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 It is moderated, which means that your comments will NOT be published until they have been checked by the editorial staff first.
Smoking.
The new occupier of one of the four flats in our small corridor is a heavy smoker, and the horrible smell of smoke has now reached the building where it hangs around all day. Not sure whether the flat in owned or rented. Obviously no smoking is allowed in the building. How do we deal with this problem? Any ideas would be welcome.
Posted by Lynn Franks on 23 July 2024
Whilst smoking cannot be banned within the confines of the demised any action that affects the quiet enjoyment of other leaseholders is a breach of the lease. If it is possible to find out if the flat is owned or rented that would be good. If it is rented it may help if the owner is advised as the smoking will be damaging the property.
Posted by The Editor on 23 July 2024
Deception by Omission!
It's not just what you say that can be deceiving it's what you omit to say that can equally be deceiving.
Take for example the Leasehold Advisory Service now chaired by Martin Boyd.
Looking at the Leasehold Advisory Service Companies House filings it can be seen that under Directors Martin Boyd is listed as a director.
Under directorships which must be disclosed Martin Boyd was listed as a director of Leasehold Knowledge Services (company number 10731753) which was dissolved on 25th September 2018.
However Mr Boyd is not listed as a current director of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership (company number 08999652)
This is inexcusable. People are entitled to know if anyone has a vested interest that may affect their ability to put their faith in any organisation.
How are people going to rely on the Leasehold Advisory Service if they have an issue with a management company accredited by LKP for example?
Take for example the Leasehold Advisory Service now chaired by Martin Boyd.
Looking at the Leasehold Advisory Service Companies House filings it can be seen that under Directors Martin Boyd is listed as a director.
Under directorships which must be disclosed Martin Boyd was listed as a director of Leasehold Knowledge Services (company number 10731753) which was dissolved on 25th September 2018.
However Mr Boyd is not listed as a current director of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership (company number 08999652)
This is inexcusable. People are entitled to know if anyone has a vested interest that may affect their ability to put their faith in any organisation.
How are people going to rely on the Leasehold Advisory Service if they have an issue with a management company accredited by LKP for example?
Posted by The Editor on 21 July 2024
Martin Boyd has helped many Firstport leaseholders and does not charge for his time.
Posted by on 21 July 2024
Dear Mr Editor,
Is Boyd currently a director of the LKP or the chairperson? Does one have to be a director to hold the chair?
Is Boyd currently a director of the LKP or the chairperson? Does one have to be a director to hold the chair?
Posted by Kim on 21 July 2024
None of the other campaigners charge for their time or take expenses apart from LKP/NLC. Indeed whilst it is true that Mr Boyd does not chare for his time (though it is yet to be confirmed that he is not drawing income/expenses from the Leasehold Advisory Service) let us not forget the circumstances surrounding the windfall gifted to LKP when they discovered a domain name had a value of over £100,000 and was sold in a secret deal. Oddly it appeared it was not LKP that sold the domain name but an individual within LKP that sold it who donated the money to LKP before becoming a short term employee of LKP until his salary matched the donation. That stinks! Mr Boyd was content for this to happen. Mr Boyd found himself severely criticised in a report for bullying members of the Leasehold Advisory staff, such that some were reduced to tears and needed counselling. Is Mr Boyd a bully? That depends on whether you believe threats of defamation actions to silence the truth are bullying? Or publishing private medical information on a public forum about me without my permission is bullying?
People need to ask themselves as to why Mr Boyd would appeal to the Information Commissioners Office in order not to disclose any information they hold on me?
I am firmly of the belief that had a cosy deal not been done with Firstport to further LKP interests Firstport could have been out of business and the struggle wold have been over.
Yes, Mr Boyd has done much for leaseholders, but has set the cause of integrity back in the process.
That Dr Crippen was a very talented doctor does not excuse his behaviour!
People need to ask themselves as to why Mr Boyd would appeal to the Information Commissioners Office in order not to disclose any information they hold on me?
I am firmly of the belief that had a cosy deal not been done with Firstport to further LKP interests Firstport could have been out of business and the struggle wold have been over.
Yes, Mr Boyd has done much for leaseholders, but has set the cause of integrity back in the process.
That Dr Crippen was a very talented doctor does not excuse his behaviour!
Posted by Michael Epstein on 22 July 2024
Kim,It is not an issue that Mr Boyd is a director of the Leasehold Advisory Service. Being a director is probably a requirement of being a chair.
