This the guestbook. You can make your comments here. It is moderated, which means that your comments will NOT be published until they have been checked by the editorial staff first.
The Abuse of the Section 20B Notice
Posted by The Editor on 07 April 2025
Dear Mr Editor,
Which legislative L& T clause allows this loophole? The S20 B notice is not my first rodeo and I am unfamiliar with any get out clause. Please elaborate..
Which legislative L& T clause allows this loophole? The S20 B notice is not my first rodeo and I am unfamiliar with any get out clause. Please elaborate..
Posted by Kim on 07 April 2025
The Section 20B notice allows Firstport extra time to prepare accounts which are routinely late.
Posted by The Editor on 07 April 2025
You are so right about the abuse of Section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
In my development, Firstport have sent out S20B letters for the last 3 years and have yet to follow them up with annual accounts. The last annual accounts received was for FY20/21 which Firstport agreed were in error but as yet they have failed to send out the corrected accounts.
It is also worth noting that the S20B budget figures are not consistent with the original Estimated Service Charge and the actual figures are questionable as to where they came from and whether there are correct.
I believe that our leaseholders are owed credit from the FY20/21 and potentially follow on years, but until the correct accounts are provided, leaseholders are being asked to pay the full invoice for the next FY.
Despite the intervention of my MP, I am not confident that Firstport have the resources or the integrity to come clean and provide the outstanding accounts.
In my development, Firstport have sent out S20B letters for the last 3 years and have yet to follow them up with annual accounts. The last annual accounts received was for FY20/21 which Firstport agreed were in error but as yet they have failed to send out the corrected accounts.
It is also worth noting that the S20B budget figures are not consistent with the original Estimated Service Charge and the actual figures are questionable as to where they came from and whether there are correct.
I believe that our leaseholders are owed credit from the FY20/21 and potentially follow on years, but until the correct accounts are provided, leaseholders are being asked to pay the full invoice for the next FY.
Despite the intervention of my MP, I am not confident that Firstport have the resources or the integrity to come clean and provide the outstanding accounts.
Posted by Chris on 08 April 2025
Memo To Firstport Staff
From Martin King CEO Firstport.
Due to technical issues integrating IT systems we cannot at present play our traditional April Fool's joke on you.
This we hope to be able to do in October!
I am sorry for any inconvenience, but in the meantime you may carry on working for a joke of a company(until we have to make you redundant that is!)
Due to technical issues integrating IT systems we cannot at present play our traditional April Fool's joke on you.
This we hope to be able to do in October!
I am sorry for any inconvenience, but in the meantime you may carry on working for a joke of a company(until we have to make you redundant that is!)
Posted by The Editor on 01 April 2025
A Credible Response?
Imagine a motorist caught several times speeding and receiving a driving ban and then saying " I welcome the driving ban and the Government's regulation of speeding. Over the last 12 months I have worked towards lowering my speed"
Of course such a reply would be arrant nonsense, but when it comes to the prospect of property management company regulation that is effectively what Firstport are saying!
Responding to shadow housing minister Helen who questioned Mathew Pennycook on the adequacy of service provided by Firstport Property Management.
Mr Pennycook said that he was "looking into adopting the 2019 report on managing agents, the Government is committed to ensuring that consumers are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents.
The Government intends to strengthen the regulations of managing agents, mandating professional qualifications"
The Firstport response in similar vein as the "Motorist's response" was: We welcome the Government's plans for regulation of managing agents. This has been a long held objective for us to drive high standards. Firstport have been implementing improvements over the last 12 months in transparency, communication and service which will deliver a standardised professional service"
In truth Firstport welcome any meaningful regulation as someone would welcome a tooth abscess!
They are aiming to rely on better training for property managers. Well we had that with IRPM qualifications, ARMA training, RICS codes of conduct, as well of course as the Property Institute with their farce of a suspension.
Proper, meaningful regulation of managing agents is the only way forward.
Any regulator that believes Firstport is a fit company to carry on trading is not a proper regulator and is not fit for purpose.
Of course such a reply would be arrant nonsense, but when it comes to the prospect of property management company regulation that is effectively what Firstport are saying!
Responding to shadow housing minister Helen who questioned Mathew Pennycook on the adequacy of service provided by Firstport Property Management.
Mr Pennycook said that he was "looking into adopting the 2019 report on managing agents, the Government is committed to ensuring that consumers are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents.
The Government intends to strengthen the regulations of managing agents, mandating professional qualifications"
The Firstport response in similar vein as the "Motorist's response" was: We welcome the Government's plans for regulation of managing agents. This has been a long held objective for us to drive high standards. Firstport have been implementing improvements over the last 12 months in transparency, communication and service which will deliver a standardised professional service"
In truth Firstport welcome any meaningful regulation as someone would welcome a tooth abscess!
