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 It is moderated, which means that your comments will NOT be published until they have been checked by the editorial staff first.
RTM
With the help of our MP and a local councillor, a fairly large housing estate in the sleepy Kent market town of Faversham in Kent have just won their battle to have FP removed as their managing agent. There is a two page report in our local paper damming FP on several issues. This will not be good publicity for FP who have two retirement developments in our town. Yet another loss for Firstport.
Posted by REEVE on 23 January 2025
REEVE,
I read that article what a first class outcome for you and your neighbours.
Enlisting the support of your Member of Parliament and local Councillor may have contributed to your success in ridding your selves of that imposed managing agent.
I sincerely hope that you may give some thought to other locals who live in retirement developments?
Congratulations, well done.
I read that article what a first class outcome for you and your neighbours.
Enlisting the support of your Member of Parliament and local Councillor may have contributed to your success in ridding your selves of that imposed managing agent.
I sincerely hope that you may give some thought to other locals who live in retirement developments?
Congratulations, well done.
Posted by Stephen Burns on 23 January 2025
Great news , enjoy your retirement, let hope the other development go the same way
Posted by the holy mole on 24 January 2025
Of course what Firstport fear is the "Word and mouth effect"
Many Firstport managed developments are quite close to each other. It is highly likely that residents on a development that has carried out a Right to Manage and sacked Firstport are friends with those residents who still live on firstport managed developments.
How long do you think it will be before the conversation turns away from Trump to the level of service charges and poor standard of service given by Firstport, the condemnation by 80 MP's of Firstport's conduct and the savings and improvements made after carrying out a Right to Manage accompanied by advice as to how to do it?
Many Firstport managed developments are quite close to each other. It is highly likely that residents on a development that has carried out a Right to Manage and sacked Firstport are friends with those residents who still live on firstport managed developments.
How long do you think it will be before the conversation turns away from Trump to the level of service charges and poor standard of service given by Firstport, the condemnation by 80 MP's of Firstport's conduct and the savings and improvements made after carrying out a Right to Manage accompanied by advice as to how to do it?
Posted by Michael Epstein on 24 January 2025
Want To Leave Firstport Retirement? What Next?
So you live in a retirement development managed by Firstport. You are sick and tired of unaccountable service charges and poor service. You are fed up with paying up to 40% more than you need to.
You decide a Right to Manage action to appoint a managing agent of your choosing is the way forward.
Of course Firstport cannot afford to lose the management contract for your development and they will fight tooth and nail to retain it under their management.
Indeed senior Firstport managers are under orders to identify "At risk developments" and have the authority to do what they believe to be the most conducive methods to retain the management contract. The well established routine that kicks in is generally as follows:
They will embark on a charm offensive. They will apologise for past errors and tell residents that they have new staff and new procedures which will dramatically improve their service levels and to show their good faith they will substantially reduce their management fees and possibly use their influence on their warden call system suppliers(one of their connected companies)
If that is not enough they will be prepared to do a deal on the residential house manager's costs. They may imply that they would agree to sell it which reduces residents costs, they may imply that the house manager's flat needs major decorations which would normally be charged to the residents but in return for agreeing to stay with Firstport, they could "do something" about the costs.
If that fails to persuade residents to stay the next tactic is deployed.
That tactic is to make residents "aware" of the dangers of undertaking a Right to Manage. Residents will be told how complex property management is and how hard current legislation is for the inexperienced to comply with.
They will give the impression that a Right to Manage means that they will be responsible for the management of the development, which whilst very technically being true, in practice it is ridiculous since the RTM company will simply appoint a managing agent of their choosing and leave it to the managing agent to manage.
They will point out to residents the number of RTM's that have appointed a managing agent have regretted it and returned to Firstport.
Out of hundreds of RTM's that have taken place, due to a very unusual set of circumstances maybe as many as 1 development has returned to Firstport!
And if all that still fails to persuade residents of the merits of keeping Firstport as the managing agent they use the nuclear option which is to castigate the potential replacement managing agent.
In this endeavour they make wild unsubstantiated claims about the managing agent that they know to be untrue, Only to issue an apology to the slandered managing agent at a later date to avoid legal action.
It should be remembered that the loss of a management contract loses Firstport not just the profit from the contract, they lose the income streams from their connected warden call systems, they lose income from the lost opportunity from their connected Retirement Homesearch division.
If that was not bad enough either Firstport or Estates & Management could lose their up to 40% insurance commissions if the RMC places their own insurance.
You decide a Right to Manage action to appoint a managing agent of your choosing is the way forward.
Of course Firstport cannot afford to lose the management contract for your development and they will fight tooth and nail to retain it under their management.
