A long time campaigner Jacq has posted a comment this morning after a long absence.
Welcome back!
For those new to About Peverel they might like to know about Jacq's fight with Peverel/Firstport.
From 2010 Jacq uncovered major inconsistencies concerning service charges at Phoenix House, Leicester.
On a development basis she managed to force Peverel/Firtsport to refund around 40,000 pounds in wrongly claimed/allocated funds.
Meanwhile, her personal service charge account was showing arrears of 10,800 pounds including admin and legal fees.
Many threatening letters/emails were sent to Jacq. The usual suspects were involved The ("I am at a loss to understand" Chris Owens, Jonathon Astle (who has jumped ship to join a competitor who are actively targetting Firstport development management contracts) and of course JB Leitch.
Jacq, despite all the pressure is a very principled and very brave individual who refused to be cowed into submission.
So she duly received a court summons for the outstanding amount and she prepared herself for the hearing.
A few days before the hearing she received a communication from Firstport, to the effect that "because no matter what Firstport said, she would never change her position and further action would damage the financial position of the residents service charge accounts, they would write off as a bad debt the outstanding balance"
All Jacq was required to do was to sign a "Tomlin Order" which is a gagging order preventing any knowledge of the settlement coming into the public domain.
According to Firstport a "Tomlin Order" is merely "Standard Practice"
Jacq refused to sign the agreement, so it was imposed on her. The 10,800 pounds was erased from her individual account.
The odd thing about this is that if Peverel/Firstport had lawfully demanded the service charges, Jacq had a clear duty to pay them. The court would have ordered her to pay.
If she failed to pay, Peverel/Firstport could have served a Section 146 Notice to forfeit the property. Not only would all their costs have been met, the freeholder would have had a 200,000 asset gain.
So it would have been very simple for Peverel/Firstport to claim the outstanding funds. But they did not? Why?
Jacq is back in court on November 18th. About Peverel wish her well.
Anyone that can assist her, please do so.
Do not forget when it comes to Peverel/Firstport when a fraud is uncovered at one development, it is usually repeated for other developments.