They are aiming to rely on better training for property managers. Well we had that with IRPM qualifications, ARMA training, RICS codes of conduct, as well of course as the Property Institute with their farce of a suspension.
Proper, meaningful regulation of managing agents is the only way forward.
Any regulator that believes Firstport is a fit company to carry on trading is not a proper regulator and is not fit for purpose.
Posted by The Editor on 29 March 2025
DEAR MR EDITOR
If Firstport think they have been implementing improvements over the last 12 months, I wonder why we , having left them 16 months ago, are still waiting for our closing statement.There has been no apology from FP!
If Firstport think they have been implementing improvements over the last 12 months, I wonder why we , having left them 16 months ago, are still waiting for our closing statement.There has been no apology from FP!
Posted by RUTH on 29 March 2025
There has never been a single incoming Firstport CEO that has not said the same thing, time after time after time after time.
Remember Janet Entwistle when she became CEO who said "We may not have got it right in the past?"
So the new CEO Mr King if you are serious in your ambitions to implement improvements in transparency, communication and service how about starting off by refunding the residents of the retirement developments that had £1.4m stolen from them in the warden call price fixing scandal? How about barring the connected company behind the price fixing fraud from being awarded contracts? That would be a start! And then Mr King when you have refunded that stolen money, you know those general residential developments(as opposed to the retirement developments) that you charge "Monitoring" fees when there is no Monitoring it is simply an out of hours telephone line that is standard for every property management company and included in the management fee, why don't you voluntarily refund leaseholders who should never have had to pay the monitoring fees?
Remember Janet Entwistle when she became CEO who said "We may not have got it right in the past?"
So the new CEO Mr King if you are serious in your ambitions to implement improvements in transparency, communication and service how about starting off by refunding the residents of the retirement developments that had £1.4m stolen from them in the warden call price fixing scandal? How about barring the connected company behind the price fixing fraud from being awarded contracts? That would be a start! And then Mr King when you have refunded that stolen money, you know those general residential developments(as opposed to the retirement developments) that you charge "Monitoring" fees when there is no Monitoring it is simply an out of hours telephone line that is standard for every property management company and included in the management fee, why don't you voluntarily refund leaseholders who should never have had to pay the monitoring fees?
Posted by The Editor on 29 March 2025
Dear Mr Editor,
As you and your lovely and not so lovely ( secret voyeurs) know, I have been banging the REGULATION OF MANAGING AGENTS drum since god was a boy!
You say that Pennycook is “ looking into adopting Lord Bests recommendations of 2019”. When did he say that please?
I wrote to oily Robert Jenrick who was then the Secretary of State for Housing in 2019 asking him to beef up Lord Bests recommendations ny adding this..That an Independent regulator must have the teeth to report managing agents to the Old Bill if it is believed the agent has their dirty sticky thieving fingers on the leaseholders money. I will write to Pennycook saying same. It is time that this licence to thieve racket , perpetrated by a certain type of managing agent is brought to an end.
As you and your lovely and not so lovely ( secret voyeurs) know, I have been banging the REGULATION OF MANAGING AGENTS drum since god was a boy!
You say that Pennycook is “ looking into adopting Lord Bests recommendations of 2019”. When did he say that please?
I wrote to oily Robert Jenrick who was then the Secretary of State for Housing in 2019 asking him to beef up Lord Bests recommendations ny adding this..That an Independent regulator must have the teeth to report managing agents to the Old Bill if it is believed the agent has their dirty sticky thieving fingers on the leaseholders money. I will write to Pennycook saying same. It is time that this licence to thieve racket , perpetrated by a certain type of managing agent is brought to an end.
Posted by Kim on 30 March 2025
Show Firstport The Exeter!
Well done David Reed, Member of Parliament for Exmouth & Exeter East. He gets it!
As he says "When I was elected last year I quickly learned about the poor service many people face from property management companies.
Firstport Property management stood out as a major concern.
The issue affects not just Exmouth and Exeter East, but communities across the country.
I have received numerous complaints detailing excessive service charges, poor communications and unresolved maintenance issues.
These failings are totally unacceptable and as your MP I take these concerns very seriously and I will do what is necessary to hold Firstport to account"
Mr Reed, Firstport are incapable of reform. They must cease to exist.
As he says "When I was elected last year I quickly learned about the poor service many people face from property management companies.
Firstport Property management stood out as a major concern.
The issue affects not just Exmouth and Exeter East, but communities across the country.
I have received numerous complaints detailing excessive service charges, poor communications and unresolved maintenance issues.
These failings are totally unacceptable and as your MP I take these concerns very seriously and I will do what is necessary to hold Firstport to account"
Mr Reed, Firstport are incapable of reform. They must cease to exist.
Posted by The Editor on 28 March 2025
Beth Lancaster Training Session
Beth Lancaster has been training Firstport staff as to how to understand the terms of leaseholds.