Indeed senior Firstport managers are under orders to identify "At risk developments" and have the authority to do what they believe to be the most conducive methods to retain the management contract. The well established routine that kicks in is generally as follows:
They will embark on a charm offensive. They will apologise for past errors and tell residents that they have new staff and new procedures which will dramatically improve their service levels and to show their good faith they will substantially reduce their management fees and possibly use their influence on their warden call system suppliers(one of their connected companies)
If that is not enough they will be prepared to do a deal on the residential house manager's costs. They may imply that they would agree to sell it which reduces residents costs, they may imply that the house manager's flat needs major decorations which would normally be charged to the residents but in return for agreeing to stay with Firstport, they could "do something" about the costs.
If that fails to persuade residents to stay the next tactic is deployed.
That tactic is to make residents "aware" of the dangers of undertaking a Right to Manage. Residents will be told how complex property management is and how hard current legislation is for the inexperienced to comply with.
They will give the impression that a Right to Manage means that they will be responsible for the management of the development, which whilst very technically being true, in practice it is ridiculous since the RTM company will simply appoint a managing agent of their choosing and leave it to the managing agent to manage.
They will point out to residents the number of RTM's that have appointed a managing agent have regretted it and returned to Firstport.
Out of hundreds of RTM's that have taken place, due to a very unusual set of circumstances maybe as many as 1 development has returned to Firstport!
And if all that still fails to persuade residents of the merits of keeping Firstport as the managing agent they use the nuclear option which is to castigate the potential replacement managing agent.
In this endeavour they make wild unsubstantiated claims about the managing agent that they know to be untrue, Only to issue an apology to the slandered managing agent at a later date to avoid legal action.
It should be remembered that the loss of a management contract loses Firstport not just the profit from the contract, they lose the income streams from their connected warden call systems, they lose income from the lost opportunity from their connected Retirement Homesearch division.
If that was not bad enough either Firstport or Estates & Management could lose their up to 40% insurance commissions if the RMC places their own insurance.
Posted by The Editor on 23 January 2025
DEAR Mr EDITOR
What a good exposure of Firstport and their evil ways. As you know we were
with them and then went to Freemont which was set up by 4 former senior members of FirstPort
Having made 4 million they sold themselves back to FP and we were back where we started.
Firstport wanted our service charge right away with an administration charge of £27 added which you kindly warned me about. We all cancelled our Direct Debits.
There were various other attempts to get money from us , but with your help we ignored them
We decided to go RTM with a small local company set up by a couple from Freemont who did not want to work with FP again.
For 14 months having been warned by you to make sure we got all the money owed
we have struggled to get it back
FP are still showing their vindictive ways. Our Managing agent had to attend their office several times during Christmas week to sort the money out.
We are still waiting for our Closing statement.
We are in for a big spend for guttering and fences, fire doors for the ground floor and all work that had not been done. I cannot understand why more people do not get out of their clutches.
Our managing agent is so on the ball and she has negotiated some good prices for all the work. She is very caring of us. All residents can ring her and e mail her, which never happened with FP.
Mr Editor can give you advice and you can make him happy by causing another development to undertake a RTM and cause the loss of another Firstport development management contract which is always a cause to celebrate. We are so fortunate to have his help
What a good exposure of Firstport and their evil ways. As you know we were
with them and then went to Freemont which was set up by 4 former senior members of FirstPort
Having made 4 million they sold themselves back to FP and we were back where we started.
Firstport wanted our service charge right away with an administration charge of £27 added which you kindly warned me about. We all cancelled our Direct Debits.
There were various other attempts to get money from us , but with your help we ignored them
We decided to go RTM with a small local company set up by a couple from Freemont who did not want to work with FP again.
For 14 months having been warned by you to make sure we got all the money owed
we have struggled to get it back
FP are still showing their vindictive ways. Our Managing agent had to attend their office several times during Christmas week to sort the money out.
We are still waiting for our Closing statement.
We are in for a big spend for guttering and fences, fire doors for the ground floor and all work that had not been done. I cannot understand why more people do not get out of their clutches.
Our managing agent is so on the ball and she has negotiated some good prices for all the work. She is very caring of us. All residents can ring her and e mail her, which never happened with FP.
Mr Editor can give you advice and you can make him happy by causing another development to undertake a RTM and cause the loss of another Firstport development management contract which is always a cause to celebrate. We are so fortunate to have his help
Posted by RUTH on 23 January 2025
Editor,
From my own first hand experience the above is a precise and factual account.
We have been an established RTM for almost four years and every leaseholder has saved more than £2500 each in service charge. As of March 2024 we had a very healthy reserve or sinking fund equivalent to more than £4k per apartment.
So far so good, but we are experiencing a bump in the road, which will be dealt with. The regulation of managing agents is vital the sooner this is achieved the better for all leaseholders and the ever increasing numbers of freeholders who are being systematically fleeced on a industrial scale.
From my own first hand experience the above is a precise and factual account.
We have been an established RTM for almost four years and every leaseholder has saved more than £2500 each in service charge. As of March 2024 we had a very healthy reserve or sinking fund equivalent to more than £4k per apartment.