The issue is that he does not disclose on official company filings that he is a director of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership thereby hiding a serious and apparent conflict of interest. Imagine you have an issue with a managing agent that is accredited by LKP and you go to the LAS for assistance. The LAS tell you that nothing can be done as the managing agent is in the right. You accept this decision even though you feel it to be totally unfair.
Of course this, what you believe to be a perverse decision may want you to investigate further?
If the correct information is filed at Companies House it would immediately become apparent that Mr Boyd is a director of both LAS and LKP which is a clear conflict of interest. That this vital information is hidden from the public is in my view deception.
The issue is that he does not disclose on official company filings that he is a director of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership thereby hiding a serious and apparent conflict of interest. Imagine you have an issue with a managing agent that is accredited by LKP and you go to the LAS for assistance. The LAS tell you that nothing can be done as the managing agent is in the right. You accept this decision even though you feel it to be totally unfair.
Of course this, what you believe to be a perverse decision may want you to investigate further?
If the correct information is filed at Companies House it would immediately become apparent that Mr Boyd is a director of both LAS and LKP which is a clear conflict of interest. That this vital information is hidden from the public is in my view deception.
Posted by The Editor on 22 July 2024
Anonymous,
You don't even give your name, but Martyn Boyd has not been helpful to Michael E and if I remember rightly, he actually made false accusations about him
You don't even give your name, but Martyn Boyd has not been helpful to Michael E and if I remember rightly, he actually made false accusations about him
Posted by RUTH on 22 July 2024
Dear Mr Editor,
I wholeheartedly concur with you, I was just being a pedant. Boyd is what he is and I hope i never have to contact LAS re WESTBURY RESIDENTIAL LTD doings…I do not believe I would get a fair hearing, bearing in mind LKP endorsement of WESTBURY RESIDENTIAL LTD…..( WR) Which prompts me to say this.
After 18 months The RICS has finally almost finished its investigation into WR. In brief, it found WR had acted “ UNPROFESSIONALLY “ and that “ Strong words” would be directed at WR…It said it noted that WR had not adhered to the first admonishment in sept 2022 when WR was found to have not acted in accordance with RICS rules….snd that disciplinary action will be taken if WR fails to adhere to the “ strong words” from the RICS in July 2024!
But hang on a minute…RICS also said that it found WR misleading an upper Tribunal a most serious matter and are investigating further to see if disciplinary action will taken …….
I wholeheartedly concur with you, I was just being a pedant. Boyd is what he is and I hope i never have to contact LAS re WESTBURY RESIDENTIAL LTD doings…I do not believe I would get a fair hearing, bearing in mind LKP endorsement of WESTBURY RESIDENTIAL LTD…..( WR) Which prompts me to say this.
After 18 months The RICS has finally almost finished its investigation into WR. In brief, it found WR had acted “ UNPROFESSIONALLY “ and that “ Strong words” would be directed at WR…It said it noted that WR had not adhered to the first admonishment in sept 2022 when WR was found to have not acted in accordance with RICS rules….snd that disciplinary action will be taken if WR fails to adhere to the “ strong words” from the RICS in July 2024!
But hang on a minute…RICS also said that it found WR misleading an upper Tribunal a most serious matter and are investigating further to see if disciplinary action will taken …….
Posted by Kim on 22 July 2024
Just as a reminder for those that may not be aware, Westbury Residential is headed up by former Peverel/Firstport senior management. One person denied ever working for Peverel/Firstport even though there had been overwhelming documentary evidence that they had and the other headed up the Solitaire division. A company that operated such lamentable practices that the campaigning website The Truth about Solitaire was set up to counteract the worst of their excesses.
Though she denied it they were also given support by a director of LKP and director of NLC. The denials of support were given despite written copies of her support being given being exposed.
Though she denied it they were also given support by a director of LKP and director of NLC. The denials of support were given despite written copies of her support being given being exposed.
Posted by The Editor on 22 July 2024
Dear Mr Editor,
An excellent exposition of the WESTBURY RESIDENTIAL LTD hierarchy, and FIRSTPORT connection … However, you neglected to mention the disgraced County Estate management connection too!
