either. I never got a satifactory reply from Tony Dean despite numerous complaints and they are still up to the same old tricks. I just wish more people would complain to ARMA so that they are in no doubt as to the scale of the problem.
Received on: Sun May 11 19:02:20 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.75
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: I for one feel that this company's poor standards of professionalism need to be brought to public attention.
In addition to giving them a special WTW award on my website; I have written to Watchdog the other week, and today I have written to the main broadsheets.
maybe others could do the same?
Received on: Sun May 11 16:15:39 2003 from IP address: 81.103.219.188
From: NamePam (Email)
Comment: Yes Sarah, I am the person you spoke to on the telephone. I saw what I thought was your comment on our conversation. However, I did not actually say that we were being charged the maintenance fee for collecting our ground rent; what I did say was that I was worried that we might be. Our ground rent demands are coming out on 23rd May so I am told by Pier Management, so we shall see then. In the meantime I have written to all our owners telling them to be on the look out for any additional charge! Yes, we also went to ARMA last May with our concerns. Tony Dean kept advising ARMA that they had answered all our queries but I wrote to ARMA each time saying that was not so. ARMA were helpful in that they wrote to Tony Dean telling him to reply to my letters, which worked. I know that Tony Dean was called before ARMA's Practice Committee in January of this year to be told that Equity were not conforming to ARMA's rules. I think the worst thing that could happen is that Equity could have their membership of ARMA rescinded and an article would appear in ARMA's journal confirming that. Are you with Pier Management now? I will keep you informed as to our ground rent demands.
Received on: Sun May 11 14:15:04 2003 from IP address: 195.92.198.74
From: Sarah (steve@taurusdiving.fsnet.co.uk)
Comment: Pam, was it you I spoke to a while ago? You went to ARMA I think...did you get anywhere? I'm more and more of the opinion that self regulation through ARMA does not work. If so, would Equity still be a member?
Received on: Sun May 11 01:24:23 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: NamePam (Emaillewin@gilmore70.co,uk)
Comment: We discovered this webiste several weeks ago and have read with interest all the comments that have been posted by disgruntled leaseholders and we would like to add our name to the list.
Our problems began in March 2002 we were given a budget showing a 60% increase. in service charge. We were told we had a deficit of £9,000 against our account but then Equity found £11,000 of our in a reserve account. We were told by the Accocuntant that this £11,000 had been used over a period of several years to off-set a short-fall in the service charge account. In March 2002 we were presented with a demand for 100% of the upcoming decorating charge, despite having paid into a specific decorating fund for four years!
We have had a completely demolished boundary wall down since Easter 2002 which we are now trying to sort out with the Insurers which Equity had not sorted out on our behalf.
We have also discovered that we have been charged £300 representing Equity's 10% cut for work which was never carried out in Summer 2001. We asked for invoices as proof of work carried out but were only provided with half of the invoices. Therefore, to date £1,400 worth of invoices remain unaccounted for. We also discovered we had been charged for at least three invoices that were nothing to do with our property.
We discovered we had had no leaseholder Directors for 2 years but had not been told by Equity and in the meantime Equity had appointed themselves Director and Co. Sec. of our Management Co. without our knowledge or permission. We were, however, charged £350 for their secretarial fee and then charge another £100 for Equity's inability to get the Co. accounts to Companies House on time. Also one of the leaseholder's account shows she is one month in arrears for service charge yet the cheque was given into the hand of the Property NManager in September 2002 for the 1st October payment. This cheque still remains "lost" to this day!
Three of the owners became Directors and Co. Sec. in August 2002 to try and regain control of our Company and monies being spent on our behalf. We were told by Equity that if we insisted on being sole signatories they would resign. but this never happened.
By unanimous agreement we gave Equity three months notice from October 2002 despite there being no written agreement between Equity and our Company that could be found. Our new Managing Agent took over mid-January 2003 only to find that the buildings insurance had not been renewed in December by Equity. Equity also took until 3rd March 2003 to provide the new Agent with a reconciled cheque. It transpired that an accountant had to be employed to try and sort out the muddle we had inherited.
The last year has been a huge learning curve but one we could well have done without. The highlight of last year was the sacking of Equity.
Received on: Sat May 10 12:06:26 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.66
From: Steve (sowen_uk@hotmail.com)
Comment: Crofton, either you have been drinking or you are not referring to the same company or you set yourself really low standards - I personally would not let that company wipe my a**e let alone anywhere near my building!
Received on: Fri May 9 08:44:27 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Aprille (Email)
Comment: Crofton .. are you kidding???? Sure you're referring to the same Equity the rest of us are????
Received on: Thu May 8 13:13:34 2003 from IP address: 194.203.135.254
From: Alderman (Email)
Comment: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
APRIL FOOL, IT MUST BE!
Received on: Thu May 8 12:47:23 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.25
From: crofton (croftonbonney@hotmail.com)
Comment: i deem the service provided by equity to be of an excellent standard.
Received on: Thu May 8 11:19:46 2003 from IP address: 212.219.58.226
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: hello again everyone..re the comments about watchdog I heartily agree...bombard them with complaints it is the only way.
I wrote to them about 10 days ago, also wrote to The Express and have set up a page on my website www.kenfrost.com called "Worse Than Worthless". Suggestions for any other media channels I could use?
Re equity they also operate under the name Michael Keith & Co.
They have invoiced me for Jul-Dec 2003 charges...some 2 months in advance..this surely is the only example of efficiency demonstrated by this company.
good luck to all
Ken
Received on: Sat May 3 12:09:28 2003 from IP address: 81.103.217.5
From: Sarah ()
Comment: Becky, we had exactly the same problem with missing money and paperwork. I went to ARMA and whilst they helped to apply some pressure, they could not sort out the problem for us. If your accountant has come up with a figure that Equity owe you and Equity cannot or will not justify the differance you may have to sue them for it.
We actually had to freeze the bank accounts and Natwest mediated between us and Equity whilst the settlement was agreed. There was still another few thousand pounds in Equity's own client accounts as well and it took 3 1/2 months to get that out of them. Is your accountant in direct contact with Equity about this?
Received on: Sat May 3 11:46:13 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.69
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: I see what you mean Steve, I took our blocks over halfway through the financial year and there were very few invoices and all tallied with work we knew to have been done. They would not however give me the paperwork for previous years, citing some code or other, so I presume any dodgy bills go in at the end of the year when they know how much is left over. It always amazed me how they managed to spend exactly what the budget was - I suppose they could be very expert at estimating expenditure.......na!
Received on: Sat May 3 11:30:06 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.69
From: A.Rogers (Sale) (Email)
Comment: Also increase of 60% in building insurance Cannot get to the bottom of it.
Received on: Sat May 3 10:20:00 2003 from IP address: 172.189.246.26
From: A.Rogers (rogersa27@aol.com)
Comment: RegisGroup(Barclays)Ltd Our new freeholders 30 flats.5 Ashton Court 60 moss Lane sale Sale cheshire M33 5AS. Equity unbeleavable. Total rubbish. Also at others blocks of flats Tytherington Court Maccelsfield. carton Manshions Whalley Range. Norwood Court Streatford. Wardle Court Sale.Just up the road from us. The landlord & tenants Act is a joke to them. A. Rogers.
Received on: Sat May 3 10:04:02 2003 from IP address: 172.189.246.26
From: Steve (sowen_uk@hotmail.com)
Comment: Sarah, my point is that Equity more often than not claim to have carried out works or had contractors carry out works, charge the residents the fees yet nothing is carried out. The importance of being able to force Equity into producing a paper trail for the accounts to your premises is ALL TO IMPORTANT, I am aware that a FINANCE DIRECTOR from a large PLC recently got access to Equities 'Accounts' Dept after major hassle and commented that the accounts were a shambles, paperwork was missing or non-existant and contractors were not being paid for months on end, hence work on sites is not being done because no-body is paying them! When my block moved away from Equity, the new Agent was sent unpaid Invoices of over £4,000 yet Equity had recieived all the Service Charge payments - the accounts for the block are SO BAD the new Agents Auditors are still trying to sort them out 5 months later and has advised that it may be August before they are complete - what a farce Equity are, they should be banned from ever handling anybodies money or property!
Received on: Sat May 3 02:44:21 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Becky (beckybumbly@hotmail.com)
Comment: I was very intregued to read all these messages, I had thought that we (our flats) were the only ones that were suffering at the hands of Equity. I agree with everyone who has complained i.e. can't get thru to anybody of significance, work takes ages to be completed / ends up being shoddy. I am one of the directors of our residents association and last year (June 2002) we sacked them and now we are being taken very good care of by a local company in Enfield.
Even though we are not dealing with Equity any more, would you believe but they are still causing us major problems. We gave them 3 months notice (even though we didnt have an actual contract with them, we assumed that if we gave full notice period, then they would have time to organise our paperwork. What an utter joke to assume that they would do this. It took them months to give us our paperwork, ie invoices, accounts, bank statements, insurance documents etc. We got the last (or so we thought) of the invoices and bank statements only in Nov / Dec 2002. Equity had also bodged up our Insurance policy by completely stopping the payments and then when I called them up, we found that we were not insured. I had to make the final payment out of my own pocket until our new management company took over and sorted every thing out.
Our main serious problem now is that our accountant has completed our accounts and there is a discrepency with the monies and invoices. It looks like Equity have left us short of approx £2,600, which I must say I was gobsmacked. We have contact ARMA with the hope that they can get Tony Dean to pull out his finger and sort out our serious problem.
Our Accountant has contacted Companies House and extended the date for when we can submit our accounts. As far as I know that if we can't sort this out then we could be charged £1,000 for something that is not our fault.
I also heard on the grapevine that Equity are taking over lots of other management agencies and are planning to float their company on the market.
I used to work for a maintance company in London, if I had treated our customers the way that Equity treat theirs, I would have been sacked. I can't get over the fact that they are such a crappy company and yet still in business. It's a shame that 'That's Life' is not on TV anymore, am sure Ester would love to get her teeth into this company.
Received on: Fri May 2 22:39:04 2003 from IP address: 139.92.234.206
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Sorry Steve, section 22 of what? If you mean the Landlord and tenant act, the notice is to require the landlord to allow the tenant to inspect and make copies of the accounts, receipts and other documents relevant to his building. If the "Agent is failing to carry out essential repairs and maintenance of your property in accordance with the Lease", presumably there will not be any invoices and the tenant will have to seek enforcement of the Landlords Covenants by other means.
Received on: Fri May 2 00:54:09 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Steve Owens ()
Comment: This is a copy of a message deleted from Eqities forum posted by the Equaliser.
"Also, if your Managing Agent is failing to carry out essential repairs and maintenance of your property in accordance with the Lease, issue a Section 22 Notice and inform your Freeholder of their blithering incompetence - many Leaseholders when speaking to their freeholders are finding out the Freeholders hate Equity just as much!"
Received on: Thu May 1 19:24:43 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Alderman (Email)
Comment: That was the email I sent to Watchdog, come on people lets bombard them with complaints, imagine seeing the director of Equity being grilled on watchdog as to why Pier management was the same company as Equity, HA HA HA HA HA.
Received on: Thu May 1 17:19:29 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.25
From: Alderman (Email)
Comment: I CAN NOT BELIEVE YOU HAVE TAKEN NONE OF THE EQUITY COMMENTS SERIOUSLY!!! I MEAN COME ON YOU DID A 10 MINUTE STORY ABOUT B&Q KITCHENS LAST WEEK!! EVERY WEEK YOU DO A STORY ABOUT MISSING KITCHENS, NOBODY CARES!! EQUITY ARE FULL TIME COWBOYS, OPEN YOUR EYES, PLEASE HELP US EXPOSE THEM. TO SEE THEM GO OUT OF BUSINESS WOULD TRULY MAKE MY DAY!
PLEASE VISIT THIS SITE:
http://www.consumerdeals.co.uk/regisbook.html
OR EVEN EQUITY'S OWN SITE:
http://www.equityplc.com/forum/forum.asp
THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS, WELL OVER 500, THIS COMPANY SHOULD BE MANAGING YOUR WATCHDOG 500 CLUB!!!
Received on: Thu May 1 17:18:05 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.25
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Sara, I've e-mailed you direct as it was a bit of a long winded reply! The basic answer though was if your block has a residents Management Company, get it organised, appoint directors if necessary and sack them.