So far so good, but we are experiencing a bump in the road, which will be dealt with. The regulation of managing agents is vital the sooner this is achieved the better for all leaseholders and the ever increasing numbers of freeholders who are being systematically fleeced on a industrial scale.
Posted by Stephen Burns on 23 January 2025
Dear Mr Editor,
The blocks booting out Firstport must carry out due dilligence on any replacement agency. By this I mean they should not assume that an agency waving an RICS badge or an LKP accreditation are ‘ open , honest and transparent’. Indeed, even an agency that is appointed caretaker agent at the FTT does not mean that that it runs a clean ship. I speak from experience when i say that firms such as RICS assoc Westbury Residential should be avoided at all costs! WHY? Here are some of the reasons..
1.2023 accounts contain many anomalies and I am lobbying the new directors for a full audit otherwise an application will be made to FTT. WR will be implicated and will have to explain the the thousands of pound of expenditure unsupported by invoices.
2. WR invoiced for £600 of interest made on our service charges.How can that be?
3. WR allowed a favoured leaseholder to,breach the lease by making apertures in the roof, adding extra windows, enlarging the interior of the flat by building up into the eaves. All without permission of the freeholder( the shareholders of the freehold) or an LTA. Wonder what the benefit if any to WR was for allowing this breach?
4. £7000 charges paid to their go to surveyor for “ liasing with tenderers” .??
Thing is, a year before WR charged £600 for “ project management,liasing with tenders”……
WR have left an almighty mess which is not just going to be erased so we can “ move on”. No Siree Bob!
I was having a drink down the old Dog and Duck with my mate George Orwell.
He turned to me and said , Kim, “ you’re my best mate you are “..He’d had a few…anyway he went to say this.
“ The past must never be erased and the lies must never become the truth”
You betcha!
The blocks booting out Firstport must carry out due dilligence on any replacement agency. By this I mean they should not assume that an agency waving an RICS badge or an LKP accreditation are ‘ open , honest and transparent’. Indeed, even an agency that is appointed caretaker agent at the FTT does not mean that that it runs a clean ship. I speak from experience when i say that firms such as RICS assoc Westbury Residential should be avoided at all costs! WHY? Here are some of the reasons..
1.2023 accounts contain many anomalies and I am lobbying the new directors for a full audit otherwise an application will be made to FTT. WR will be implicated and will have to explain the the thousands of pound of expenditure unsupported by invoices.
2. WR invoiced for £600 of interest made on our service charges.How can that be?
3. WR allowed a favoured leaseholder to,breach the lease by making apertures in the roof, adding extra windows, enlarging the interior of the flat by building up into the eaves. All without permission of the freeholder( the shareholders of the freehold) or an LTA. Wonder what the benefit if any to WR was for allowing this breach?
4. £7000 charges paid to their go to surveyor for “ liasing with tenderers” .??
Thing is, a year before WR charged £600 for “ project management,liasing with tenders”……
WR have left an almighty mess which is not just going to be erased so we can “ move on”. No Siree Bob!
I was having a drink down the old Dog and Duck with my mate George Orwell.
He turned to me and said , Kim, “ you’re my best mate you are “..He’d had a few…anyway he went to say this.
“ The past must never be erased and the lies must never become the truth”
You betcha!
Posted by Kim on 26 January 2025
What is it About Bournemouth?
Bournemouth, a very popular south coast resort visited by many who really enjoy their visits.
But Bournemouth also has a dark side to it as well.
Not just as with so many resorts drug dealing is now rife, crime has shot up and "It ain't what it used to be" but Bournemouth and it's environs appears to have been the genesis for so many corrupt property managing agents.
We have McCarthy & Stone with their previous Firstport connections. We have Firstport of course who are based in nearby New Milton and all the scandal they have been involved in.
Now we have news of another Bournemouth based property management company called Initiative Property Management who managed 175 blocks.
Four members of Initiative Property Management staff have now been arrested by the South West Regional Crime Squad for Fraud by Abuse of Position, as well as carrying on a business with intent to defraud.
Isn't that exactly what Firstport have done and continue to do?
But Bournemouth also has a dark side to it as well.
Not just as with so many resorts drug dealing is now rife, crime has shot up and "It ain't what it used to be" but Bournemouth and it's environs appears to have been the genesis for so many corrupt property managing agents.
We have McCarthy & Stone with their previous Firstport connections. We have Firstport of course who are based in nearby New Milton and all the scandal they have been involved in.
Now we have news of another Bournemouth based property management company called Initiative Property Management who managed 175 blocks.
Four members of Initiative Property Management staff have now been arrested by the South West Regional Crime Squad for Fraud by Abuse of Position, as well as carrying on a business with intent to defraud.
Isn't that exactly what Firstport have done and continue to do?
Posted by The Editor on 16 January 2025
MR EDITOR
Very good news,their office is not far from where I live.They went off with all the money .
