Increasing frustration with Peverel/Firstport are leading to many more Right to Manage actions as residents want Peverel/Firstport off their developments.
In this , they share their desire with Mcarthy & Stone, Barratt Homes and Berkeley Homes who have sacked them.
Whilst the removal of Firstport will affect them financially, the people that are really alarmed about any right to manage are Estates & Management who act for the freeholders.
The freeholders need the funds generated from co-operative managing agents and the commissions they earn from placing insurance.
So when a development decides on a Right To Manage, the residents can expect a delegation from E&M advising them against doing a Right To Manage, but suggesting that they would be happy to dismiss Firstport provided the residents agree to the appointment of E&M's favoured managing agent.
Generally the suggested managing agent will either be Freemont Property Managers run by the crooks who were former directors of Peverel, or Rendell & Rittner.
Indeed the Freemont website advises residents to ask the freeholders to change managing agent, without doing a Right To Manage. Since the vast majority of residents will want to change Firstport and E&M will be the freeholders and Freemont will be one of the favoured managing agents, it comes as no surprise that is their advice.
The suggestion that both these companies offer a 15% goodwill payment to E&M if they are selected to manage developments has yet to be denied by either company.
Right To Manage is exactly what it says.
Instead of allowing a freeholder with a vested interest to appoint who suits them, you the leaseholder appoint who suits you!
Having a Right To Manage does not mean that the resident has to take responsibility for managing the development. You simply appoint a managing agent to take care of your development. No more funds getting mixed up with other developments, no more work done purely to generate funds for financially stricken freeholder/managing agents. no more hidden 40% insurance commissions or undisclosed utility rebates going back to the managing agent.
If you are unhappy with any managing agent you can simply replace them.
It becomes your choice with no need to gain permission from the managing agent or freeholder.
If you do get a letter from E&M it has no legal basis, though probably it will be written in a manner that suggests it is. Don't fall for it!
They may well express concern as to the well being of the development, which is why they rule out some of the choices residents would like to appoint.
They may point out the lack of accounts, the short time the company has been trading or lack of accreditation from a trade body as reasons for objecting to their appointment.
Such concern from a company that was subject to Parliamentary Motion 342 concerning the conduct of E&M and their owner Vincent Tchenguiz Family Trust.
That didn't prevent E&M appointing Freemont Property Managers a few days after they had been set up and well before they had published accounts and knowing full well of their directors lamentable conduct.
Nor do they seem to be bothered that Firstport Retirement applied to ARMA for accreditation 19 months ago and have still not been thought to be suitable even for associate membership.
Ideally a local firm that does not manage too many properties, who are willing to show you other developments under their management or a managing agent that residents are familiar with seems to be the way to go.
