Firstport make mention of Tri Party Leases which gives them a "Priveleged position and security of tenure in our management. We don't take this for granted"
They assert these leases were created to provide a "seamless handover from the developer to freeholder"
This is absolute rubbish!
It was nothing more than a cynical ploy on behalf of the developers, freeholders and managing agents to further their interests at the expense of residents.
If the stated object was to provide a seamless handover, that could have been achieved by awarding a three year management contract. Instead, the developer and freeholder deliberately constructed a lease which wove the managing agent into the lease, making it next to impossible to sack the managing agent.
In the case of Peverel/Firstport of course the freeholder owned them, so as is the case today they are free to abuse leaseholders.
And of course it is not just leaseholders that have been afflicted.
Peverel/Firstport were entwined into leases for small patches of land surrounding freehold homes. So they could charge what they felt like, they never provided any service for their fees and because freeholders had even less rights than leaseholders, they carried on exploiting them.
The Tri Party Leases proved to be a Win Win Lose situation, as typified by so much of leasehold.
The Developer wins, The Freeholder/Managing Agent wins, The Leaseholder loses!
From the 80's there was an explosion in the construction of cheap to build, poorly constructed blocks of flats. Those flats were sold very quickly and often before any rectification work was carried out.
Residents had the security of the NHBC 10 year guarantee to fall back on.
However, it was realised that such was the extent of the problems, the NHBC scheme was in danger of becoming unsustainable.
If a scheme could be brought in so that a managing agent could be woven into the lease, giving them a permanent right to manage, the developer could not only receive money for selling the development on, but crucially avoid any NHBC claims against them.
And the reason for this?
If a claim is made against the NHBC, the managing agent makes no profit.
But, if the managing agent can convince leaseholders that a fault with the building is part of maintanence and is not suitable for a NHBC claim, and thus is a chargeable to the service charges , then the managing agent stands to make some serious money as a result of carrying out the work.
This is best exemplified by the case of Fleeced at Wordsworth Court in Worthing.
A building defect led to several expensive episodes of flooding. For years Peverel/Firstport attempted to rectify the problem, with Barry Everitt, The Peverel/Firstport Technical Manager (the person who gave the OK for fire safety curtains over the phone, that were damaged and led to the death of Irene Cockerton in the Gibson Court fire) refusing to pass the claim to the NHBC.
It took years of dedication on the part of Fleeced to finally force Barry Everitt to act in a proper manner.
Once again, Peverel/Firstport used an abusive position to their advantage.
Nothing changes!