Received on: Thu May 1 14:46:15 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.71
From: sara henry (sara_henry21@msn.com)
Comment: regis took over managing our block of flats 6 months after i purchased. I have had many problems with them the staff are down right rude and ignorant! we have had no intercom system in our block for at least 6 months we had to leave the main entrance open for postmen etc all day! I think every person in our block has rung to report it and complain but you just dont seem to get anywhere! -No matter how much you scream!!
We then had problems with the drains and could not use the toilet etc for a week! Equity said they were sending someone out straight away! one week later after endless phone calls i called someone out myself and got them to invoice equity. It took the drainage company 5 months before they were finally paid for the work.I was told because Mr Cook did not authorise the work then they should not have to pay it!
I am absolutely disgusted by the way this company and their staff handle these matters. I have just put my flat on the market as i can not possibly carry on with a company like this supposedly maintaining this property!
If anyone can suggest anything to do or ways of getting rid of this company then i would be grateful for your comments
Received on: Wed Apr 30 23:17:32 2003 from IP address: 81.97.22.153
From: Dean (Email)
Comment: Many thanks Sarah! I'll let you all know how it goes.
Received on: Tue Apr 29 14:29:14 2003 from IP address: 194.168.3.18
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: It seems to have been a common thing for Equity to send out demands for the current quarter with no mention of arrears. That practice resulted in combined arrears for our two blocks of £25,000 with many Lessees not aware that they were in debt.
I can see that if your solicitor received one of these it would have looked like there was no problem, however it is also normal practice to specifically ask in writing, the current balance of the account. The demand in itself is not (although I agree it should be) a full picture. If your solicitor received that demand in answer to his question about the balance, then he has a point but if he just received it as a matter of course and assumed the account was clear to that date he has assumed to much.
I do appreciate that he probably doesn't know Equity as well as some of us do and the information he received was very misleading. Hopefully he will be able to sort it out for you. Keep us posted and good luck.
Received on: Mon Apr 28 16:35:44 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Dean (Email)
Comment: Steve/Sarah!
That's EXACTLY what Equity DIDN'T do. Whilst we were buying the property, my solicitor wrote to Equity to ask for the most current statement regarding maintainence charges and it had NO mention of the arrears in the statement they supplied. It only had the details for the current quarter. My solicitors also did secure a retainer but the arrears that we didn't even know about amounted to more than twice the amount left and the additional charge they served for the Section 146 is based on the arrears going back a year before we even saw the property. My solicitors are in the process of chasing this up now because as far we see it, we have no legal obligation to pay because it wasn't made aware to us at any point during our purchase. I'll post up what the result is.
Ken! - I've also written a stinker and posted it on theWatchdog website. Let's hope that adds more ammunition.
Received on: Mon Apr 28 11:37:25 2003 from IP address: 194.168.3.18
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Dean, ref your commenta bout reporting Equity to Watchdog; last week I emailed the BBC via their Watchdog site about my problems as detailed on the "Worse Than Worthless" page of my website www.kenfrost.com.
If I hear anything I will let you know. However, that does not preclude others from contacting them..the more that do the more likely they are to do a prog about it.
Received on: Sun Apr 27 12:22:48 2003 from IP address: 81.103.216.13
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Check out this link http://www.carl.org.uk/CommonAbuses.html . I think this must be where Equity got their business plan from!
Received on: Sat Apr 26 19:33:23 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.69
From: Steve Owens (sowens_uk@hotmail.com)
Comment: The debt in relation to Service Charge always relates to the property and not the leaseholder, therefore it is standard practice for solicitors to ensure that any service charge payments outstanding are settle prior to or on completion. Many solicitors after exchange of contract will contact the Managing Agent again to get a final figure especially as many leaseholders pay quarterly or monthly. If Equity informed your solicitors of the debt and you solicitor allowed you to proceed to completion without an undertaking from the vendors solicitors to settle on completion, I would sue the solicitor. If the debt was NOT declared by the Agent to the solicitors, there is no legal obligation to pay the debt as the contract for the purchase did not declare it.
Received on: Sat Apr 26 18:12:14 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: The Deed of Covenant is in effect your promise to take over all the responsibilities of the previous leaseholder including the payment of service charges. I suggest you sort out the problem of your sellers debt before signing anything. It is normal that there is a separate charge for it. It will not necessarily get you out of paying the arrears though, just the fact that you are now the leaseholder will probably be enough to make you liable.
Your solicitors will have written to Equity with some initial enquiries and they should have obtained written confirmation that the account was clear. Sometimes, if the seller has a larger debt, they settle it on completion but again your solicitor should have agreed this in writing. If they had done that, you would be able to go back to the seller for the money. When I bought my flat my solicitor also made the seller lodge £200 with their solicitor to cover any extra charges that may be made after completion.
It sounds to me like your solicitors have not done their jobs.
Received on: Sat Apr 26 14:02:42 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.66
From: Dean (Email)
Comment: Alderman! We've got EXACTLY the same problem. On top of the RIDICULOUS number of problems we're trying to get sorted with our block and Equitys' relative indifference, they are trying to charge us with arrears "apparently" left by the previous owner before we bought it. They've even issued us with an additional charge for serving a Section 146 Arrears Notice based on charges going back a year before we even started looking for and even SAW this flat. Our solicitors got in touch with the previous owners solcitors and they said that Equity didn't make the previous owner or EITHER solicitor aware of these arrears at ANY point during our purchase. What the hell is that about? I'm planning to meet my solicitor early next week to see what we can do about them. Does anyone have any ideas or been through similar?
Another thing. Has anyone complained to Watchdog about them? If not, why don't we? The way they operate is just TOO suspect, ie. not doing as supposed to/promised, over-charging, changing addresses, affiliation with Pier, etc)
Received on: Sat Apr 26 11:15:20 2003 from IP address: 81.77.229.171
From: Alderman (Email)
Comment: When we bought our flat, we paid a solicitor to sort it all out. 2 months after we moved in we were contacted by equity that we had to get the deed of covenat signed over to us (100 and something quid) and they tried to charge us for the late payments fromt he bloke that lived there before us. my question is this, surely my solicitor should have paid for the deed of covenant to be signed (out of the fee we had already paid her), is this right or not, as our solicitor didnt even tell us equity was our managing agent.
Received on: Fri Apr 25 13:54:49 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.25
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: The deed and notice charges are the norm and are legal (although immorally high!). What is the one for "consent" - consent for what???
Received on: Thu Apr 24 13:55:40 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.208
From: Shocked! (Email)
Comment: Thanks Sarah
It is a management charge (its now been raised to 96.82) and I am pretty sure the lease doesn't allow for it, so I should be able to get rid. I also received the various transfer fees..OMG! £100 (+VAT) for deed, £50 (+VAT) for two notices and £50(+VAT) for consent!!! Just under £300 just so they can change the name on some paperwork! Hopefully shouldn't have to pay 1/2 of it :(, but its still taking the pee - particularly as they have held up the whole flat-buying process (we have just been waiting on them to send details for weeks on end)
Received on: Thu Apr 24 10:28:29 2003 from IP address: 80.193.85.7
From: phoebe (phoebefrangoul@hotmail.com)
Comment: i've just come across your sight while looking for regis' address on the internet! i am writing yet another letter complaining about a disgusting damp wall in my room of the flat we rent from them which i've been telling them about for the last eighteen months. in that time, the wall has become covered in mildew and is damaging my property. i have been assured that the work will be done, although now the flat has been bought by someone else, i have a horrible feeling that they'll stall until the new owners take over. they obviously will not want to fix it as it was not their problem in the first place. am i paranoid to think that regis will leave us in the lurch like this? after reading this website, i have a horrible feeling that i'm not.
Received on: Wed Apr 23 11:53:28 2003 from IP address: 195.92.154.249
From: Sarah (steve@taurusdiving.fsnet.co.uk)
Comment: Tony, if you go ahead with the flat there are a couple of things to watch out for.
Regis will probably have appointed Pier Management to collect ground rent and maybe insurance premiums. Pier may charge you a "maintenance fee" for this, even though they do no maintenence. Most modern leases do not provide for this charge. Read yours carefully or ask your solicitor before you pay it.
Your real problems will start if you also have Equity as your managing agent. Cheque whether your block has a resident management company and which agents are appointed. If it's Equity, you can organise your company and sack them if you all wish so it's not the end of the world.
Good luck!
Received on: Mon Apr 21 16:08:57 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.74
From: Tony (southend@martinco.com)
Comment: I am about to purchase a flat that has regis as the freeholders - has anybody got any advice as i am hearing awful stories about the company.
Received on: Sun Apr 20 17:51:26 2003 from IP address: 62.24.252.191
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: someone asked me to post this for them..
Please no longer add comments to this page. Discussion of Equity and Regis has moved to the discussion forum.
Received on: Thu Aug 21 11:59:59 2003
From: DC (Email)
Comment: I have just come across this site when trying to find out if Pier Management is an ARMA member. I was going to complain about their lack of response to e-mails and faxes. It was depressing reading in viewing all the complaints, but at least I know I am not alone now. I am just so pleased that I am only paying Ground Rent to this company (despite the fact they still tried to charge us a "maintenance charge" on handover from Equity!!). It took 3 e-mails and 2 faxes to get an apology out of them on this matter. I count myself fortunate!
I was horrified to hear that Equity had taken over CPM. Heaven help the leaseholders paying maintenance to this company. When, oh when are property management companies going to get their act together? There must be a real gap in the market for a company to respond to its customers in a professional manner and deal with issues efficiently.
Received on: Tue Aug 12 13:53:27 2003 from IP address: Unknown
From: Pam (Email)
Comment: Sarah. I have just come across Pete's message regarding an alternative website for Equity. I have tried to get into it, without success. As you know, I am not very computer literate, and wondered if you could send me a massage via the regisbook/html address to guide me into the use of the new site. Sorry to be a pain, and thanks in anticipation.
Pam... basic instructions: Click here to open up the forum in a new window... At the forum, you'll see a list of messages. Press the "Start new topic" to start a new topic, or click on a subject to open and read existing messages. To add a reply, scroll to the bottom of the messages, and press reply. Pete
Received on: Thu Jul 24 18:36:00 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Pete (consumerdeals)
As you've probably noticed, Equity's own forum has been withdrawn, and this page is getting a little large. Accordingly, I've just set up a new format forum for this page. Please take a look at www.consumerdeals.co.uk/equity and see if this is a better home for discussion of Equity and Regis. Comments appreciated. Pete
Received on: Thu Jul 24 11:06:13 2003
From: Jayne (jayne.gibbs@zoom.co.uk)
Comment: I could never understand why Equity allowed this forum on their website, I mean who wants a noticeboard on their own website which complains and complains and COMPLAINS about that diabolical company. I am about to move and can't tell you how relieved I am to get shot of this management company. They want money for nothing. They are absolute rubbish!
Received on: Tue Jul 22 14:05:02 2003 from IP address: 194.201.9.157
From: Sarah (sarah@leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Hmmmmm, that sounds suspiciously like an advert Lee!
BTW, I blew up my computer a while ago and lost all that stuff you sent me for the site, do you think you could send it again? I also lost my ftp programme so it could be a while before I do it but I'd appreciate the input.
Received on: Sun Jul 20 23:00:53 2003 from IP address: 81.79.102.228
From: Lee (lee.simm@wthmanagement.com)
Comment: Ken, we do not advertise, if we advertise the money has to come from somewhere - guess where - yes, you the leaseholders so we don't do it! We beleive that a company offering services such as our own does not need to advertise, that simply by doing the job we are paid for effectively, we will increase our business, which I am pleased to say we do, every year at no cost to our clients. We produce no shiney leaflets, we have no large flash company cars and in fact, we operate on a non profit making basis....
Received on: Sun Jul 20 22:31:47 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Lee,
I unreservedly apologise.
Glad to hear there are large companies that do a good job.
I think, reading the other notes here, that there may be others holding the mistaken belief that Equity are the largest player in town. Maybe you need to up the advertising?