Unfortuately as you say. there are many others that are much the same.
However. the darker side to Bournemouth
is the numer of murders we have had.
Very good news,their office is not far from where I live.They went off with all the money .
Unfortuately as you say. there are many others that are much the same.
However. the darker side to Bournemouth
is the numer of murders we have had.
Posted by RUTH on 16 January 2025
Dear Mr Editor,
Do you have details of the properties they defrauded ? I should like to speak to the tenants to find out what the fraud was…..If it’s expenditure with no invoices then the skys the limit for tenants to make similar claims…It can’t be one rule for Bournemouth…
The 2023 Accounts for our block has many discrepancies…expenditure without invoices, charged tax when we are a non profit for limited company etc. WESTBURY RESIDENTIAL LTD was our MA 2014-2023.Thanks to me it is no longer our MA. However , I want answers regarding the 2023 accounts and I will assume the 2024 accounts will be questionable. I have yet to receives copy.
Do you have details of the properties they defrauded ? I should like to speak to the tenants to find out what the fraud was…..If it’s expenditure with no invoices then the skys the limit for tenants to make similar claims…It can’t be one rule for Bournemouth…
The 2023 Accounts for our block has many discrepancies…expenditure without invoices, charged tax when we are a non profit for limited company etc. WESTBURY RESIDENTIAL LTD was our MA 2014-2023.Thanks to me it is no longer our MA. However , I want answers regarding the 2023 accounts and I will assume the 2024 accounts will be questionable. I have yet to receives copy.
Posted by Kim on 16 January 2025
Yes Editor that is exactly what Firstport do in plain sight nationally. However, they are protected by the highest institutions in society. I can say this from experience having taken Firstport to the FTT twice.
Posted by Freeholder in NW London on 16 January 2025
Kim, If you go to Companies House Beta Service you should be able to see Initiative's appointments which will give you the identities of the blocks.
Posted by The Editor on 16 January 2025
Editor,
The New Year has got off to an excellent start, it would appear the Establishment has woken up to the fact that the Law of the land applys to everyone and without exception.
Well done "South West Regional Crime Squad" I trust you will share the information gathered so far with colleagues in other Constabulary's.
Special thanks to the unsung heroes who brought this to the attention of the Law and who no doubt persevered in securing this outcome.
Knowledge is power and the pen is mightier than the sword.
The New Year has got off to an excellent start, it would appear the Establishment has woken up to the fact that the Law of the land applys to everyone and without exception.
Well done "South West Regional Crime Squad" I trust you will share the information gathered so far with colleagues in other Constabulary's.
Special thanks to the unsung heroes who brought this to the attention of the Law and who no doubt persevered in securing this outcome.
Knowledge is power and the pen is mightier than the sword.
Posted by Stephen Burns on 16 January 2025
Hi Kim
Initiative had 175 Blocks in the Bournemouth, New Milton, Weymouth, Southampton. Salisbury and Axminster area.
The Bournemouth Echo published a number of articles concerning initiative and our MP at the time Conor Burns brought initiative up in Parliament.
If you Google Initiative Property Management Personal Appointments there is a list of a number of the properties involved.
Initiative had 175 Blocks in the Bournemouth, New Milton, Weymouth, Southampton. Salisbury and Axminster area.
The Bournemouth Echo published a number of articles concerning initiative and our MP at the time Conor Burns brought initiative up in Parliament.
If you Google Initiative Property Management Personal Appointments there is a list of a number of the properties involved.
Posted by RUTH on 17 January 2025
Hi Mr Editor and Ruth.
I will check out Companies house.
I will check out Companies house.
Posted by Kim on 17 January 2025
Hi Stephen,
Alas the pen is not always mightier than the sword and if that were the case then the 50 million consultations leaseholder were asked to participate in would have at least resulted in the regulation of MA’s….
The pen didn’t help women get the vote!
The pen didn’t end apartheid…
Sometimes the metaphorical sword is the only way to achieve one’s aims.Leaseholders have to get off their backsides , put down the pen,and take to the streets in robust peaceful protest. In my view it’s the only way !
Alas the pen is not always mightier than the sword and if that were the case then the 50 million consultations leaseholder were asked to participate in would have at least resulted in the regulation of MA’s….
The pen didn’t help women get the vote!
The pen didn’t end apartheid…
Sometimes the metaphorical sword is the only way to achieve one’s aims.Leaseholders have to get off their backsides , put down the pen,and take to the streets in robust peaceful protest. In my view it’s the only way !
Posted by on 17 January 2025
We did work for Initiative for a short period on the sites they managed until they ultimately ran off with the money. We lost out on money, but I feel sorry for the residents of the blocks whose accounts were completely cleared out.
The local papers covered it and the owner of initiative ran off to another country with their money. The major fraud office are still looking into this now.
Whilst there is a huge lack of trust in what Firstport do, this is a completely different kettle of fish.