In addition, I would like to mention that I was sued by Westbury Residential Ltd for “ Defamation “ & “ Harrasment “. I was sued because I would not sign what was effectively a ‘ GAGGING ORDER’, I won hands down . All 15 claims by Westbury Residential were thrown out. My legal fees were around £ 70,000. Westbury had to pick up,the bill! I did tell LKP about this matter and said I would like to write a piece for LKP on their website to let leaseholders know that they must not be bullied into silence. …..I was told that they didn’t think my article would be well written….Hmmmmm.Was that the real reason?
An excellent exposition of the WESTBURY RESIDENTIAL LTD hierarchy, and FIRSTPORT connection … However, you neglected to mention the disgraced County Estate management connection too!
In addition, I would like to mention that I was sued by Westbury Residential Ltd for “ Defamation “ & “ Harrasment “. I was sued because I would not sign what was effectively a ‘ GAGGING ORDER’, I won hands down . All 15 claims by Westbury Residential were thrown out. My legal fees were around £ 70,000. Westbury had to pick up,the bill! I did tell LKP about this matter and said I would like to write a piece for LKP on their website to let leaseholders know that they must not be bullied into silence. …..I was told that they didn’t think my article would be well written….Hmmmmm.Was that the real reason?
Posted by Kim on 22 July 2024
You Wait For One Bus!
We all know the saying "You wait for one bus and then two come along at the same time" It is a bit like that with Firstport and their new chief financial officer who is now John Keenan, formerly of the Chiswick based RATPDEV Bus Group.
Mr Keenan left the bus company after they made huge losses and previously described himself as a "Turnaround specialist"
Nothing breeds failure like failure, no wonder he is now with Firstport!
Mr Keenan left the bus company after they made huge losses and previously described himself as a "Turnaround specialist"
Nothing breeds failure like failure, no wonder he is now with Firstport!
Posted by The Editor on 18 July 2024
Editor,
Is it possible that Mr. Keenan got on the wrong bus and ended up with Firstport? After all it is at the end of the line?
Is it possible that Mr. Keenan got on the wrong bus and ended up with Firstport? After all it is at the end of the line?
Posted by Stephen Burns on 19 July 2024
RAPT are a French owned bus group who are only continuing to trade because their French parent company has agreed to support their debts for the next year.
Firstport are a French owned property management group who are only continuing to trade because their French parent company has agreed to support their debts for the next year.
RAPT were regulated by Transport for London. A director of TFL responsible for bus regulation was Mr Leon Daniels who became a director of RAPT.
A director of The Association of Residential Managing Agents responsible for regulating managing agents was Mr Nigel Glen who became a director of Firstport.
Firstport are a French owned property management group who are only continuing to trade because their French parent company has agreed to support their debts for the next year.
RAPT were regulated by Transport for London. A director of TFL responsible for bus regulation was Mr Leon Daniels who became a director of RAPT.
A director of The Association of Residential Managing Agents responsible for regulating managing agents was Mr Nigel Glen who became a director of Firstport.
Posted by The Editor on 20 July 2024
When is a shared Freeholder a Landord?
Hello Everyone,
Firstly, I would like to thank Ursula for her kind words.
Secondly, I apologise for my absence but I have been concentrating on a Tribunal / Court matters. Grab the popcorn, and tune in!
SHOWTIME
I have shared freehold in a converted Victorian building. It was relatively recently brought to my attention that the director ( there were 3) of our landlord freehold company mucked around with our roof by reconfiguring and replacing the roof -lights as well as adding new windows….This work was carried out in 2019 during the ‘ Major works’ …
It only came to light in 2023 when I was sent photographs. As well as the works being in breach of a restricted covenant in the lease, they were also carried out without planning permission or building regulations….WESTBURY RESIDENTIAL LTD was the managing agent ‘ overseeing ‘ the works. AS a result of this shocking betrayal and breach of the lease , our insurance is invalid!
I have made an Application to Tribunal as ‘LANDLORD’. I stated that I was exercising my rights to ensure the enforcement of the lease…..The Tribunal seem unsure as to who is the landlord in this matter , hence a hearing to see if this breach is under the Tribunal Jurisdiction…I made a hypothetical scenario….Shared freehold block of 5 shared freeholders, 3 of whom are directors of the landlord freehold company. The directors have breached a restricted covenant. 1 of the other 2 shareholders lives abroad, sub-lets their flat and couldn’t care less.That leaves 1 shareholder , hypothetically KIM , whose obligation and right is to ensure the lease in enforced. Non?