Received on: Sun Jul 20 12:01:27 2003 from IP address: 80.1.26.64
From: Lee Simm (lee.simm@wthmanagement.com)
Comment: Ken, thanks for the vote of confidence! Equity are maybe one of the largest Agents around, but they are not the only one. WTH Management started because of companies such as those and we continue to grow from strength to strength bringing a new style of Management to Leaseholders... my clients will be very disappointed to think that you believe Equity are the only players... there are more out there if you look and like WTH some of them do a bloody good job!
Received on: Sun Jul 20 10:58:20 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Mike Whitaker (Email)
Comment: I've just been speaking to a friend of mine who works for estates with CPM as their managing agents. Allegedly Equity will be keeping the CPM name. They may even be considering moving their head office to Hoddesdon, Herts which is where CPM moved to 2-3 years ago. Does this look like them trying to start again. Could Equity be about to 'merge' with CPM, with a new address, and nowhere near as much bad publicity?
Received on: Thu Jul 17 14:36:25 2003 from IP address: 80.1.26.211
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: FYI, I have just dropped Watchdog an email about the Equity forum being shut down, and about CPM takeover (suggested it was gorunds for OFT investigation). I do hope this doesn't emabarass Equity.
Maybe others who have direct contact with CPM, and who are worried about what will happen should drop Watchdog and OFT a note.
Received on: Thu Jul 17 12:28:16 2003 from IP address: 80.1.26.243
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Wrt the CPM issue, there are grounds for raising this with the OFT. Equity are worthless, and by growing they bring misery to more people who cannot find an alternative property management company (because Equity are the only player in town).
By the way Equity (I know you read this board), I haven't forgotten that you owe me damages...I have an action plan ready for implementation should you fail to compensate me.
Received on: Thu Jul 17 12:07:29 2003 from IP address: 80.1.26.243
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Just realised they shot themselves in the foot perhaps?
Received on: Thu Jul 17 00:00:49 2003 from IP address: 81.77.127.243
From: James (Email)
Comment: Hmm the equity forum is under construction, they are up to something!
Received on: Wed Jul 16 17:43:30 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.41
From: Baz Giddings ()
Comment: What I don't understand is why CPM would want to get into bed so to speak with a company like this ?
Received on: Wed Jul 16 15:56:46 2003 from IP address: 217.37.132.129
From: Lee (lee.simm@wthmanagement.com)
Comment: It is a shame if its true as I know blocks in the Essex area have in the past 12 months transferred from Equity to CPM (formally GEM), so the leaseholders I imagine are going to be slighty peeved after all their work to end up with the same agent they just disposed off!!!
I also noted on a recent visit to Equitys Office in Southend that in the reception, they were still displaying their Membership Certificate to ARMA
Received on: Wed Jul 16 12:14:06 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Mike Whitaker (mike.whitaker@virgin.net)
Comment: Yes, I can confirm the absolutely horrendous news. Equity are about to take over Corporate Property Management. I say horrendous because CPM are another of the biggest property management companies around. The combined entity is going to be a juggernaut! CPM also display many of the traits of Equity - take forever to answer letters/phone calls, if at all ... make dubious charges ... have you heard things like this before?
Received on: Tue Jul 15 21:16:30 2003 from IP address: 80.1.16.123
From: Baz Giddings ()
Comment: Is it true that Equity have taken over Corporate Property Management
Received on: Tue Jul 15 14:39:39 2003 from IP address: 217.37.132.129
From: James (Email)
Comment: Sent a letter out requesting the insurance information, and also enclosed a cheque for the increase (just so that they couldn't start slapping arrears charges on us again). Will keep you all informed if i get a reply within 30 days!
Received on: Mon Jul 14 13:56:39 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.41
From: Lee Simm (lee.simm@wthmanagement.com)
Comment: James, I would query that figure, as the 4.5 million insured value is the total re-intatement cover should the block need to be destroyed and rebuilt. At 4.5 million cover with 105 flats, they are stating just under £43,000 per flat, however that figure includes all costs for the communal areas, temporary accomodation etc, etc and that seem awfully low. In comparison, we manage a block of 53 whose insured value is £3,193,000 at a cost of £115.42 per leasehold, which as you can see gives a total of £60,000 per flat.... on average this year as a Managing Agent, we have seen increases overall, however the average cost per leasehold is somewhere between £110-£132. Terrorism cover is no longer part of the Buildings Insurance and is being charged as a separate policy, however even this is not expensive at an average of £110 per block dependant upon location of course.
Received on: Thu Jul 10 10:32:26 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: James, you have a legal right to that information. Section 30A of the Landlord and Tenant ACT 1985, para 2 of the schedule has effect.
Translated, it says that you should serve notice on the landlord that you require the landlord to supply you with a written summary of the insurance.
You should serve notice on (write to) the landlords agent, Pier Management.
Para 2 (4) of the schedule states that the landlord shall within one month of the request, comply with it by supplying to you:
a) the insured amount
b) the name of the insurer
c) the risks insured
Contact the insurer direct if it is not clear how many of the flats are covered by the policy.
Your lease will tell you what proportion of the total amount is due in respect of your individual flat.
Remember that you cannot compare a quote for the block as a whole with anything anyone quotes for one individual flat. That is not the same thing. When you get the info for the whole block you can then compare like for like.
Received on: Wed Jul 9 14:53:23 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.65
From: Justbrowsing ()
Comment: You are entitled to see a copy of the insurance schedule for your block - this will have on it the rebuild value. From that you can always get the details of the insurer. If there isnt an individual rebuild cost listed, generally you would divide the total amount by the number of dwelilngs. Or....the policy may state that the total development rebuild value is "£xxxx", with a maximum of £xxxx per dwelling. Sorry if not much help....!
Received on: Wed Jul 9 14:35:58 2003 from IP address: 62.30.47.88
From: James (Email)
Comment: Cheers Sarah, the only problem i have with comparing like for like is that Pier can't tell (wont tell me) me what the rebuild value for my flat is. He said the whole complex is £4.2Mil and there are 105 flats. But not my individual amount! What was even weirder was that in our comunal letter box There was only ONE Pier letter, could it be that everyone else doesn't have to pay?
Received on: Wed Jul 9 13:59:58 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.41
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: I don't know where these massive increases are coming from, yes insurance is going up and some landlords are insisting on an additional terrorism premium but it is nowhere near 60%, not even 10%.
If you want to challenge your landlord's choice of insurer you should first make sure you are comparing like for like. Obtain a summary of the insurance which will tell you the insured amount and the risks insured.
If you still feel the premium is excessive you can apply to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal for a determination.
If you are successful, the tribunal will make an order requiring the landlord to nominate or approve another insurer who will be either specified in the order or who satisfies requirements set out in the order.
In other words they'll tell them to appoint someone reasonably priced.
For more information about how to apply to an LVT please go to LEASE
Received on: Wed Jul 9 11:23:24 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.71
From: James (Email)
Comment: Just a quick note to ask if anybody under the Pier ownership has just had there buildings insurance increased by 60%, because we have! I did a bit of research and found out nationwide would insure us for £35, Pier charge us £120! There must be a way to change insurance companies?
Received on: Wed Jul 9 09:47:11 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.41
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Unfortunately you are right Steve there is absolutely nothing you can reasonably do other than be a complete pain in the a** until you get what you want.
There is no governing body, only voluntary membership of ARMA. Pier have never been members and their alias Equity have just been thrown out (they claim to have left of their own accord...)
Good luck with it anyway.
Received on: Tue Jul 8 16:31:20 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.74
From: Steve Carroll (s_carroll@btinternet.com)
Comment: Whatever you do, dont try to sell your property if Pier Management own the lease. We are now in the 12th week of trying to sell our flat since we accepted an offer from a buyer. It is nearly six weeks since Pier received a letter from my solicitors asking for the lease information. Nearly 2 weeks after receiving this letter they said they needed £70+VAT to release this and it was 8-10 days from receipt of payment that the information would be provided. As of today (tue 8 Jul) this still has not been done!! They claim to have posted it, but it has not arrived with my solicitors. I have chased and so have my solicitors all in vain. Today my solicitors offered to pay for the information to be faxed over rather than posted (again?!?), However this cost £10+VAT and could only be done on receipt of payment, which had to be a cheque, a debit/credit card would not do. So we just have to wait to see if they bother to post it again, as that is quicker than posting them a cheque and asking to have it faxed.
My next property is now in jeopardy as we expected to complete weeks ago and it appears there is nothing I can do to make Pier do what they are supposed to do.
And I suppose there is no way of doing something about it legally or through any governing body.
Received on: Tue Jul 8 15:46:08 2003 from IP address: 212.137.21.206
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: John, excellent news.
May I suggest that you drop watchdog an email letting them know that your case has been taken up by the BBC.
Good luck
Received on: Tue Jul 8 10:11:40 2003 from IP address: 80.1.27.27
From: john mead (john@meadbwfcok.freeserve)
Comment: Just to report, one of our residents, Narinda, has twice gone live on 3 Counties Radio's consumer programme to highlight the plight of our estate.
The first time she was invited to send in hard facts, which were followed up last week, by presenter Steven Rhodes.
He reports that he spoke to Equity and that they refused to give a name or indeed their position within the company.
He proceeded to name them, and explained he was from the BBC.
Of course paranoia set in, and they refused to believe him.
He gave a nice little summary of what he thought of Equity thus far, (definately the leading Property Management Company, tho not in the league they were describing!)and told them that maybe one of his other colleagues in the BBC would like to take up the fight.
He hasn't finished with them yet,we await the next episode of sleighting with bated breath.
Thanks to Sarah for her invaluable input thus far, we are now officially at war with the vermin, watch this space!
Received on: Mon Jul 7 21:27:00 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.65
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Well I know what I think! Why would you leave the only recognised trade body for your business? They always seemed so proud of it before. As far as I know the subs are not exactly expensive and they get advertising on ARMA's site into the bargain. They seem to be saying that they are now too big for ARMA. Strange thing to say if you are committed to the same ideals.
Received on: Mon Jul 7 20:34:55 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.74
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: I see on Equity's forum they have finally replied to the growing number of queries as to why they have been dropped by ARMA.
Equity felt that ARMA was not appropriate for them to belong to therefore they did not renew their sub...well that makes perfect sense doesn't it?
Votes please as to whether we believe this...also do you think that this is the excuse they will use for not being members of ARHM as well.
The thread on their site is now locked..I guess they were getting fed up with peoples' comments.
Received on: Mon Jul 7 17:26:55 2003 from IP address: 80.1.8.14
From: Name Bill Noad (Email bill_noad@btinternet.com)
Comment: I have received an e-mail from ARMA, to the effect that Equity have been removed from their register. The reasons for this are confidential. Our battle for Columbia Wharf goes on, but may be nearing the end.
Received on: Fri Jul 4 16:31:41 2003 from IP address: 80.177.155.170
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: It looks like the logo of ARHM (retired housing body) has also been removed. I (although not retired) received an email from them a while ago saying that they were dealing with a number of issues wrt Equity.
Maybe they too have dumped them.
Time to start humming "Ode to Joy" again...all together now...
Received on: Fri Jul 4 15:38:02 2003 from IP address: 80.1.0.34
From: Becky (beckybumbly@hotmail.com)
Comment: Would just like to add that I got a letter too, from ARMA. I also wondered if they are going to remove the ARMA logo from their headed paper. It feels a bit like the Berlin wall coming down, it's just the beginning. We have only just tapped a small chink in Equity's armour. Wonder if anything has been put on Equity's website - or will it be locked? Let's see shall we??
Received on: Fri Jul 4 13:29:47 2003 from IP address: 194.205.96.233
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: I got one too! And I posted here about it about two hours ago - am I being censored Pete?? (Not guilty. Pete!)
Received on: Fri Jul 4 12:49:38 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.76
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: hello everyone.
I received a letter from ARMA today (I will post full text on my site later today).
However, it said that as from 26/3 Equity have been removed from membership.
I wonder if our barrage of complaints had anything to do with that?
Equity will now have to change all their advertising material and website which shows ARMA.
Received on: Fri Jul 4 11:55:58 2003 from IP address: 80.1.30.250
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Joycie, sorry can't help with a contact in your area but the part of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act that gives you the right to manage is not yet in force. It's expected to come in at the end of the summer I think, I did hear as early as August. Because of this you are unlikely to find someone with much "experience" but any solicitor familiar with landlord and tenant issues and company law should be able to help.