The local papers covered it and the owner of initiative ran off to another country with their money. The major fraud office are still looking into this now.
Whilst there is a huge lack of trust in what Firstport do, this is a completely different kettle of fish.
Posted by on 17 January 2025
Yes there maybe subtle differences in the cases of Initiative and Firstport in that Firstport have not run off to another country and not 100% of service charge funds have been taken.
Firstport have committed fraud, they continue to commit fraud they have previously admitted to committing fraud.
That instead of running off to another country with residents money they use that money to support their business it still makes it fraud.
Charging residents to maintain land that they know they have no contract to do so and could not possibly have a contract is fraud. Overcharges or charges for work not done can be deemed as an administrative error, but once they are made aware of the overcharge or that work was not done, if they do not refund those charges that becomes fraud.
Unfortunately for them many contractors working for Firstport remain unpaid.
Firstport have committed fraud, they continue to commit fraud they have previously admitted to committing fraud.
That instead of running off to another country with residents money they use that money to support their business it still makes it fraud.
Charging residents to maintain land that they know they have no contract to do so and could not possibly have a contract is fraud. Overcharges or charges for work not done can be deemed as an administrative error, but once they are made aware of the overcharge or that work was not done, if they do not refund those charges that becomes fraud.
Unfortunately for them many contractors working for Firstport remain unpaid.
Posted by Michael Epstein on 18 January 2025
Michael E,
I totally agree with you. Fraud is fraud and theft is theft, whether done incrementally or in one large swoop!
I totally agree with you. Fraud is fraud and theft is theft, whether done incrementally or in one large swoop!
Posted by Kim on 18 January 2025
The problem we face is down to the agreement that is signed with the MA. If the agreement states the MA can charge for things that we believe should be within the Management Costs then they can charge for all sorts of items. These items are then covered by raising invoices to themselves. This is supposed to provide proof that the work they allege they have carried out 'internally' was done. How can we prove it wasn't? One example of this would be a clause which states "Payment of Fees
To pay to the Agents:
6 the Agents' fees at their standard hourly rate of obtaining quotes from
contractors and others to undertake work at the Estate". If the MA alleges the Director needed to get involved at £500 per hour, our service charge soon disappears!
To pay to the Agents:
6 the Agents' fees at their standard hourly rate of obtaining quotes from
contractors and others to undertake work at the Estate". If the MA alleges the Director needed to get involved at £500 per hour, our service charge soon disappears!
Posted by on 19 January 2025
That the agreement is signed between the freeholder, leaving out the leaseholder is in large part the root of the evil of leasehold. This is especially true in cases where the freeholder is a connected company to the managing agent.
Such was the case with the freeholder and Firstport.
Generally a freeholder is only allowed to cover their costs (and not to profit) to maintain their freehold interest and generally they would employ a managing agent at a recoverable cost from the leaseholder service charges.
The freeholder cannot make a profit, but the managing agent can.
So the managing agent can make excessive profits by overcharging or double charging and then as was the case with Firstport "lend" those excessive profits to the freeholder. Step one in the lesson as to how to game the system that is supposed to protect leaseholders.
Many years ago I recall the Peverel 500. What that referred to was the 500 developments that Peverel(now called Firstport) combined together to
obtain insurance.
Naturally because of the bulk purchase of insurance a considerable saving was made on the costs of insurance.
However, these savings was not passed on to the leaseholders, instead the contract between the freeholder and Peverel allowed for Peverel to keep any savings made, charging leaseholders the full non discounted costs.
Such was the case with the freeholder and Firstport.
Generally a freeholder is only allowed to cover their costs (and not to profit) to maintain their freehold interest and generally they would employ a managing agent at a recoverable cost from the leaseholder service charges.
The freeholder cannot make a profit, but the managing agent can.
So the managing agent can make excessive profits by overcharging or double charging and then as was the case with Firstport "lend" those excessive profits to the freeholder. Step one in the lesson as to how to game the system that is supposed to protect leaseholders.
Many years ago I recall the Peverel 500. What that referred to was the 500 developments that Peverel(now called Firstport) combined together to
obtain insurance.
Naturally because of the bulk purchase of insurance a considerable saving was made on the costs of insurance.
However, these savings was not passed on to the leaseholders, instead the contract between the freeholder and Peverel allowed for Peverel to keep any savings made, charging leaseholders the full non discounted costs.
Posted by Michael Epstein on 21 January 2025
Michael,
Which Magazine are asking those who suspect or believe they are, or have been victims of "rip off" insurance costs to contact them directly and to report their concerns.
It may also be worth while copying in your Member of Parliament and Councillor.
We almost halved the building insurance cost when we went RTM for the exact same cover.
The insurance "rip off" has been going on for years, I thought this "scam" regarding "back handers" had been dealt with, but clearly not.