And that is good were in not for Beth Lancaster's lamentable property management record.
If we go back in time to Charter Quay and Martin Boyd's fight against County Estate Management at his Charter Quay development (ironic really since his LKP now accredit the spawn of County Estate Management) we find Beth Lancaster being mentioned by the tribunal Judge when being singled out for criticism for contracting Interphone, the Tchenguiz owned intercom, satellite, tv and radio distribution systems without:
Reading the contracts.
Obtaining quotations from other contractors.
Making any attempts to negotiate the terms fees involved.
In effect she simply signed what Interphone put in front of her said the tribunal.
Mrs Lancaster claimed "She did not know Interphone was a Tchenguiz company"
So someone whose record is so poor that she should have been banned from ever working in property management is actually training future Firstport property managers!
And that is good were in not for Beth Lancaster's lamentable property management record.
If we go back in time to Charter Quay and Martin Boyd's fight against County Estate Management at his Charter Quay development (ironic really since his LKP now accredit the spawn of County Estate Management) we find Beth Lancaster being mentioned by the tribunal Judge when being singled out for criticism for contracting Interphone, the Tchenguiz owned intercom, satellite, tv and radio distribution systems without:
Reading the contracts.
Obtaining quotations from other contractors.
Making any attempts to negotiate the terms fees involved.
In effect she simply signed what Interphone put in front of her said the tribunal.
Mrs Lancaster claimed "She did not know Interphone was a Tchenguiz company"
So someone whose record is so poor that she should have been banned from ever working in property management is actually training future Firstport property managers!
Posted by The Editor on 26 March 2025
Blimey, I remember her. I also remember that COUNTY ESTATE MANAGEMENT was deemed“ disgraceful “ by the Judge.
It should be noted that CEO of CEM was Paul Rayden , and Alison Mooney was associate director of CEM as well as simultaneously being regional manager for PEVEREL.
Paul,Rayden incorporated WESTBURY RESIDENTIAL LTD and appointed Alison Moi eh as a director and 10% cat B shares…. 2020/21 LKP accredited firm URANG joined forces with Westbury Residential Ltd……What next?
It should be noted that CEO of CEM was Paul Rayden , and Alison Mooney was associate director of CEM as well as simultaneously being regional manager for PEVEREL.
Paul,Rayden incorporated WESTBURY RESIDENTIAL LTD and appointed Alison Moi eh as a director and 10% cat B shares…. 2020/21 LKP accredited firm URANG joined forces with Westbury Residential Ltd……What next?
Posted by Kim on 27 March 2025
According to thee reports at the time, County Estate Management's conduct was denounced by the tribunal as being "Disgraceful for loading management fees" and
for "Glaring failures and unacceptable behaviour"
And of course it is not just LKP that accredits them? Katie Kenrick a trustee of LKP and head of NLC and Labour councillor gave her personal support to the company to obtain management contracts.
for "Glaring failures and unacceptable behaviour"
And of course it is not just LKP that accredits them? Katie Kenrick a trustee of LKP and head of NLC and Labour councillor gave her personal support to the company to obtain management contracts.
Posted by The Editor on 27 March 2025
Dear Mr Editor,
I echo the words of M'lud when I say it is " Disgraceful" that LKP/ NLC ban honest and true campaigners from their blog sites , but accredit a firm incorporated by PEVEREL flotsam and jetsam...Disgraceful I tell you! Never mind that Boyd is chair of LKP and paid for by the taxpayer for his ' LAS gig
It stinks.
I echo the words of M'lud when I say it is " Disgraceful" that LKP/ NLC ban honest and true campaigners from their blog sites , but accredit a firm incorporated by PEVEREL flotsam and jetsam...Disgraceful I tell you! Never mind that Boyd is chair of LKP and paid for by the taxpayer for his ' LAS gig
It stinks.
Posted by Kim on 27 March 2025
There have been some 16508 posts and replies on this page. To view older ones search here.
This only searches posts, not replies.
As it stands a managing agent can only recover costs within an 18 month period after the cost has been incurred.
However circumstances can occur for which it is not possible to charge within the 18 month time frame. One reason for this is in the case that accounts have not been done in a timely fashion. That means without the accounts a service charge demand cannot be issued on time, meaning the cost incurred period exceeds the 18 month rule which in turn means that those costs are not payable.
To get around this managing agents issue a Section 20 B notice which has the effect of stopping the 18 month rule clock.
It is the case that the vast majority of managing agents have never had to serve a Section 20 B Notice, but in the case of Firstport such is the administrative chaos are they in the serving of such notices are becoming the default Firstport position.
Hundreds of their managed developments have been served with a Section 20 B Notice and many of those developments having been served such a notice on previous occasions. Residents should not be made to suffer due to Firstport failings. No one forced Firstport to buy up competitor companies or bid for new contracts whilst their administrative systems had already been overwhelmed by the number of developments already under their control