Received on: Wed Jul 2 23:08:03 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.74
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Erm, I looked at your site but could not see what your problems were with Goldfield. I don't know anything about them but lots about Equity. I have to say, the choice is yours, but why on earth are you appointing Equity???
If you think you have problems now, just wait til they get their claws into you. Believe me, you ain't seen nothing yet!
Received on: Wed Jul 2 22:42:55 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.74
From: Paul McCormack (paul@paulmccormack.co.uk)
Comment: For ease, here is a link to my web site:
http://www.paulmccormack.co.uk
Received on: Wed Jul 2 14:59:26 2003 from IP address: 62.60.125.67
From: Paul McCormack (paul@paulmccormack.co.uk)
Comment: I read with interest that Mr. Mark Donnellan is trying to poach customers from Equity to his company Goldfield Property Management Ltd. Equity are currently working with us to remove Goldfields and rectify a number of serious legal problems that Mark Donnellan has created. My advice is DO NOT MOVE TO GOLDFIELDS. For more info, see http://www.paulmccormack.co.uk
Received on: Wed Jul 2 14:36:23 2003 from IP address: 62.60.125.67
From: Joycie Lam (joycielam@hotmail.com)
Comment: Hello all.
Please can anyone advise of a solicitor (preferably in the north west) who has experience of dealing with Equity and Right to Manage legislation. Alternatively, just the latter.
If you represent a reputable and trustworthy management company who is looking for a contract in the northwest and are able to assist in the removal of equity as managing agent of my property, please get in touch.
Thanks
Received on: Mon Jun 30 15:45:09 2003 from IP address: 212.158.28.169
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Equity Freedom Day!!!!!!
Please read this whilst humming Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" (from his 9th symphony).
Oh happy days, Equity are no more; we now have, from this day, a new managing agent. A group who have taken over blocks previously mis-managed by Equity.
If you are passing The Bedford Arms tonight..drinks are on me. It is VE Day (Victory over Equity day) here.
Received on: Wed Jun 25 17:13:11 2003 from IP address: 80.1.2.191
From: ConsumerDeals (consumer)
Comment: Hi all... A couple of websites that may be of use when making a complaint...
Grumbletext - Register a complaint by text message
Howtocomplain.co.uk- make an online complaint.
Received on: Mon Jun 23 14:13:52 2003
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Sharon, if you mean John Mead's company this is not uncommon. The most likely reason for it normally is mismanagement by the managing agent. The directors (leaseholders) appoint the agent as company secretary. It is then the agents responsibility to send the accounts and annual returns to Companies House. If this does not happen they will strike the company off the register.
Received on: Sat Jun 21 18:55:12 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Sharon Collins (sharon_collins1@yahoo.com)
Comment: Why did the previous management companies fail twice?
Received on: Fri Jun 20 22:13:12 2003 from IP address: 81.134.96.145
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: I have today sent a well balanced, and clear, letter to Equity re claim for damages.
Posted on www.kenfrost.com under "Worse Than Worthless"
Received on: Fri Jun 20 17:43:48 2003 from IP address: 80.1.23.50
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: I spoke too soon.
Today I was called by equity to be told that the scaffolding etc has been cancelled.
We have appointed new managing agents who start here next week, and they have blocked Equity touching the place.
So near yet so far.
On the bright side at least we will be free of Equity.
Received on: Wed Jun 18 16:44:09 2003 from IP address: 80.1.17.66
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Large erection expected!
I have been told by Equity (see website) that I can expect scaffolding to be erected this week to investigate and repair roof.
Received on: Tue Jun 17 11:38:07 2003 from IP address: 80.1.18.245
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: John, sounds like a real mess. Have you written to Watchdog (they wrote to me today to let me know I am in their database), ARMA (who have been batting for me) and the papers?
If not, it's worth a shot.
I have put a proforma letter on the "Worse Than Worthelss" section of my website www.kenfrost.com which people are welcome to download and use. Maybe it is some help.
Received on: Tue Jun 10 11:39:04 2003 from IP address: 80.1.24.35
From: Steve (sowen_uk@hotmail.com)
Comment: John, I would suggest you contact someone at WTH Management Limited as I am aware the have recently handled a situation just like yours, resurected the old Management Company, appointed Leaseholders as Directors and were even able to stop Equity running the site, even though Equity had already appointed a 'Site Manager'.
Received on: Sun Jun 8 19:48:43 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Sarah (sarah@leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Oh my God what a nightmare! Because your residents management company was allowed to fold you are now at the mercy of Regis/Equity. Your solicitor has already advised you to set up a new company and that would appear to be the best way to go. The charges seem reasonable for the amount of work involved. The only thing is, Regis could be difficult about accepting the ammendment to the lease to the new name. Will Companies House not allow you to re-instate it in the old name? That will also cost you money though as there may be fines to pay under the old name. Try giving them a call, they are normally quite helpful.
It doesn't matter that Regis name is not on the lease, the responsibilities of the lessor were automatically transferred to them when they bought the freehold.
Are you actually paying service charges to Equity? Do they account for how the money has supposedly been spent?
Received on: Sat Jun 7 14:47:11 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: john mead (john@meadbwfcok.freeserve.co.uk)
Comment: Here is a potted history of the last three years, as described to www.lease-advice.org. if any of you know how to get rid of these scum, please advise!!
Hello, I was hoping for some clarification on the following points.
I am the Chairman of the Tenants Association for Peerless Drive. Our freeholder is Regis PLC Limited, that is not a PLC at all. It is owned by Peter and Nick Gould.
The Management Co. stated on the lease went under in 1992, and since then we have been controlled by Equity PLC, formerly known as MAS Ltd. This co. is also run by Peter and Nick Gould.
Basically we are being ripped off by this mob, who consitently break the terms and conditions of their own leases. No outside repairs have occured since 1992, when the lease states it must occur every 5 years. In December last year the Gardener/cleaner was disposed of, since then nothing has happened. We have to maintain the place ourselves now, as the grass was 2ft high, rats had moved into bin sheds, Ivy is destroying the outside of one block, paving slabs are rising up due to tree roots, windows are broken and doorframes are rotten in communal areas, people are falling down stairs where carpets are loose and threadbare, lighting is broken in all the blocks, spalled brickwork caused by leaky overflows is threatening damp onto the timber frames of the bulidings which will lead to demolition, gutters have not been cleared since 1992, bin stores have no felt roofing left, the visual condition of the interior of the blocks is appaling and the general health and well being of all residents is deteriorating due to the stress of dealing with a bunch of conmen and liars.
We have met with them once a year, when false promises have been made. Recently we were conned into believing that our choice of gardener/cleaner would be engaged as soon as we had made a choice. we contacted the suggested firms, brokered deals, and then Mr James Drummond in charge of our estate ( the 4th new one in 3 years) did nothing about it.
Now the telephonists at Equity will tell people it is my fault the grass is 2ft long as I have not contacted them, which is Slander.
They still send bills through, even though they do nothing, and we have had to take the situation into control by carrying out the work ourselves, as our properties are losing value as a result of their inaction, whilst still being expected to send them money every 6 months for work that we are carrying out, out of despair.
We tried to reinstate the Management Co on the lease to the role, however it had been struck off twice previously, so no go there.
Our solicitor Mr Noyce, of Lovell Son & Pitfield informs that to set up a new Management CO will cost us each around £1100 to change the lease and inform the mortgage lenders.Is this right?
Also, when we take up our Right to manage option, will the same costs apply?.
Also is he correct when he states that we have to change the wording on the leases. My point is that Regis PLC the freeholders do not appear on the lease, instead the Brook Street housing asociation. Also the old management company name still appears, wheras at present no Management Company exists.
We have been fighting this war for 3 years now. All we want is to form a management company ourselves, take control of our own destiny, and get rid of these complete bastards who continually ask us for money yet give nothing, and I mean nothing in return.
Thousands of faults have been reported through their switchboard, their preferred method (no trace or evidence), always promises are made and no one ever does anything about it.
please let us know the way forward, we are standing by ready to take control, we just need to get these money launderers off our backs.
yours sincerely, John Mead, Chairman Peerless Drive Tenants Association
Received on: Sat Jun 7 13:30:13 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.75
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Sorry Jane, mispelt your name!
Received on: Sat Jun 7 00:54:20 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.208
From: Sarah (sarah@leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Jayne, of course you can email me. Go ahead.
Received on: Sat Jun 7 00:51:44 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.208
From: Jane McGilivray (Email)
Comment: Sarah,
Would you mind me contacting you directly via e-mail, and if not could you supply me with an address?
Thanks.
Jane.
Received on: Fri Jun 6 19:11:31 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Sarah, ref your question; I took no charge to mean no charge to me or anyone else.
Further letter from them today.
regards to all
Ken
Received on: Fri Jun 6 18:36:49 2003 from IP address: 80.1.13.135
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Bill, is Mark your new agent or is that another 16 they just lost? Happy days!
Received on: Fri Jun 6 15:42:58 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Mark Donnellan (mark@goldfieldproperties.co.uk)
Comment: My company Golfield Properties Limited have taken 8 Managements From Equity and are in the process of taking many more. Without talking about all the problems that Directors/lessees have with Equity, if you wish to look to change Agent I would be happy to discuss this possibility with you?
Mark Donnellan
Office - 01895 274400 or mobile 07957 247798.
Received on: Fri Jun 6 09:57:15 2003 from IP address: 195.147.107.187
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Ken, no cost to you individually but will they recover the cost of the surveyors from the insurance company or charge your residents management company?
Received on: Thu Jun 5 13:03:48 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.74
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Hi Sarah,
thanks for the thought, but as you can see from my blog "Worse Than Worthless" on http://www.kenfrost.com, I have been told no charge.
I will keep it up to date as events progress.
Ken
Received on: Thu Jun 5 12:05:29 2003 from IP address: 80.1.9.84
From: Bill Noad (bill_noad@btinternet.com)
Comment: I am the director of Residents' Management Company for Columbia Wharf, Block A. In six years under Messrs Hull & Co, MAS & Equity, the block has fallen into a state of dilapidation. I have discovered that no formal contract exists between Equity and Block A, which is likely to be the same for many others. In which case, the Residents' directors can dismiss Equity on 30 days notice. I am assured through property lawyers that this is legal. Directors do not need a 51% vote of the lessees to do this, their mandate as directors is all that's needed. In the past year, Equity have lost seven blocks in this fashion, but are now fighting back on Block A. It is always difficult to go down the 51% route because of absent landlords who let out their units and are difficult to contact. I have located an alternative property management company, with excellent references, whose name I will supply on request.
Received on: Tue Jun 3 15:50:48 2003 from IP address: 80.177.155.170
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Hi Ken,
It looks like you finally got their attention! Be careful of the surveyors coming round though, they are almost definately charging for each visit.
Received on: Tue Jun 3 01:41:27 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.76
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Hello everyone,
I received a response from equity to my queries about the never ending saga of my roof repairs. I have posted this to the "Worse Than Worthless" page of http://www.kenfrost.com
I would be grateful to have your opinions as to the veracity, or otherwise, of their responses.
Thanks.
Ken
Received on: Sun Jun 1 17:30:57 2003 from IP address: 80.1.31.37
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Hi Jane
What you have to remember is that those unpleasant individuals are acting on the instuctions of others. They don't receive the training they need to properly fulfill the role of property manager and end up with so many properties to manage they don't know the first thing about any one of them.
Re the management charge - you know my opinion!
Received on: Sat May 31 00:38:05 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.76
From: Jane McGilivray (Email)
Comment: Further to your comment Sarah, I would have to say that over the last four years I have had the misfortune of having dealings with two extremely unpleasant individuals (no names mentioned), neither who could be described as Senior Management. Without wishing to sound pompous, I would sooner do almost anything than work for a company such MAS/Regis/Equity/Pier/Hull & Co.
Further to the (no)connection between Equity and Pier, I must advise that today I found out that one of our neighbours, who owns a flat in the same conversion, recently contacted Equity to make a claim on the buildings insurance. Equity contacted her today, on Equity headed paper, and put her in touch with the relevant broker, (yet another new one that none of us has heard of)! They advised - "since our procedures have changed please deal with the broker direct"!! So much for wanting to lay claim to a management charge! Absolutely no mention whatsoever of Pier! Hysterical!!
I have recently been communicating with Pier by e-mail, and the 'properties' clearly state that their e-mail is being received from Equityplc.com!!