Which Magazine are asking those who suspect or believe they are, or have been victims of "rip off" insurance costs to contact them directly and to report their concerns.
It may also be worth while copying in your Member of Parliament and Councillor.
We almost halved the building insurance cost when we went RTM for the exact same cover.
The insurance "rip off" has been going on for years, I thought this "scam" regarding "back handers" had been dealt with, but clearly not.
Posted by Stephen Burns on 24 January 2025
Sorry Stephen,
Which magazine is that?
Which magazine is that?
Posted by Michael Epstein on 24 January 2025
Michael,
Which?
Which?
Posted by Stephen Burns on 24 January 2025
Nice Work If You Can Get It!
So the Leasehold Advisory Service have published their accounts.
No wonder Martin Boyd of LKP was so keen to get involved?
It appears that the Leasehold Advisory Service received government funding of £1.7m. Now an organisation depending on such largess is hardly going to upset the apple cart and bite the hand that feeds it are they?
Three senior staff shared £159,000 between them. Meanwhile the outgoing CEO who had to outgo due to the arrival of Mr Boyd was paid £85,000 in severance pay. As for the rest of the staff believed to be 23 the Leasehold Advisory Service acknowledge the dissatisfaction at the low rates of pay, leasing to low staff morale. As The leasehold Advisory Service acknowledge "Our staff remain frustrated by pay levels"
An interesting footnote from the auditors reads:
Due to the inherent limitations of an audit their is an unavoidable risk that we may not have detected some material misstatements in the financial statement.
For example as with any audit their remained a higher risk of non detection of irregularities as these may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions misrepresentation.
No wonder Martin Boyd of LKP was so keen to get involved?
It appears that the Leasehold Advisory Service received government funding of £1.7m. Now an organisation depending on such largess is hardly going to upset the apple cart and bite the hand that feeds it are they?
Three senior staff shared £159,000 between them. Meanwhile the outgoing CEO who had to outgo due to the arrival of Mr Boyd was paid £85,000 in severance pay. As for the rest of the staff believed to be 23 the Leasehold Advisory Service acknowledge the dissatisfaction at the low rates of pay, leasing to low staff morale. As The leasehold Advisory Service acknowledge "Our staff remain frustrated by pay levels"
An interesting footnote from the auditors reads:
Due to the inherent limitations of an audit their is an unavoidable risk that we may not have detected some material misstatements in the financial statement.
For example as with any audit their remained a higher risk of non detection of irregularities as these may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions misrepresentation.
Posted by The Editor on 10 January 2025
Dear Mr Editor,
Did Boyd receive a salary? I recall LKP crowing that he was gonna ‘work’ gratis?
It should be noted that the LAS still continue to to call leaseholders “ Homeowners “. I did write to LAS to inform them that it is misleading leaseholders. LAS is as much use as a eunuch at an orgy in helping leaseholders. It is purely a government ( Establishment) bread and circuses quango. Oh, why can’t the English be more like the French!
Did Boyd receive a salary? I recall LKP crowing that he was gonna ‘work’ gratis?
It should be noted that the LAS still continue to to call leaseholders “ Homeowners “. I did write to LAS to inform them that it is misleading leaseholders. LAS is as much use as a eunuch at an orgy in helping leaseholders. It is purely a government ( Establishment) bread and circuses quango. Oh, why can’t the English be more like the French!
Posted by Kim on 10 January 2025
Is anyone surprised? Btw, did Boyd receive part of the £159,000 taxpayers dosh? I recall LKP stating he was not gonna accept a salary? LAS is as much use to leaseholders as a eunuch at an orgy! Absolutely useless!
Posted by Kim on 11 January 2025
I thought the Government is short of (taxpayer) money and is watching every penny that is spent?
Posted by Jane on 11 January 2025
Kim,
You say why can't the English be more like the French? Can I remind you the owners of Firstport are French?
If the chair of the Leasehold Advisory Service is disgusted by the broken promises made to leaseholders, what to do?
Does he stand up for leaseholders or does he protect the £1.7m government funding?
One of the claimed achievements of Mr Boyd, LKP/NLC is the promise of greater transparency over service charge demands and development accounts.
And yet? How much transparency from NLC who refuse to show anyone their accounts? How much transparency from LKP explaining how Sebastian O'Kelly came to relieve the LKP charity of around £100,000?
You say why can't the English be more like the French? Can I remind you the owners of Firstport are French?
If the chair of the Leasehold Advisory Service is disgusted by the broken promises made to leaseholders, what to do?
Does he stand up for leaseholders or does he protect the £1.7m government funding?
One of the claimed achievements of Mr Boyd, LKP/NLC is the promise of greater transparency over service charge demands and development accounts.
And yet? How much transparency from NLC who refuse to show anyone their accounts? How much transparency from LKP explaining how Sebastian O'Kelly came to relieve the LKP charity of around £100,000?
