The report

This report examines the regulatory landscape of property management in England with particular focus on events that have unfolded at Garden Royal, a residential estate in Putney, Wandsworth.

In summary, this report concludes that effective regulation is lacking and highlights deficiencies in the manner in which residential estates are managed and maintained by appointed property managers.

The aforementioned issues at Garden Royal first arose in June 2020 when a lessee replaced a boiler and received a demand for around £2,000 for damage that was said to have been caused to external cladding. The payment demand was to cover repairs which included replacement of the allegedly damaged cladding.

The lessee in question has owned the flat since late 1986 and in the intervening 38 years has kept meticulous records of the estate management, enabling a thorough investigation.

One cause of tension on the estate is the Board of Directors; firstly by disregarding the estate’s parking rules having previously disrupted the external redecoration contract arranged by a previous managing agent using that as an excuse to replace the agent with one more amenable to her.

That the other lessees simply allowed this to happen is not a reason for the estate to become unregulated when ample rules and laws exist to prevent what has happened.

Once complaints began to be made, it was clear that the regulatory mechanisms at Garden Royal simply did not - and do not - operate in a manner that might be expected in a democratic society.

As this report demonstrates, the lack of property regulation at Garden Royal is not an isolated example.

However, what makes this case study unique is that it is based on meticulous records that were kept not out of an expectation that an exhaustive review might in the future be necessary but simply as a matter of course.

The conclusions that arise from this report are as follows:

• Lord Best’s report of July 2019 recommending an independent regulator on the lines of the Financial Conduct Authority is precisely what is needed.
• Lord Bichard’s recommendations of June 2022 for the overhaul of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) have failed. Sixteen months later, the biggest problem [that of regulation] remains unaddressed, most likely due to a lack of cooperation of a group of Fellows of the RICS who also run some of the UK's biggest property management firms.

The need for a report on the lack of regulation is amply demonstrated by the number of groups campaigning to get their homes into a state of which they can be proud.

These groups are generally to be found on social media sites or have their own web sites. The property management industry responds by using web sites such as Trust Pilot to publish “invited” comments. Ratings for such companies are typically in excess of 50% with 5 stars [good], with the
rest being 1-star [poor]. This is not a “normal distribution” of information.

On Trust Pilot, if the “verified” [meaning invited] 5 star ratings are ignored, then an awful picture emerges of the standard of property management companies.

So what is the problem?

The answer might be said to be that the legal framework is inadequate but that observation would be incorrect but there are, in fact, a preponderance of regulations and rules covering everything from provision of information to fire safety.

It is surprising - to say the least - that one Fellow of the RICS, Richard Davers, managing director of Rendall & Rittner, felt competent to challenge a deficiency notice served by the London Fire Brigade on a residential estate managed by Rendall & Rittner.

The response of the London Fire Brigade was that parties:

" . . . can disagree with the notice of deficiencies that we served, if they wish. As long as their fire risk assessor can prove us wrong."

And this illustrates the problems that are NOT being addressed - that the plethora of rules and regulations, simply put are NOT being enforced by the RICS who have in effect taken upon themselves the role of regulator.

Quote from Lord Bichard’s recommendations:

“ . . . by leading, supporting and regulating a body of skilled professional surveyors and firms who demonstrate the highest ethical and technical standards”

Found at page 64 of Appendix 2 Summary of Recommendations. Regrettably this is simply not the case and most unlikely to be.

This report offers a comprehensive, evidence-based analysis of just one estate, reviewing in detail the property management history at Garden Royal over the last decade. As will be demonstrated, the issues that have arisen at this estate are symptomatic of wider issues faced in many other residential estates.

In particular, the regulatory [viz. complaint handling] mechanisms of several organisations have been tested, and have been found to be wanting - one might even say they are protectionist.
This report is only a commentary and makes no recommendations, but will, it is hoped illustrate the failings within “the system.”