The Tribunal has said it will hold a hearing in August to establish if my Application is under its jurisdiction as it does not see me as the “ Landlord “. My question - who is the Landlord of a shared freehold company when its director and lessee has breached a restrictive covenant? Could be a test case!
GOOD NEWS. The scales have fallen from some of my fellow shareholders eyes… It’s taken ten years..
But I think they were groomed to believe everything I said was lies.The opposite was is true!
Re: “ Squeaky bum “ KIM….I say this to that anon individual …It will not be my bum that’s squeaky…😉
Firstly, I would like to thank Ursula for her kind words.
Secondly, I apologise for my absence but I have been concentrating on a Tribunal / Court matters. Grab the popcorn, and tune in!
SHOWTIME
I have shared freehold in a converted Victorian building. It was relatively recently brought to my attention that the director ( there were 3) of our landlord freehold company mucked around with our roof by reconfiguring and replacing the roof -lights as well as adding new windows….This work was carried out in 2019 during the ‘ Major works’ …
It only came to light in 2023 when I was sent photographs. As well as the works being in breach of a restricted covenant in the lease, they were also carried out without planning permission or building regulations….WESTBURY RESIDENTIAL LTD was the managing agent ‘ overseeing ‘ the works. AS a result of this shocking betrayal and breach of the lease , our insurance is invalid!
I have made an Application to Tribunal as ‘LANDLORD’. I stated that I was exercising my rights to ensure the enforcement of the lease…..The Tribunal seem unsure as to who is the landlord in this matter , hence a hearing to see if this breach is under the Tribunal Jurisdiction…I made a hypothetical scenario….Shared freehold block of 5 shared freeholders, 3 of whom are directors of the landlord freehold company. The directors have breached a restricted covenant. 1 of the other 2 shareholders lives abroad, sub-lets their flat and couldn’t care less.That leaves 1 shareholder , hypothetically KIM , whose obligation and right is to ensure the lease in enforced. Non?
The Tribunal has said it will hold a hearing in August to establish if my Application is under its jurisdiction as it does not see me as the “ Landlord “. My question - who is the Landlord of a shared freehold company when its director and lessee has breached a restrictive covenant? Could be a test case!
GOOD NEWS. The scales have fallen from some of my fellow shareholders eyes… It’s taken ten years..
But I think they were groomed to believe everything I said was lies.The opposite was is true!
Re: “ Squeaky bum “ KIM….I say this to that anon individual …It will not be my bum that’s squeaky…😉
Posted by KIM . on 17 July 2024
It is all too easy to believe comfortable lies, rather than inconvenient truths in search for an easier life.
Simple way to tell who is telling the truth is to conduct the following test:
If a person is telling the truth they will always be able to answer a question and no matter how many times they tell a story it remains the same.
The liar evades or delays answering and their story varies over time.
Simple way to tell who is telling the truth is to conduct the following test:
If a person is telling the truth they will always be able to answer a question and no matter how many times they tell a story it remains the same.
The liar evades or delays answering and their story varies over time.
Posted by Michael Epstein on 17 July 2024
Indeed!There is none so hated as she or he who speaks the truth! The irony is that the folks who have been cheated , whether by online scammers , managing agents , dodgy insurance companies, et al, tend to hate the messenger and not the scammer! Why?Because the scammer ‘ only’ took their money….the messenger makes them feel humiliated and silly for allowing themselves to be fooled….Thing is, leaseholders must never ever give up questioning managing agents. I have done it for 10 yrs, wouldn’t let up…and now , the truth will out. Beautiful! 🤗
Posted by Kim on 17 July 2024
KIM
NICE TO SEE YOU BACK.
NICE TO SEE YOU BACK.
Posted by RUTH on 17 July 2024
"The truth will out" even applies to leasehold charity campaigning groups.