Posted by Michael Epstein on 11 January 2025
Michael E,
When I say “ Why can’t the English be more like the French “ 🇫🇷 I a, tho king, get put there and protest you 5 million supine Jellies! Do you honestly believe that the French would tolerate leasehold?
I have said it many times a I’ll say it again. A promise is a comfort to a fool, so any “ achievements” Boyd claims he is responsible for are not worth the paper they are not written on!
Transparency? I donated thousands of pounds to the NLC. Why won’t they open the accounts? What’s to hide?Btw, isn’t one of the not so dynamic trio a Labour Councillor? Some seems a bit off……
Re. LKP …💩💩💩
When I say “ Why can’t the English be more like the French “ 🇫🇷 I a, tho king, get put there and protest you 5 million supine Jellies! Do you honestly believe that the French would tolerate leasehold?
I have said it many times a I’ll say it again. A promise is a comfort to a fool, so any “ achievements” Boyd claims he is responsible for are not worth the paper they are not written on!
Transparency? I donated thousands of pounds to the NLC. Why won’t they open the accounts? What’s to hide?Btw, isn’t one of the not so dynamic trio a Labour Councillor? Some seems a bit off……
Re. LKP …💩💩💩
Posted by Kim on 12 January 2025
Hi Kim can you email me please ? Editor has my address thanks
Posted by the holy mole on 12 January 2025
holy mole.Will do!
Posted by Kim on 12 January 2025
The thought of brilliant campaigner, Holy Mole combining with brilliant campaigner Kim, will send shivers through the Firstport empire!
Posted by Michael Epstein on 13 January 2025
Michael E,
Thank you for very accurate adjective !!
Will you please forward me the ‘ holy moles’ email address.
If I may take this opportunity to tell this august site that after almost 12 months since my reporting Westbury residential Ltd for “ misleading” an upper Tribunal, I have been informed that the case has been sent to “ Head of Regulation”….
I shall keep this site posted…As you know, WR has been appointed MA several times by the FTT. In my view, they got these gigs largely due to the RICS assoc badge. Time for WR to forfeit the RICS badge in my opinion…I wonder if the FTT is aware that WR pocketed the Majority of interest shared accrued on leaseholders Service charge monies at my block?
In 2023 WR invoiced me and my fellow shareholders resulting in a payment to WR of £662.92 I.e an 83%/17% split in favour of Westbury residential Ltd. This need to be repaid. The FTT must be made aware of these practices!
Thank you for very accurate adjective !!
Will you please forward me the ‘ holy moles’ email address.
If I may take this opportunity to tell this august site that after almost 12 months since my reporting Westbury residential Ltd for “ misleading” an upper Tribunal, I have been informed that the case has been sent to “ Head of Regulation”….
I shall keep this site posted…As you know, WR has been appointed MA several times by the FTT. In my view, they got these gigs largely due to the RICS assoc badge. Time for WR to forfeit the RICS badge in my opinion…I wonder if the FTT is aware that WR pocketed the Majority of interest shared accrued on leaseholders Service charge monies at my block?
In 2023 WR invoiced me and my fellow shareholders resulting in a payment to WR of £662.92 I.e an 83%/17% split in favour of Westbury residential Ltd. This need to be repaid. The FTT must be made aware of these practices!
Posted by Kim on 13 January 2025
It would be my belief Westbury Residential should not just lose their RICS badge/accreditation but the leaseholder charity National Leasehold Campaign should stop supporting them as well. I would hate to find that a group of residents having rid themselves of Firstport find themselves in the clutches of Westbury Residential due to the recommendation of a charity they ought to be able to trust.
Posted by Michael Epstein on 13 January 2025
Michael E,
If the supine NLC attempt to recommend its Guru LKP accredited MA which is Westbury Residential Ltd then you can be sure that I will know about it and that I will be on top of it!
Am I correct in thinking that one of NLC’s not so effective female trio is a Labour councillor? Would they dare recommend Westbury Residential Ltd knowing what they know??? IHmmmm, let’s see about that!
If the supine NLC attempt to recommend its Guru LKP accredited MA which is Westbury Residential Ltd then you can be sure that I will know about it and that I will be on top of it!
Am I correct in thinking that one of NLC’s not so effective female trio is a Labour councillor? Would they dare recommend Westbury Residential Ltd knowing what they know??? IHmmmm, let’s see about that!
Posted by Kim on 13 January 2025
Kim,
For the sake of accuracy and to be fair to the NLC, you are only partially correct in thinking one of the NLC trio is a Labour councillor.
Actually two of them are!
For the sake of accuracy and to be fair to the NLC, you are only partially correct in thinking one of the NLC trio is a Labour councillor.
Actually two of them are!