Jane.
Received on: Fri May 30 18:46:31 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: I just flicked back through the forum and could find very few mentions of names and they were mostly used when discussing the connections between Equity and Pier management. Nothing was said about the individuals themselves other than the fact that they work there. Two members of their staff have actually posted here and so it was fair to mention their names in later replies.
I think most people here realise that the problems Equity have are not down to individual employees but the overall structure and management of the company. That is who we are hounding, not you if any of you are reading this.
Having said that, I would feel embarrassed if I worked for them, it must be a bit like admitting to being traffic warden.
Oh and Tony Dean is fair game in my humble opinion.
Received on: Fri May 30 17:44:52 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Pete (Webmaster)
Comment: My assumption is that one or more of the staff at Regis are upset about a comment like "Person X is useless, he doesn't phone me back" type of comments that appear in the forums, as opposed to "Person X happens to work for Regis" (which is implied by the forum message anyway). Just having a name listed with no context is less likely to offend (unless people are ashamed of being employees of Regis/Equity).
The purpose of the list is so that people can address complaints to the correct person, using the correct job title. All of the listed names have been collected from the two forums.
Received on: Fri May 30 14:25:28 2003
From: JustBrowsing ()
Comment: I think that the employee naming thing must have been more about the list of named employees that appears on the consumerdeals website on the information page, rather than rather than the appearance of names in posts from disgruntled clients. I cant imagine that they would have a leg to stand on to object to that kind of thing. The list with the names may have been the problem. Also - I have to ask....with all this on the forum, has anyone actually noticed any improvements recently? It doenst seem to get any better?
Received on: Thu May 29 14:04:48 2003 from IP address: 217.155.57.46
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Pete, I think it is fair comment that employees should not be personally named; as usually the performance of a company is down to the quality of management.
That being said, I think your mystery emailer was a little unfair; this site rarely mentions employees (CEO excluded). However, the Equity site often has references (in some cases quite strongly worded) about employees.
That site is regulated by Equity..they must put their house in order as well.
Received on: Wed May 28 17:30:56 2003 from IP address: 80.1.14.78
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Nice to know they are still monitoring the site. Maybe one day they will learn from it.
Received on: Wed May 28 01:32:16 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.71
From: Pete (webmaster)
Comment: I have today received from an unnamed source stating "I don't think that its fair for you to put the names of the employees that you think work at the company on the website. Those that work behind the scenes are really hurt that you are gunning for them without good cause. I think that you have been vindictive in your naming of the staff at that company."
The names on this and the petesipple site have come from postings to this site, and to the Equity forum, and so are beyond my control, but as this is a fair request, I'm happy to remove individual names from this page on receipt of an email from the individual asking to be removed.
Received on: Mon May 27 19:02:29 2003
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Acutally I think the signs are a splendid idea!!!
I will be very disappointed if I don't a get one to attach to my apartment door; that way everyone who visits and sees the water running down my wall, and the damp patches, knows precisely which company is responsible.
The sign says "managed by Equity", easily adjusted by adding the three letters "Mis" at the front.
Serious point tho' they must have spent some money thinking up this design..what a waste. Also in an emergency I cannot think of anyone I would be less inclined to call to sort it out.
Re designing fancy signs, that usually is the first indication of a company going down the pan.
Received on: Mon May 26 12:09:38 2003 from IP address: 80.1.12.60
From: Steve O (sowen_uk@hotmail.com)
Comment: Check your lease, most leases prohibit the placement of any advertisement or sign on the building or it's boundaries, therefore the signs may place you in a Breach of Lease and you can demand Equity remove them or you can and post them back to them quoting your lease!
Received on: Mon May 26 02:17:19 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Sarah ()
Comment: Ken, it was the bit about the signage that made me laugh, they've had all those shiney signs made in the interests of Health and Safety?? If you have an emergency in the middle of the night you're gonna run down to the outside of your block to read the sign and call them on that number they rarely answer in the daytime? I just tried it - longwinded recorded message inviting me to e-mail, leave voicemail or visit website.
Since it is obviously an advert I wonder if they'll put them on the blocks which are in a state. Try asking them to put one on your roof Ken!
Received on: Sun May 25 17:27:21 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.209
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Yeah I know what you mean Jane, sometimes you get to the stage where it is just easier to pay up and get out. Maybe if you know your neighbours you could mention to them that the charge looks "iffy" and leave it to them to sort out if they want to. That way it won't affect your sale. Good luck with your move when it happens.
Martyn, if you do need more help try http://www.lease-advice.org.uk/ for free legal advice. They know a lot more about that sort of situation than me.
Received on: Sun May 25 17:13:10 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.208
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Pam, re your comment about the brochure and the Chemlsford office being closed...that is quite something; the brochure claims to be the first in a series. Not a good start really is it?
Received on: Sun May 25 17:03:28 2003 from IP address: 80.1.20.17
From: Martyn (Email)
Comment: Sarah thanks
Received on: Sun May 25 14:51:42 2003 from IP address: 213.106.192.60
From: Jane McGilivray (Email)
Comment: Hi Sarah,
Thanks (again) for that!
As I am in the process of (hopefully) moving I will see how my solictor gets along with his enquiries. If the charge is reasonable (!?!) say £100+vat, and the service received is also reasonable (!?!) then I will sign all necessary papers and gleefully move on! If, however, they start to demand excessive fees and/or are slow and obstructive in providing the requested information, then I will not hesitate to challenge them! Shamefully, I have to admit that I am anxious to simply move on and buy freehold! Once you lock horns with these people, whether justified or not, you are legally obliged to state as much on any relevant questionnaires when trying to sell. It is an added complication that frankly I could do without! That said though, all respect to those who take them on!! Keep it up!
Jane.
Received on: Sat May 24 23:21:21 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Sarah (sarah@leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: On another subject, if anyone comes by here who has, or who knows anyone who has Southend based Clientele Associates Ltd as their managing agent, please contact me urgently.
Received on: Sat May 24 20:34:58 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Sarah (sarah@lease)
Comment: Hi Jane,
As you say, the first quote from your lease means you pay 1/3 of the insurance premium. Your second paragraph looks like your freeholder can also recover any other costs involved in arranging the insurance such as tax or brokers commission which should be included in the premium anyway.
It's difficult to be sure without seeing your lease but I believe it does not say they can charge for submitting demands and collecting ground rents; managing buildings and other insurances; preparing and submitting statements; and many others! therefore they can't. It's as simple as that. The services which can be provided and charged for are defined in your lease. They can't just make them up as they see fit. It is possible that they could claim that the cost of billing you for the insurance is "maintaining" the insurance but £96 quid would not be considered a reasonable amount by any tribunal.
There is nothing in the RICS code that says "thou shalt stiff your customers" so ignore that drivel.
It is true that you are entitled to much of the information your solicitor requires but there is no entitlement to have it in writing, at the time you want it. Your purchaser's solicitor will want the information direct from the agent via your solicitor so that he can be sure it is accurate. This is a service direct to one lessee and therefore outside the terms of your lease. When your solicitor writes to them he is in effect asking for the service on your behalf and they charge accordingly. Since you don't have a management company though, the required info should be much simpler and hopefully cheaper.
Make sure you keep hold of their explanation of the management charge if it was in writing and challenge them again. If possible, get your solicitor to look at your lease and determine whether you should pay. If not, make sure you get last years back and report them to ARMA, sending them copies of all correspondance.
Received on: Sat May 24 17:43:25 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.67
From: Name Pam (Email)
Ken: the brochure you received from Equity is out of date as their Chelmsford office closed down in the Autumn of 2002.
Received on: Sat May 24 13:55:59 2003 from IP address: 195.92.198.72
From: Jane McGilivray (Email)
Comment: Query: As mentioned previously we were recently transferred from Equity, who we had been with since 1999, to Pier Managament. Last year we were invoiced, for the first time, a yearly management charge of £96.82. We live in a flat within a victorian conversion, comprising three flats in total. All maintenance is undertaken, as and when, by leaseholders although we do not have a management company. Equity (now Pier) simply collect our yearly Ground Rent and (very expensive) Buildings Insurance premium. Question(s): Are we liable for this management charge and if so, why has it only been levied since last year? My understanding of our lease is that we are liable to pay ground rent, and 'by way of a further and additional rent a fair proportion to be determined by the agent of all such sums as the Lessor shall pay by way of premium for insuring and keeping insured the building of which the flat forms part...' - ie. one third of the total buildings insurance premium.
Another covenant does state 'To repay the Lessor the amount or amounts from time to time expended by the Lessor in effecting or maintaining insurance on the demised premises at the times in the manner aforesaid'. Does this support charging a management fee that represents 30% of the insurance premium, and if it does then I can't understand why Equity haven't levied one from the start.
When I queried it last year I received the standard reply advising that the charge is defined according to the RICS code of practice etc etc, and covers costs incurred to operate the wide variety of services including: submitting demands and collecting ground rents; managing buildings and other insurances; preparing and submitting statements; and many others!
Interestingly one service included is 'producing and distributing service charge accounts and supplying other information to which tenants are entitled'. Surely this must include replying to solicitors enquiries when a leaseholder is selling, as I am in the process of doing.
I begrudingly paid last years management charge in the knowledge that I would (hopefully) be soon moving. I do not wish to continue paying it, however, if it is not legally due, and if I do have to pay it then I don't want to be paying additional costs relative to solicitors enquiries!
Any pointers (as usual) gratefully received!
Jane.
Received on: Sat May 24 13:50:04 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: I received yet another letter from Equity today, this time an insurance claim form. Which states that I should make a claim within 30 days of the incident...problem being that I reported this "incident" back in October 2002!!!
I have placed details on the "Worse Than Worthless" section of my website www.kenfrost.com along with a copy of a letter I have sent them today in response.
Note, I have copied my letter to ARMA, Watchdog, The Times and Sir Teddy Taylor.
I recommend that with those of you who make written complaints email or snail mail copy them to the above as well.
Received on: Fri May 23 17:10:33 2003 from IP address: 80.1.16.182
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: For you information people, here is ARMA's response to two emails I sent regarding the dodgy management charges and the connection with Equity and Pier Management.
Quote
Thank you for your emails of last month and I apologise for the delay in
responding.
I have approached Equity regarding your concerns over management charges
that are possibly not due under the terms of your leases and Equity has
responded as follows:-
"... with regard to Equity, I would advise that we only manage properties
where there is a service charge, and fees are recoverable from service
charge funds. In the past, other forms of management instruction existed
regarding properties that did not necessarily have service charges but,
where the lease provided for a management fee to be charged, one was levied.
"I do know that in the past, clerical errors have occurred on a small number
of properties by mistake. These were removed from all units of a particular
property, when the error was noticed or brought to our attention. Equity
has never had a policy of intentionally levying charges, which are not
recoverable."
I hope this clarifies the situation but please contact me if you wish to
take the matter further.
Kind regards
and
I would refer to yours of 6.4.03 regarding Equity and Pier Management.
I have now had it confirmed that Nick and Peter Gould are both the
beneficial owners and directors of Pier Management and that the 8000 units
transferred thereto by Equity are in Regis owned properties.
As far as Equity Asset Management Ltd (EAM) is concerned there is a sole
director, namely Tony Dean. EAM is owned by Equity Asset Management
Holdings Ltd (EAMH) of which again Tony Dean is the sole director. Nick and
Peter Gould have a controlling shareholding in EAMH. Nick and Peter Gould
also have a controlling shareholding of the Regis Group.
I hope this provides the clarity you were seeking.
Regards
Received on: Fri May 23 00:44:58 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Hi Martyn, are you sure there is no Management Company? Equity recently dumped all those properties which were Regis owned and had no Company onto Pier Management and if you are still with Equity I would think that there is a Company.
Anyway, assuming that you do not have one, you have 3 options.
1. You could force the sale of your freehold if enough of you are in agreement/have the money and appoint who you like.
2. You could go to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and have your landlords management judged ineffective and they will appoint a new manager.
3. Under the new law you may be able to set up a "Right to Manage" company. You will not have to prove any inefficiency on the landlords part and will then be able to appoint who you like.
All of the above will cost you dear in legal costs though so be sure that you have the full agreement of other tenants to share the costs.
Hope this helps.