What is abundantly clear is that the property management industry is not effectively regulated to the detriment of the owners and tenants of the UK’s largest asset - property much of which is housing.

What is it ?

This is a style of management that might best be described as “squeezing blood out of a stone”.

There is no particular methodology that MUST be adopted, just a willingness to be what one might call “inventive” in the manner in which service charges are raised.

The motive for this style of management is simply stated as exactly that:

Monetizing the managed asset.

What does this mean in practice?

• To levy fees not only for the provision of management services, but also to charge for these services as a provider.
• In a wider perspective, it can result in the following sorts of things:
  • Conducting an inspection,
  • Writing a report for example on fire safety,
  • Conducting [often unnecessary] remedial works, by a related company.
• Another example, not property related, is the inspection of a stable cliff along a river path, then report that works are required, and lastly ensure that these works are carried out by a related company. [See Linnpark.org.uk].

What leaseholders see as ethical, and what supposedly regulated firms see as ethical are in reality rather different.

Some of the practices

One common example is Insurance, where charging can include:

• A commission by the Managing Agent for arranging insurance
• A commission paid to the Directors of the Property Owner
• Commission paid to the insurance brokers.
• The Insurance fee paid to the insurer.

The Financial Conduct Authority has recently outlawed the totality of this. Please see this web site:
https://propertyindustryeye.com/major-concern-for-agents-as-new-legislation-opens-floodgates-for-historic-claims

Electricity is similar to insurance. I many cases the invoice is raised on behalf of the Property  Manager by the supplier, and commission is rebated viz the invoice is settled for less that 100%.

The initiator of this scam was Peverel circa 1995.

Another example is allowing the placing of minor works and service contracts with the person responsible for procurement or a firm or business in which the responsible person has an interest.

In the case of Garden Royal this includes the cleaning contract.

The Environment Required to Enable Monetization

The requirements are as follows:

• Firstly is a client who will benefit in some way.
• Secondly a firm of managing agents who is prepared to flout the laws, rules, and regulations.
• Thirdly a regulatory regime which does not operate as it ought to do.

One of the most important “flouts” is contrived between the client and managing agent by the client issuing the project manager with an unlawful instruction. Some examples of such instructions at Garden Royal are:

• Instructing that insurance details that are required to be provided under the Landlord and Tenant Act are not provided. In Garden Royal’s lease it is a further requirement that payment of the premium be evidenced.
• Instructing that a lessee is not permitted to authorize a third party as a representative to make enquiries, and raise complaints on the lessees behalf.

Noted that the client [viz the Directors of the Free Holding company] must have not only the “ability” to get the selected management agent appointed, but also and more importantly to ensure that they stay appointed.

How the client, in this case the Board of Directors of Kersfield Maintenance, does this is of some importance - and relies on their political skills to manage the votes of their fellow lessees. In this respect the history is important, and part of that history is the bullying of people who stand up to them.

Also important in the early history, is how the Directors managed to disrupt the previous managing agent who they wished to replace having chosen a replacement amenable to their ways.

Noted that the above might be defined as “morally corrupt”. However it is common place.

In order to demonstrate this in real life, this case study has been written.

Sadly therefore this report is necessarily both lengthy and complex.

The Regulatory Failures enabling Monetization

There are a number of basic areas where “control” [and by that it is meant the depth and extent of the tentacles of property management irregularities] required:

One of the regulatory organisations the RICS needs to and does exercise control over is the IRPM. Noted that Samantha Michelle Massey FRICS FIRPM is the sole IRPM director [as at 27th February 2024]. And further that she is one of twelve directors of The Property Institute [as at 27th February 2024].

The next area of control is over the complaints mechanism to ensure that Members of the IRPM are protected. Noted that for a short period Amanda Gourlay managed their complaints process, but since the formation of The Property Institute this has passed to the Center for Effective Dispute Resolution. This charity [which it is certainly not] simply provides what are best described as protective findings.