Posted by Michael Epstein on 14 January 2025
Michael!E,
NOOOOOOOOOO? Well,it seems that some folks heads have been seriously turned….😂The repeated visits to the hallowed halls of Westminster has clearly been very seductive 😆
I am on the record warning the NLC gal that they should not be seduced by the honeyed words of politicians whilst sipping cheap white wine in a pugin designed room.(They would not be offered the Puligny Montrachet) that is offered to folks such as my husband. I told them that they would be flattered and schmoozed to shut them up….,Seems to, have worked…Mr Bates of the Post Office they ain’t! Oh, the SHAME!
Question. Are the NLC gal,councillors after a position in the government 😆😂😂😂😂 They wont achieve it….NOW, I want to know why the NLC will not publish its accounts… Think I might talk to Starmer.. What a sorry state of affairs….Oh well, I can only console myself that the RICS May boot WR put …More likely WESTBURY RESIDENTIAL LTD expel itself. WR/ NLC/ LKP . What an unholy pile of 💩💩💩
NOOOOOOOOOO? Well,it seems that some folks heads have been seriously turned….😂The repeated visits to the hallowed halls of Westminster has clearly been very seductive 😆
I am on the record warning the NLC gal that they should not be seduced by the honeyed words of politicians whilst sipping cheap white wine in a pugin designed room.(They would not be offered the Puligny Montrachet) that is offered to folks such as my husband. I told them that they would be flattered and schmoozed to shut them up….,Seems to, have worked…Mr Bates of the Post Office they ain’t! Oh, the SHAME!
Question. Are the NLC gal,councillors after a position in the government 😆😂😂😂😂 They wont achieve it….NOW, I want to know why the NLC will not publish its accounts… Think I might talk to Starmer.. What a sorry state of affairs….Oh well, I can only console myself that the RICS May boot WR put …More likely WESTBURY RESIDENTIAL LTD expel itself. WR/ NLC/ LKP . What an unholy pile of 💩💩💩
Posted by Kim on 14 January 2025
Stunning Victory For Residents!
It must be something in the water that breeds campaigners in Faversham Kent?
Faversham Lakes is an Anderson new build development consisting of around 400 homes. Up until 2022 all was well. Maintenance had been done to a reasonable standard and the service charges were not burdensome either.
However, in 2022 along came Firstport the nations most talked about property manager and persuaded the developer to appoint them to manage the development.
Almost immediately the standard of maintenance collapsed. Even worse service charges nearly doubled. Similar properties were receiving completely different charges, accounts were not produced and no explanation was ever given as to how the charges were arrived at.
The residents began a campaign to rid themselves of Firstport Within a matter of weeks they attracted over 100 members of their Whatsapp group. They involved their local media, MP's and the original developer
One local MP had been part of a group that had called Firstport in to Parliament to express their anger at Firstport's conduct.
Fortunately the developer still owned the freehold to the land that Faversham Lakes was built on and has taken decisive action.
They have sacked Firstport as the property manager and from February 1st will take back the management of the development.
Given the well honed campaigning skills of the Faversham Lakes residents they will not settle for just the sacking of Firstport they will want all the overcharges they were forced to pay refunded.
Well done to the residents and developer.
Faversham Lakes is an Anderson new build development consisting of around 400 homes. Up until 2022 all was well. Maintenance had been done to a reasonable standard and the service charges were not burdensome either.
However, in 2022 along came Firstport the nations most talked about property manager and persuaded the developer to appoint them to manage the development.
Almost immediately the standard of maintenance collapsed. Even worse service charges nearly doubled. Similar properties were receiving completely different charges, accounts were not produced and no explanation was ever given as to how the charges were arrived at.
The residents began a campaign to rid themselves of Firstport Within a matter of weeks they attracted over 100 members of their Whatsapp group. They involved their local media, MP's and the original developer
One local MP had been part of a group that had called Firstport in to Parliament to express their anger at Firstport's conduct.
Fortunately the developer still owned the freehold to the land that Faversham Lakes was built on and has taken decisive action.
They have sacked Firstport as the property manager and from February 1st will take back the management of the development.
Given the well honed campaigning skills of the Faversham Lakes residents they will not settle for just the sacking of Firstport they will want all the overcharges they were forced to pay refunded.
Well done to the residents and developer.
Posted by The Editor on 08 January 2025
OMG!
Posted by Kim on 08 January 2025
MR EDITOR
More great news, a wonderful start to 2025. Faversham Lakes seems to be a lovely place to live,so it must be a big blow to FirstPort,but great news for you. Lets hope and pray that other blocks do the same. Persistence does pay off, so be encouraged and keep up your good work .
More great news, a wonderful start to 2025. Faversham Lakes seems to be a lovely place to live,so it must be a big blow to FirstPort,but great news for you. Lets hope and pray that other blocks do the same. Persistence does pay off, so be encouraged and keep up your good work .
Posted by RUTH on 08 January 2025
Editor,
More excellent news.
More excellent news.
Posted by Stephen Burns on 08 January 2025
There have been some 16343 posts and replies on this page. To view older ones search here.
This only searches posts, not replies.