Received on: Fri May 23 00:25:43 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Martyn (Email)
Comment: sadly there is no management committee. Its pay your service charge to Equity and get nowt in return. Any ideas on ditching them and setting up our own.
Received on: Thu May 22 16:53:17 2003 from IP address: 213.106.192.60
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Martin,
go to the following sites
www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk for the step by step method to dump Equity
and the "Worse Than Worthless" section of www.kenfrost.com which has a proforma letter to download for you to write to Teddy Taylor, Watchdog, newspapers etc to raise public awareness and to help you get some action.
Received on: Thu May 22 16:25:14 2003 from IP address: 80.1.30.200
From: Martyn (digger.cole@ntlworld.com)
Comment: Hi very interesting site. I have Regis as the freeholder and Equity as the managing agent. Whole block ex BPT and poorly maintained for years. All surveyors are downgrading property values on basis of v scruffy block and huge service charge. How do I get rid of Equity as the managing agents. Thanks
Received on: Thu May 22 15:59:01 2003 from IP address: 213.106.192.60
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: I received 3 letters from equity in the last 2 days.
I will put the details on my wbesite. However, in brief:
The first one says they received word from ARMA about my problems, they went on to say that the problem is in hand.
The second one noted that they have received a letter from Sir Teddy Taylor, and that they have drafted him a reply.
The third is a brochure explaining that there have been regional offices set up in Docklands, South Bank, Enfield, Standon, Beckenham and Chelmsford. It goes on about customer care etc, and is signed by Tony Dean.
Received on: Thu May 22 11:56:33 2003 from IP address: 80.1.29.26
From: Name Pam (Email)
Comment:
Sarah: I have today received my ground rent demand from Pier Management. I am happy to report that there was no charge levied for its collection. So, you were right in saying that you did not think we would be charged this additional fee, probably because we were more aware than some.
Have drafted a letter to Sir Teddy Taylor as suggested by Ken Frost. Hope I will get this off in the next day or so.
Had a phone call from Equity this morning saying that they were dealing with the ARMA complaints procedure and I would be getting a letter shortly relating to this.
Received on: Tue May 20 11:41:25 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.75
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: I have received a response from Sir Teddy Taylor. He is distressed about my experience, and has let Equity know about my concerns.
He states that he will let me know when he has news from them.
Please write to him.
Received on: Sun May 18 20:19:29 2003 from IP address: 80.1.29.161
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Makes interesting reading doesn't it? It certainly re-affirmed my feeling that we did the right thing getting rid (not that that was in any doubt anyway!)It's good that the paper highlighted that particular problem but I just wish one of them would realise the real scale of all this and actually help to make a difference.
Received on: Sat May 17 22:20:07 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.208
From: Jane McGilivray (Email)
Comment: Interesting article Sarah!!
The problem seems to be that the complaints just go on and on and on ...........! The author of the article wrote to the boss man, got no reply - and what? It is absolutely incredulous that these bandits (and any similar bandits) can work the way they do, and supposedly be within the law! I for one will never buy a leashold property again (hopefully)!!
Jane.
Received on: Sat May 17 22:12:14 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Sarah (www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk)
Comment: Here's an article that may interest you....
Go to www.telegraph.co.uk, click on the property section and search in that section for "The bargains that could cost you a fortune". You have to register to view otherwise I would have put the direct link here.
Thanks Pam for pointing it out to me.
Received on: Sat May 17 17:43:42 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Jane McGilivray (E.Mail)
Comment: Thank Sarah, very helpful.
Jane.
PS. Great website!
Received on: Sat May 17 10:28:49 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Well I have never seen any limitation on the number of questions a solicitor can ask for the standard price. I would suggest that your solicitor should ask the normal ones (he'll know what they are) and if your buyer wants another hundred answered and there is an extra charge, you ask that he/she pays for them.
You do have a right to have the questions answered but in the absence of any contract which states the charges for that particular service (which is the normal situation) they can charge pretty much what they like.
As for the timescale, I've seen them take anything from a month to 3 months to answer a solicitors letter. Make sure your solicitor is aware of this and ask him to be persistant if he does not receive a response in what he considers to be a reasonable time.
Received on: Sat May 17 00:47:40 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Jane McGilivray (Email)
Comment: Sarah, thanks for that. Yes, Regis are the freeholders! I remember ringing Equity last year (when we had an original sale that fell through) to ascertain their fees,and being told that they charged £90(ish) + Vat and that they could also offer their wonderful 'fast track' service (talk about a licence to print money!). Worryingly though, I seem to remember also that this fee only covered answering a specific amount of queries (perhaps 6?) and that any extra requested by our solicitor would incur charges of £16.50(?) + Vat EACH!! I know that our previous purchasers solicitor wanted hundreds of queries answered!! Can they legally do this? Do I not have a legal right to such information, without excessive charge?
What timescale would you guess if you don't take them up on their kind offer of a 'fast track'? All monies paid up to date. Lease drawn up in 1998 and relatively simple.
Thanks in advance.
Jane.
Received on: Fri May 16 19:44:03 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Your solicitor will write to Pier with a load of initial enquiries for which they normally charge £100 + VAT. It is not normally necessary for you to also inform them but may speed the process if you do. They will send out the answers to his questions plus the accounts etc. if requested. There will also be a demand for any unpaid service charges and ground rent. If it is necessary in your case to obtain a receipt for Ground Rent there may be an additional charge for that. Assuming Pier are working on behalf of your freeholder (Regis?) there will then be charges for filing the Notices of Transfer and Mortgage but these will be for your buyer to pay.
Basically, it depends on the terms of your lease whether there are any other charges but your solicitor should be able to weed out any unnecessary ones.
If they are anything like Equity, they will take ages to reply to letters and Equity used to have the cheek to offer a fast track reply if you pay an additional amount. They would then try (but not guarantee) to answer within 8 - 10 working days. Very good of them!
Good luck.
Received on: Fri May 16 11:03:21 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Jane McGilvray (bollybeau@blueyonder.co.uk)
Comment: Our property has recently been shipped over to Pier from Equity!! We have just received an offer for our flat and hope to move asap. Can anyone tell me what fees/nonsense we can expect from Pier? Our flat is one of three in a Victorian conversion and they have never done anything over and above collect our ground rent and fleece us for ridiculous buildings insurance premiums, and more recently management charges (ha ha)!! Are they not obliged to confirm any detail requested by our solicitor regarding company accounts, our account etc? Should we advise them that we are in the process of selling? Please try not to depress us too much!! Thanks in advance.
Received on: Thu May 15 23:09:43 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Jane McGilvray (bollybeau@blueyonder.co.uk)
Comment: Our property has recently been shipped over to Pier from Equity!! We have just received an offer for our flat and hope to move asap. Can anyone tell me what fees/nonsense we can expect from Pier? Our flat is one of three in a Victorian conversion and they have never done anything over and above collect our ground rent and fleece us for ridiculous buildings insurance premiums, and more recently management charges (ha ha)!! Are they not obliged to confirm any detail requested by our solicitor regarding company accounts, our account etc? Should we advise them that we are in the process of selling? Please try not to depress us too much!!
Received on: Thu May 15 23:09:26 2003 from IP address: 80.193.212.52
From: Aprille (Email)
Comment: Mr Hewett from the ARMA called me this morning. They are well aware of the problems we have been facing with Equity. He asked me to send him the details of the problems we've been facing with regards to our property and that he would call one of the Directors at Equity to ask them to send us an action plan within the next few days.
He seemed very empathetic .... and said he was taking a personal interest in trying to resolve our problems with Equity.
Received on: Thu May 15 15:59:17 2003 from IP address: 194.203.135.254
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Sorry, the link would have been useful! http://www.leaseholdnightmare.co.uk/
Received on: Thu May 15 00:24:03 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.65
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: I've put together a site for those of you who have resident management companies. It gives a step by step guide to how to sack your managing agent. It is based purely on my experiences and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. I will be adding to it soon, links pages etc. but the basics are there. I will be very disappointed if any of you are still with you know who in 3 months time ;-)
Received on: Thu May 15 00:22:35 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.65
From: Ken Frost (kenfrostcia@kenfrost.com)
Comment: If it is of any help to people, I have drafted a proforma letter which can be used to try to raise public awareness of this issue. It can be sent to the media, Tedy Taylor, ARMA etc.
To download it go to the "Worse Than Worthless" section of my website www.kenfrost.com and click on the Equity section.
Received on: Wed May 14 19:00:21 2003 from IP address: 80.1.10.22
From: Aprille (Email)
Comment: I called ARMA this morning ...... to speak with a Mr Hewitt, as I was given his name when I emaild them. He was away for the day .. so am will probablt speak with him tomorrow.
Am glad to hear that they are well aware of this HORRID company .... we are still having tough times with them.
They take apathy to a whole new dimension!
Received on: Wed May 14 13:06:22 2003 from IP address: 194.203.135.254
From: Phil (pik3@student.open.ac.uk)
Comment: I sent an e-mail to ARMA (info@arma.org.uk) outlining the basics of my issues with Equity. They phoned me within a couple of hours and were interested to hear the details. They offered to take up my complaints but since these have been resolved (for now) he agreed to keep my comments on the Equity file and get in touch if he needed documentary evidence.
I was impressed with ARMA's knowledge about Equity and I got the impression that they are not too keen on companies abusing their membership scheme.
A very therapeutic experience - I recommend it!
Received on: Wed May 14 10:57:57 2003 from IP address: 62.172.229.8
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: By the way I have written to one other person who may be able to help, Sir Teddy Taylor. He is MP for the constituency in which Equity are based.
I guess if his post bag fills up with letters about this, he may consider looking into this; even if we don't live in his constituency.
You can write to him at the House of Commons, or email him by going to www.parliament.uk and looking him up in the members' directory then click on the email link.
Received on: Tue May 13 12:34:36 2003 from IP address: 81.103.218.185
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Love the "Sun Tzu" quote Ken, think I'll stick that on my wall!
Re the invoices, I think it is s22 of Landlord & Tenant Act that says you have the right to inspect documents, not sure if there is a time limit on it so will have to dig out the law books tomorrow and have a look at the exact wording (too knackered right now!) Anyway, Equity do not put that on their site for our benefit - it is the law.
Received on: Tue May 13 00:23:37 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.74
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Pam, ARHM is the association of retired housing management (or something like that). I am not retired, but they have a logo on equity's site; and so I clicked on it and got through to their site and sent them an email.
Suggest you do the same, retired or not, we are doing our bit for others; by alerting them to the problems we are encountering with equity. I for one would not want to be retired and having to deal with this organisation.
Please could you send me Dean's address to my email? Thanks
Sarah, point taken about the MD of Equity adding value to this. However, I suspect that by pushing the media angle ARMA may be worried they get shown to be not so good at their job. Aagin this is another angle to push for media coverage, let the papers etc know that equity are members of ARMA and ARHM; and that these bodies have had complaints...yet have not kicked them out.
Sun Tzu (I know I have not spelt this correctly) in his treatise on The Art of War; said that if your enemy is more powerful than you, do all you can to annoy him...
Re your comments on seeing invoices held by Equity. Their website clearly says that as "customers" we have the right to inspect the books of account etc. I have run internal audit depts both in the UK and abroad, and indeed have run the international fraud investigation bureau of Philips; I can assure you that if the comment about letting the customers see the books is genuine, then that has to include being able to view the invoices etc.
Push them hard, and if they still refuse; then remind them they are in breach of their policy as per their website.
On another matter, the fact that their website implies (by the name) that they are a plc seems to me (I am a qualified chartered accountant) a slight exaggeration. I will look into telling Companies House about this.
Received on: Mon May 12 17:19:02 2003 from IP address: 81.103.218.236
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Oh and no, I am not sure there is no fraud involved. I just have no evidence of it in our case. Others have said that they were charged for work that wasn't done but there was no indication of that in our current financial year. Equity would not give me the invoices for previous years so I have to rely on the integrity of the accountant. In our case they seemed to rely on huge charges for apparently legitimate services such as £400 for being Company Secretary, £350 for being a director even though they had made no effort to recruit these posts from within the leaseholders and had not informed us of the charges. Then there is the £50 charge each time you sublet (they told us that the insurers had to be informed - complete bollocks) and the ridiculous charges for answering solicitors enquiries when flats are sold.