From this it can be concluded that the RICS has obtained effective control of the Property Management industry in the United Kingdom.

It is to be noted that the two largest firms of Property Management are Messrs Rendall & Rittner, and Firstport. Both are now foreign owned.

The saying from Frederic Bastiat is shown in this picture. Circa 1850. It sums up the problem perfectly.

Please see here:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6862167-when-plunder-becomes-a-way-of-life-for-a-group

The tags are given as follows:

anarchy, ancap, coercion, collectivism, countries, freedom, government, libertarian, liberty, mafia, nations, socialism, statism, taxation, taxes, theft, thugs, voluntaryism

Definition of "ancap”: “Anarchy-capitalism is an anti-statist, libertarian political philosophy and economic theory that seeks to abolish centralized states in favor of stateless ...”

What are unlawful instructions?

Paragraph ‘t’ of the Executive Summary of Lord Best’s report contains this sentence:

There are numerous potential sources of complaints against property agents (e.g. other agents, whistle blowers, accountants) that have few if any places to go to raise concerns.

A sentence in paragraph 11 of Lord Best’s report reads:

It can be difficult for an inexperienced owner to know whether their agent is acting lawfully and in their best interests

The final sentence at paragraph 39 of Lord Best’s report states as follows:

A culture of individual responsibility may help promote ethical behavior within an  industry, as there will be professional risks when agents refuse to speak out against inappropriate instructions from their clients.

To summarize what an unlawful instruction actually is needs some method of assessment. The following tests are suggested:

• To disobey a law, rule, or regulation.
• To cause loss and or damage under a contract e.g. a lease.
• To infringe the undertakings under a lease.

Performing this Google Search "is it lawful to obey an unlawful instruction property management”, yielded only one good answer:
https://www.reca.ca/2018/04/25/obeying-your-clients-lawful-instructions/

From this article it may be concluded as follows:

A client can never ask you to break the law, mislead, lie, or misrepresent. Industry professionals are required to adhere to the Real Estate Act and Rules. If you are unsure of a request from a client, check the Rules and the Act – or talk to your broker – before moving forward. If the client insists you do something unlawful, you must refuse, and should consider terminating the relationship and any existing service agreement. And,
depending on the seriousness of their request, you may want to inform local authorities.

Examples of unlawful client instructions:

• Your client instructs you to not disclose a material latent defect, such as a leaky foundation. You have a responsibility as a licensed professional to disclose all material latent defects. Not doing so breaches the Real Estate Act Rules
• Your client instructs you to use non-RMS size of a property in your listing. You must use the RMS size if you are representing the size in your listing advertisement, to do otherwise is misleading and a breach of the Real Estate Act Rules.
• Your client instructs you to tell potential buyers there are multiple offers, when there are not. You have a responsibility to be honest. You cannot lie or misrepresent.
• Your client instructs you to include physical aspects of a home in your listing that have not been built yet. As with the examples above, you cannot mislead or lie.

Remember, you work for the client. You are free to advise your client against certain actions, and you can provide your reasons for doing so, but if they wish to continue and instruct you to take a certain action, you must obey. It is your responsibility as an industry professional to understand the difference between lawful and unlawful instructions.

If an instruction is unlawful, explain the reasons it is unlawful, and indicate you cannot obey that instruction.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has published some usable guidance:
https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/general-dishonesty/

Note: In the original report, this article is repeated.

About Complaints

For every unlawful act or instruction, a complaint can be raised.

Complaints can be raised against one of two entities:

• The property management company itself,
• One or more of its employees - one at a time.

For RICS regulated firms, the following procedure must be followed by a complainant:

• Raise a complaint and submit to the firm under their own complaints procedure. This takes at least two months and up to three or four months if the firm [or its staff] engaged in correspondence.
• When that fails the next step is that the complaint must then be submitted to The Property Ombudsmen Service Limited, or alternative. At this stage “time limits” are applied.