Posted by Michael Epstein on 17 July 2024
Hey Ruth,
Thank you. I heard Labour mention they were going to run with leasehold reform and Commhold! Let’s hope the government includes ‘ REGULATION OF MANAGING AGENTS’. Blocks , even commonhold blocks , will appoint a managing agent. I haven’t changed my view that the many not the few are thoroughly dishonest , and if they didn’t work in property management , would probably be double glazing salespeople….or in prison! That’s my view and I’m sticking to it….If Labour do not regulate managing agents then then, even abolishing leasehold will not stop crooked agents stocking their greedy dishonest figures in the commonholders service charge…. Not everyone is a Ruth, Kim, Michael Epstein… They do not have stomach to take on bullying , dishonest managing agents. REGULATION FOR MANAGING AGENTS , with the teeth to report the very naughty ones to the old bill! That’ll learn em 😉
Thank you. I heard Labour mention they were going to run with leasehold reform and Commhold! Let’s hope the government includes ‘ REGULATION OF MANAGING AGENTS’. Blocks , even commonhold blocks , will appoint a managing agent. I haven’t changed my view that the many not the few are thoroughly dishonest , and if they didn’t work in property management , would probably be double glazing salespeople….or in prison! That’s my view and I’m sticking to it….If Labour do not regulate managing agents then then, even abolishing leasehold will not stop crooked agents stocking their greedy dishonest figures in the commonholders service charge…. Not everyone is a Ruth, Kim, Michael Epstein… They do not have stomach to take on bullying , dishonest managing agents. REGULATION FOR MANAGING AGENTS , with the teeth to report the very naughty ones to the old bill! That’ll learn em 😉
Posted by Kim on 17 July 2024
Master E. “ The truth will out” you say?
I could not agree more. I was having a glass of Pimms with my mate Martin Luther King at the Wimbledon Finals ( Men’s). I was telling about my leasehold campaigning etc …Marty turned to me and said, Kim, keep going, “ Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain’t goin away”. True that! The Editor of this august site ensures truth prevails.He is indefatigable in shining a light on the managing agency known a FIRSTPORT. Respect!
I could not agree more. I was having a glass of Pimms with my mate Martin Luther King at the Wimbledon Finals ( Men’s). I was telling about my leasehold campaigning etc …Marty turned to me and said, Kim, keep going, “ Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light.Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain’t goin away”. True that! The Editor of this august site ensures truth prevails.He is indefatigable in shining a light on the managing agency known a FIRSTPORT. Respect!
Posted by Kim on 17 July 2024
This will not be an "August" site until next month! On a serious note whatever reforms come about in the near future they will be totally without meaning if managing agents are not properly regulated.
Posted by Michael Epstein on 18 July 2024
fire safety order 2022
Any one had fire risk assessments on their flat doors in blocks of flats over 4 storeys high looking for info on the checks carried out on blocks older than 30 years ?
Posted by the holy mole on 13 July 2024
Our flat doors all failed on painted over intumescent strips, hinges not to new regs, automatic door closer not to new regs, gaps around the doors too large, letter box not to new regs and smoke sealer which lifts up when the door opens to be fitted to the bottom of the doors.
Posted by Sarah on 14 July 2024
Thanks Sarah yes all ours too , have you had any quotes , and are you with Firstport or RTM , if possible could you PM me ? Michael has my email , Many thanks
Posted by the holy mole on 16 July 2024
We are RTM, ex Firstport. Unfortunately I can't help with your question on costs. I believe that our RTM Directors are in discussions with the MA as the MA want the people who di the assessment to do the repair work. The RTM think that any carpenter could do it but the MA say they must be Fire Door certified, whatever that means (other than probably doubling the price)
Posted by Sarah on 17 July 2024
The managing agent is 100% correct. Fire doors must be inspected by a qualified person.
If you contact the Fire Protection Association they will be able to point you in the right direction.
Do not forget you must check that any person undertaking any safety inspections is suitably qualified and is the person they claim to be!
If you contact the Fire Protection Association they will be able to point you in the right direction.
Do not forget you must check that any person undertaking any safety inspections is suitably qualified and is the person they claim to be!
Posted by The Editor on 18 July 2024
But can't the work be carried out by a 'normal' carpenter and then inspected by a qualified person?
Posted by Sarah on 18 July 2024
Yes it could be carried out by a "normal" carpenter and later inspected by a qualified person.
But what if it fails? What if the work is of such a poor standard that the doors would have to be replaced in order to pass the inspection?
You may initially save a few pounds, but in all honesty for such a safety critical item extra expenditure is fully justified.
But what if it fails? What if the work is of such a poor standard that the doors would have to be replaced in order to pass the inspection?
You may initially save a few pounds, but in all honesty for such a safety critical item extra expenditure is fully justified.
Posted by The Editor on 18 July 2024
Surely survey and to carry out the work , conflict , any qualified carpenter familiar with the 2022 fire safety order should be able to carry this out ?
Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022
Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022
Posted by the holy mole on 20 July 2024
There have been some 15663 posts and replies on this page. To view older ones search here.
This only searches posts, not replies.