Received on: Mon May 12 13:12:52 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.208
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Don't hold your breath Ken, I got a letter from Tony Dean after complaining to ARMA, it was sent to the wrong address so I did'nt get it until about two months later and I think it must have been meant for someone else since it did not address any of the problems I had complained about. I complained again on January the 17th and have received no response other than a phone call from ARMA.
Sorry Pam, I thought you were saying that you did not want Equity's membership rescinded - my mistake. I am beginning to doubt ARMA's willingness to act though. I would have thought there was enough just in yours and my case to suspend Equity yet 4 and a half months on they are still members and can advertise on their site.
I've just recorded an interview with BBC radio 4 about the problems with managing agents and what happened to us. Unfortunately it is only 6 minutes long and I had to keep it general to avoid getting my ass sued but hopefully it will help to highlight the problem.
Received on: Mon May 12 13:01:41 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.208
From: Name Pam (Email)
Comment: Ken - very interested in what you had to say in your latest 'Comment'. Will be interesting to see if Tony Dean does contact you. By the way, I have his home address which I got from the list of Directors at Companies House last year. Ifyou want it I can let you have it. Who are ARHM, I have not come across that organisation. Can you let me have their address and I will write to them detailing the problems we had with Equity. Do you still have Equity as your Managing Agent? Will speak to my co-Directors about getting letters off to the media.
Many thanks. I look forward to another entry from you regarding the result of ARMA asking Tony Dean to contact you.
Received on: Mon May 12 12:18:58 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.75
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Pam, funny you should say that about contacting ARMA. Feeling on a roll yesterday I dropped ARMA and ARHM (no I am not retired, or living in sheltered accommodation!) a couple of notes yesterday.
I emphasised that I have posted my troubles on my website and written to newspapers and Watchdog.
ARMA rang me today and said that they would call Tony Dean and ask him to contact me in the next few days. ARMA then will call me back in a week to see what happens. I said I will go through the procedure, but am scpetical about the result.
ARHM wrote to me saying that they have had a number of complaints, and that they are in discussions with Equity.
It seems to me that we are at a nexus here.
Namely, if others who are unhappy with Equity, write to the papers, watchdog and ARMA/ARHM; then we may be able to tip the balance in our favour.
I really do think that if we make a co-odinated push together we can get somewhere.
Please do write/email the media.
Received on: Mon May 12 11:27:20 2003 from IP address: 81.103.216.71
From: Name Pam (Email)
Comment: Sarah: I said the worse thing that could happen to Equity would be to have their membership of ARMA rescinded because of the shame of having this published in ARMA's Journal. I hope you are right that we won't be charged the management fee for collecting ground rent. I know that ARMA are interested in all the problems people are having with Equity's apalling performance and are also interested in hearing from anyone who has had a bad hand-over of paperwork etc. once Equity have been sacked. So, anyone reading this posting would be well advised to make ARMA aware of all the problems they are having/had with Equity. I notice Ken Frost has written to the main broadsheets. Just what can we do to get justice for the long suffering leaseholders? Where do we go from here? Are you quite sure, Sarah, that there is no fraud involved here?
Received on: Sun May 11 20:25:11 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.69
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: No Pam, I now run the two blocks myself and we have nothing to do with Equity/Pier/Regis or any that bunch thankfully! I'm sure you will not get the "management charge" if they know that you know about it already. Why do you say the "worse" thing would be for Equity to have their membership rescinded? I used to think that because if they lost their membership they would be answerable to no one but they take no notice of ARMA either. I never got a satifactory reply from Tony Dean despite numerous complaints and they are still up to the same old tricks. I just wish more people would complain to ARMA so that they are in no doubt as to the scale of the problem.
Received on: Sun May 11 19:02:20 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.75
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: I for one feel that this company's poor standards of professionalism need to be brought to public attention.
In addition to giving them a special WTW award on my website; I have written to Watchdog the other week, and today I have written to the main broadsheets.
maybe others could do the same?
Received on: Sun May 11 16:15:39 2003 from IP address: 81.103.219.188
From: NamePam (Email)
Comment: Yes Sarah, I am the person you spoke to on the telephone. I saw what I thought was your comment on our conversation. However, I did not actually say that we were being charged the maintenance fee for collecting our ground rent; what I did say was that I was worried that we might be. Our ground rent demands are coming out on 23rd May so I am told by Pier Management, so we shall see then. In the meantime I have written to all our owners telling them to be on the look out for any additional charge! Yes, we also went to ARMA last May with our concerns. Tony Dean kept advising ARMA that they had answered all our queries but I wrote to ARMA each time saying that was not so. ARMA were helpful in that they wrote to Tony Dean telling him to reply to my letters, which worked. I know that Tony Dean was called before ARMA's Practice Committee in January of this year to be told that Equity were not conforming to ARMA's rules. I think the worst thing that could happen is that Equity could have their membership of ARMA rescinded and an article would appear in ARMA's journal confirming that. Are you with Pier Management now? I will keep you informed as to our ground rent demands.
Received on: Sun May 11 14:15:04 2003 from IP address: 195.92.198.74
From: Sarah (steve@taurusdiving.fsnet.co.uk)
Comment: Pam, was it you I spoke to a while ago? You went to ARMA I think...did you get anywhere? I'm more and more of the opinion that self regulation through ARMA does not work. If so, would Equity still be a member?
Received on: Sun May 11 01:24:23 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: NamePam (Emaillewin@gilmore70.co,uk)
Comment: We discovered this webiste several weeks ago and have read with interest all the comments that have been posted by disgruntled leaseholders and we would like to add our name to the list.
Our problems began in March 2002 we were given a budget showing a 60% increase. in service charge. We were told we had a deficit of £9,000 against our account but then Equity found £11,000 of our in a reserve account. We were told by the Accocuntant that this £11,000 had been used over a period of several years to off-set a short-fall in the service charge account. In March 2002 we were presented with a demand for 100% of the upcoming decorating charge, despite having paid into a specific decorating fund for four years!
We have had a completely demolished boundary wall down since Easter 2002 which we are now trying to sort out with the Insurers which Equity had not sorted out on our behalf.
We have also discovered that we have been charged £300 representing Equity's 10% cut for work which was never carried out in Summer 2001. We asked for invoices as proof of work carried out but were only provided with half of the invoices. Therefore, to date £1,400 worth of invoices remain unaccounted for. We also discovered we had been charged for at least three invoices that were nothing to do with our property.
We discovered we had had no leaseholder Directors for 2 years but had not been told by Equity and in the meantime Equity had appointed themselves Director and Co. Sec. of our Management Co. without our knowledge or permission. We were, however, charged £350 for their secretarial fee and then charge another £100 for Equity's inability to get the Co. accounts to Companies House on time. Also one of the leaseholder's account shows she is one month in arrears for service charge yet the cheque was given into the hand of the Property NManager in September 2002 for the 1st October payment. This cheque still remains "lost" to this day!
Three of the owners became Directors and Co. Sec. in August 2002 to try and regain control of our Company and monies being spent on our behalf. We were told by Equity that if we insisted on being sole signatories they would resign. but this never happened.
By unanimous agreement we gave Equity three months notice from October 2002 despite there being no written agreement between Equity and our Company that could be found. Our new Managing Agent took over mid-January 2003 only to find that the buildings insurance had not been renewed in December by Equity. Equity also took until 3rd March 2003 to provide the new Agent with a reconciled cheque. It transpired that an accountant had to be employed to try and sort out the muddle we had inherited.
The last year has been a huge learning curve but one we could well have done without. The highlight of last year was the sacking of Equity.
Received on: Sat May 10 12:06:26 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.66
From: Steve (sowen_uk@hotmail.com)
Comment: Crofton, either you have been drinking or you are not referring to the same company or you set yourself really low standards - I personally would not let that company wipe my a**e let alone anywhere near my building!
Received on: Fri May 9 08:44:27 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Aprille (Email)
Comment: Crofton .. are you kidding???? Sure you're referring to the same Equity the rest of us are????
Received on: Thu May 8 13:13:34 2003 from IP address: 194.203.135.254
From: Alderman (Email)
Comment: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
APRIL FOOL, IT MUST BE!
Received on: Thu May 8 12:47:23 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.25
From: crofton (croftonbonney@hotmail.com)
Comment: i deem the service provided by equity to be of an excellent standard.
Received on: Thu May 8 11:19:46 2003 from IP address: 212.219.58.226
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: hello again everyone..re the comments about watchdog I heartily agree...bombard them with complaints it is the only way.
I wrote to them about 10 days ago, also wrote to The Express and have set up a page on my website www.kenfrost.com called "Worse Than Worthless". Suggestions for any other media channels I could use?
Re equity they also operate under the name Michael Keith & Co.
They have invoiced me for Jul-Dec 2003 charges...some 2 months in advance..this surely is the only example of efficiency demonstrated by this company.
good luck to all
Ken
Received on: Sat May 3 12:09:28 2003 from IP address: 81.103.217.5
From: Sarah ()
Comment: Becky, we had exactly the same problem with missing money and paperwork. I went to ARMA and whilst they helped to apply some pressure, they could not sort out the problem for us. If your accountant has come up with a figure that Equity owe you and Equity cannot or will not justify the differance you may have to sue them for it.
We actually had to freeze the bank accounts and Natwest mediated between us and Equity whilst the settlement was agreed. There was still another few thousand pounds in Equity's own client accounts as well and it took 3 1/2 months to get that out of them. Is your accountant in direct contact with Equity about this?
Received on: Sat May 3 11:46:13 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.69
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: I see what you mean Steve, I took our blocks over halfway through the financial year and there were very few invoices and all tallied with work we knew to have been done. They would not however give me the paperwork for previous years, citing some code or other, so I presume any dodgy bills go in at the end of the year when they know how much is left over. It always amazed me how they managed to spend exactly what the budget was - I suppose they could be very expert at estimating expenditure.......na!
Received on: Sat May 3 11:30:06 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.69
From: A.Rogers (Sale) (Email)
Comment: Also increase of 60% in building insurance Cannot get to the bottom of it.
Received on: Sat May 3 10:20:00 2003 from IP address: 172.189.246.26
From: A.Rogers (rogersa27@aol.com)
Comment: RegisGroup(Barclays)Ltd Our new freeholders 30 flats.5 Ashton Court 60 moss Lane sale Sale cheshire M33 5AS. Equity unbeleavable. Total rubbish. Also at others blocks of flats Tytherington Court Maccelsfield. carton Manshions Whalley Range. Norwood Court Streatford. Wardle Court Sale.Just up the road from us. The landlord & tenants Act is a joke to them. A. Rogers.
Received on: Sat May 3 10:04:02 2003 from IP address: 172.189.246.26
From: Steve (sowen_uk@hotmail.com)
Comment: Sarah, my point is that Equity more often than not claim to have carried out works or had contractors carry out works, charge the residents the fees yet nothing is carried out. The importance of being able to force Equity into producing a paper trail for the accounts to your premises is ALL TO IMPORTANT, I am aware that a FINANCE DIRECTOR from a large PLC recently got access to Equities 'Accounts' Dept after major hassle and commented that the accounts were a shambles, paperwork was missing or non-existant and contractors were not being paid for months on end, hence work on sites is not being done because no-body is paying them! When my block moved away from Equity, the new Agent was sent unpaid Invoices of over £4,000 yet Equity had recieived all the Service Charge payments - the accounts for the block are SO BAD the new Agents Auditors are still trying to sort them out 5 months later and has advised that it may be August before they are complete - what a farce Equity are, they should be banned from ever handling anybodies money or property!
Received on: Sat May 3 02:44:21 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Becky (beckybumbly@hotmail.com)
Comment: I was very intregued to read all these messages, I had thought that we (our flats) were the only ones that were suffering at the hands of Equity. I agree with everyone who has complained i.e. can't get thru to anybody of significance, work takes ages to be completed / ends up being shoddy. I am one of the directors of our residents association and last year (June 2002) we sacked them and now we are being taken very good care of by a local company in Enfield.
Even though we are not dealing with Equity any more, would you believe but they are still causing us major problems. We gave them 3 months notice (even though we didnt have an actual contract with them, we assumed that if we gave full notice period, then they would have time to organise our paperwork. What an utter joke to assume that they would do this. It took them months to give us our paperwork, ie invoices, accounts, bank statements, insurance documents etc. We got the last (or so we thought) of the invoices and bank statements only in Nov / Dec 2002. Equity had also bodged up our Insurance policy by completely stopping the payments and then when I called them up, we found that we were not insured. I had to make the final payment out of my own pocket until our new management company took over and sorted every thing out.
Our main serious problem now is that our accountant has completed our accounts and there is a discrepency with the monies and invoices. It looks like Equity have left us short of approx £2,600, which I must say I was gobsmacked. We have contact ARMA with the hope that they can get Tony Dean to pull out his finger and sort out our serious problem.
Our Accountant has contacted Companies House and extended the date for when we can submit our accounts. As far as I know that if we can't sort this out then we could be charged £1,000 for something that is not our fault.
I also heard on the grapevine that Equity are taking over lots of other management agencies and are planning to float their company on the market.
I used to work for a maintance company in London, if I had treated our customers the way that Equity treat theirs, I would have been sacked. I can't get over the fact that they are such a crappy company and yet still in business. It's a shame that 'That's Life' is not on TV anymore, am sure Ester would love to get her teeth into this company.
Received on: Fri May 2 22:39:04 2003 from IP address: 139.92.234.206
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Sorry Steve, section 22 of what? If you mean the Landlord and tenant act, the notice is to require the landlord to allow the tenant to inspect and make copies of the accounts, receipts and other documents relevant to his building. If the "Agent is failing to carry out essential repairs and maintenance of your property in accordance with the Lease", presumably there will not be any invoices and the tenant will have to seek enforcement of the Landlords Covenants by other means.
Received on: Fri May 2 00:54:09 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Steve Owens ()
Comment: This is a copy of a message deleted from Eqities forum posted by the Equaliser.
"Also, if your Managing Agent is failing to carry out essential repairs and maintenance of your property in accordance with the Lease, issue a Section 22 Notice and inform your Freeholder of their blithering incompetence - many Leaseholders when speaking to their freeholders are finding out the Freeholders hate Equity just as much!"
Received on: Thu May 1 19:24:43 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Alderman (Email)
Comment: That was the email I sent to Watchdog, come on people lets bombard them with complaints, imagine seeing the director of Equity being grilled on watchdog as to why Pier management was the same company as Equity, HA HA HA HA HA.
Received on: Thu May 1 17:19:29 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.25
From: Alderman (Email)
Comment: I CAN NOT BELIEVE YOU HAVE TAKEN NONE OF THE EQUITY COMMENTS SERIOUSLY!!! I MEAN COME ON YOU DID A 10 MINUTE STORY ABOUT B&Q KITCHENS LAST WEEK!! EVERY WEEK YOU DO A STORY ABOUT MISSING KITCHENS, NOBODY CARES!! EQUITY ARE FULL TIME COWBOYS, OPEN YOUR EYES, PLEASE HELP US EXPOSE THEM. TO SEE THEM GO OUT OF BUSINESS WOULD TRULY MAKE MY DAY!
PLEASE VISIT THIS SITE:
http://www.consumerdeals.co.uk/regisbook.html
OR EVEN EQUITY'S OWN SITE:
http://www.equityplc.com/forum/forum.asp
THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS, WELL OVER 500, THIS COMPANY SHOULD BE MANAGING YOUR WATCHDOG 500 CLUB!!!
Received on: Thu May 1 17:18:05 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.25
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Sara, I've e-mailed you direct as it was a bit of a long winded reply! The basic answer though was if your block has a residents Management Company, get it organised, appoint directors if necessary and sack them.
Received on: Thu May 1 14:46:15 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.71
From: sara henry (sara_henry21@msn.com)
Comment: regis took over managing our block of flats 6 months after i purchased. I have had many problems with them the staff are down right rude and ignorant! we have had no intercom system in our block for at least 6 months we had to leave the main entrance open for postmen etc all day! I think every person in our block has rung to report it and complain but you just dont seem to get anywhere! -No matter how much you scream!!
We then had problems with the drains and could not use the toilet etc for a week! Equity said they were sending someone out straight away! one week later after endless phone calls i called someone out myself and got them to invoice equity. It took the drainage company 5 months before they were finally paid for the work.I was told because Mr Cook did not authorise the work then they should not have to pay it!
I am absolutely disgusted by the way this company and their staff handle these matters. I have just put my flat on the market as i can not possibly carry on with a company like this supposedly maintaining this property!
If anyone can suggest anything to do or ways of getting rid of this company then i would be grateful for your comments
Received on: Wed Apr 30 23:17:32 2003 from IP address: 81.97.22.153
From: Dean (Email)
Comment: Many thanks Sarah! I'll let you all know how it goes.
Received on: Tue Apr 29 14:29:14 2003 from IP address: 194.168.3.18
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: It seems to have been a common thing for Equity to send out demands for the current quarter with no mention of arrears. That practice resulted in combined arrears for our two blocks of £25,000 with many Lessees not aware that they were in debt.
I can see that if your solicitor received one of these it would have looked like there was no problem, however it is also normal practice to specifically ask in writing, the current balance of the account. The demand in itself is not (although I agree it should be) a full picture. If your solicitor received that demand in answer to his question about the balance, then he has a point but if he just received it as a matter of course and assumed the account was clear to that date he has assumed to much.
I do appreciate that he probably doesn't know Equity as well as some of us do and the information he received was very misleading. Hopefully he will be able to sort it out for you. Keep us posted and good luck.
Received on: Mon Apr 28 16:35:44 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.68
From: Dean (Email)
Comment: Steve/Sarah!
That's EXACTLY what Equity DIDN'T do. Whilst we were buying the property, my solicitor wrote to Equity to ask for the most current statement regarding maintainence charges and it had NO mention of the arrears in the statement they supplied. It only had the details for the current quarter. My solicitors also did secure a retainer but the arrears that we didn't even know about amounted to more than twice the amount left and the additional charge they served for the Section 146 is based on the arrears going back a year before we even saw the property. My solicitors are in the process of chasing this up now because as far we see it, we have no legal obligation to pay because it wasn't made aware to us at any point during our purchase. I'll post up what the result is.
Ken! - I've also written a stinker and posted it on theWatchdog website. Let's hope that adds more ammunition.
Received on: Mon Apr 28 11:37:25 2003 from IP address: 194.168.3.18
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: Dean, ref your commenta bout reporting Equity to Watchdog; last week I emailed the BBC via their Watchdog site about my problems as detailed on the "Worse Than Worthless" page of my website www.kenfrost.com.
If I hear anything I will let you know. However, that does not preclude others from contacting them..the more that do the more likely they are to do a prog about it.
Received on: Sun Apr 27 12:22:48 2003 from IP address: 81.103.216.13
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: Check out this link http://www.carl.org.uk/CommonAbuses.html . I think this must be where Equity got their business plan from!
Received on: Sat Apr 26 19:33:23 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.69
From: Steve Owens (sowens_uk@hotmail.com)
Comment: The debt in relation to Service Charge always relates to the property and not the leaseholder, therefore it is standard practice for solicitors to ensure that any service charge payments outstanding are settle prior to or on completion. Many solicitors after exchange of contract will contact the Managing Agent again to get a final figure especially as many leaseholders pay quarterly or monthly. If Equity informed your solicitors of the debt and you solicitor allowed you to proceed to completion without an undertaking from the vendors solicitors to settle on completion, I would sue the solicitor. If the debt was NOT declared by the Agent to the solicitors, there is no legal obligation to pay the debt as the contract for the purchase did not declare it.
Received on: Sat Apr 26 18:12:14 2003 from IP address: 62.255.64.6
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: The Deed of Covenant is in effect your promise to take over all the responsibilities of the previous leaseholder including the payment of service charges. I suggest you sort out the problem of your sellers debt before signing anything. It is normal that there is a separate charge for it. It will not necessarily get you out of paying the arrears though, just the fact that you are now the leaseholder will probably be enough to make you liable.
Your solicitors will have written to Equity with some initial enquiries and they should have obtained written confirmation that the account was clear. Sometimes, if the seller has a larger debt, they settle it on completion but again your solicitor should have agreed this in writing. If they had done that, you would be able to go back to the seller for the money. When I bought my flat my solicitor also made the seller lodge £200 with their solicitor to cover any extra charges that may be made after completion.
It sounds to me like your solicitors have not done their jobs.
Received on: Sat Apr 26 14:02:42 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.66
From: Dean (Email)
Comment: Alderman! We've got EXACTLY the same problem. On top of the RIDICULOUS number of problems we're trying to get sorted with our block and Equitys' relative indifference, they are trying to charge us with arrears "apparently" left by the previous owner before we bought it. They've even issued us with an additional charge for serving a Section 146 Arrears Notice based on charges going back a year before we even started looking for and even SAW this flat. Our solicitors got in touch with the previous owners solcitors and they said that Equity didn't make the previous owner or EITHER solicitor aware of these arrears at ANY point during our purchase. What the hell is that about? I'm planning to meet my solicitor early next week to see what we can do about them. Does anyone have any ideas or been through similar?
Another thing. Has anyone complained to Watchdog about them? If not, why don't we? The way they operate is just TOO suspect, ie. not doing as supposed to/promised, over-charging, changing addresses, affiliation with Pier, etc)
Received on: Sat Apr 26 11:15:20 2003 from IP address: 81.77.229.171
From: Alderman (Email)
Comment: When we bought our flat, we paid a solicitor to sort it all out. 2 months after we moved in we were contacted by equity that we had to get the deed of covenat signed over to us (100 and something quid) and they tried to charge us for the late payments fromt he bloke that lived there before us. my question is this, surely my solicitor should have paid for the deed of covenant to be signed (out of the fee we had already paid her), is this right or not, as our solicitor didnt even tell us equity was our managing agent.
Received on: Fri Apr 25 13:54:49 2003 from IP address: 212.137.57.25
From: Sarah (Email)
Comment: The deed and notice charges are the norm and are legal (although immorally high!). What is the one for "consent" - consent for what???
Received on: Thu Apr 24 13:55:40 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.208
From: Shocked! (Email)
Comment: Thanks Sarah
It is a management charge (its now been raised to 96.82) and I am pretty sure the lease doesn't allow for it, so I should be able to get rid. I also received the various transfer fees..OMG! £100 (+VAT) for deed, £50 (+VAT) for two notices and £50(+VAT) for consent!!! Just under £300 just so they can change the name on some paperwork! Hopefully shouldn't have to pay 1/2 of it :(, but its still taking the pee - particularly as they have held up the whole flat-buying process (we have just been waiting on them to send details for weeks on end)
Received on: Thu Apr 24 10:28:29 2003 from IP address: 80.193.85.7
From: phoebe (phoebefrangoul@hotmail.com)
Comment: i've just come across your sight while looking for regis' address on the internet! i am writing yet another letter complaining about a disgusting damp wall in my room of the flat we rent from them which i've been telling them about for the last eighteen months. in that time, the wall has become covered in mildew and is damaging my property. i have been assured that the work will be done, although now the flat has been bought by someone else, i have a horrible feeling that they'll stall until the new owners take over. they obviously will not want to fix it as it was not their problem in the first place. am i paranoid to think that regis will leave us in the lurch like this? after reading this website, i have a horrible feeling that i'm not.
Received on: Wed Apr 23 11:53:28 2003 from IP address: 195.92.154.249
From: Sarah (steve@taurusdiving.fsnet.co.uk)
Comment: Tony, if you go ahead with the flat there are a couple of things to watch out for.
Regis will probably have appointed Pier Management to collect ground rent and maybe insurance premiums. Pier may charge you a "maintenance fee" for this, even though they do no maintenence. Most modern leases do not provide for this charge. Read yours carefully or ask your solicitor before you pay it.
Your real problems will start if you also have Equity as your managing agent. Cheque whether your block has a resident management company and which agents are appointed. If it's Equity, you can organise your company and sack them if you all wish so it's not the end of the world.
Good luck!
Received on: Mon Apr 21 16:08:57 2003 from IP address: 195.92.67.74
From: Tony (southend@martinco.com)
Comment: I am about to purchase a flat that has regis as the freeholders - has anybody got any advice as i am hearing awful stories about the company.
Received on: Sun Apr 20 17:51:26 2003 from IP address: 62.24.252.191
From: Ken Frost (kenfrost@kenfrost.com)
Comment: someone asked me to post this for them..