For RICS regulated people Associates, Members, and Fellows it is simpler and consists of:
• Raising a complaint against the person.

Examples of unlawful instructions

A few categories of unlawful actions are:

• Refusing to communicate with lessees and or their lawfully appointed representatives of which there seem to be two categories:
  • Refusing to acknowledge a delegation of authority.
  • Refusing to acknowledge ownership of a firm which is a lessee.
• Failing to adhere to the rules of the Landlord & Tenant Act.
• Failing to provide insurance information.
• Instructing works for which a Section 20 Notice has been rejected.
• Instructing works for which no Section 20 approval has been sought from lessees and given.
• Failing to adhere to the Fire Regulations and / or London Fire Brigade notices or instructions e.g. in respect of “protected” fire escape routes.
• Refusing to call an Extraordinary General Meeting.

Some Effects of Unlawful Instructions

The most common effect is simply to increase service charges. However there are other more serious effects as illustrated below.

At Garden Royal, the erecting of cladding has had the following effects:

• The sale value of properties is diminished [e.g. £750k to £615k],
• The cost of insurance has quadrupled,
• The protected fire escape routes for dwellings on the upper floors have been compromised. This could result in withdrawal of the habitation
  certificates.

About Malfeasance

From the internet one definition is as follows: “Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other [non UK] jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do.”
https://study.com/academy/lesson/malfeasance-legal-definition-examples.html

The definition of malfeasance can be said to be a legal term used in civil and criminal law to describe an illegal and intentional act. Malfeasance is used to describe an act that cannot be defined as a distinct crime. Acts of malfeasance usually involve some misconduct and dishonesty.

About Fraud [by abuse of position]

See Section 4: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/fraud-act-2006

The defendant:

• occupies a position in which he was expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,
• abused that position dishonestly intending by that abuse to make a gain/cause a loss.

It is the fact of the gain or loss that will prove the Defendant's dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt.

False representation

An offence may be completed when the defendant fails to correct a false impression after a change in circumstances from the original representation (if the representation may be regarded as a continuing series of representations).

The minutes of the 2018 AGM etc provide the necessary evidence.

Untrue or misleading

A representation is defined as "false" if it is untrue or misleading and the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. Actual knowledge that the representation might be untrue is required not awareness of a risk that it might be untrue.

Again, the minutes of the 2018 AGM etc provide the necessary evidence.

The fact-finding tribunal must decide the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts and then determine whether his conduct was honest or dishonest by the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no longer a requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.

Gain or loss

The defendant must intend to make the gain or cause the loss by means of the false representation.

It is suspected that the commission on the Cladding contract was obtained by one way or another from Sun Trade Windows, who were “awarded the cladding contract”.

Abuse of a position

The "position" required by section 4 is one that may be described as a position of trust. It could include company directors.

Noted that Charalambous has failed to prioritise the interests of the Lessees.

Failure to disclose information

There is no requirement that the failure to disclose must relate to "material" or "relevant "information, nor is there any de minimis provision. If a Defendant disclosed 90% of what he was under a legal duty to disclose but failed to disclose the (possibly unimportant) remaining 10%, the actus reus of the offence could be complete.

It is no defense that the Defendant was ignorant of the existence of the duty, neither is it a defense in itself to claim inadvertence or incompetence. In that respect, the offence is one of strict liability. The defense must rely on an absence of dishonesty and the burden, of course,
lies with the prosecutor.

Note: Actus Reus is Latin for “guilty act.”

Charalambous and Sun Trade Windows

On 18th May 2017, the lessee of flat 22 accompanied by the Author visited Garden Royal. The following record summarizes the conversation between the lessee and Thoxoula Charalambous:

Supplier: Sun Trade Windows - Manufacturer to the trade
Tradesman: Paul Lanning. Home: 01372 725404, Mobile: 07850 248974
To replace all windows and front door £4,000 plus ### VAT ###.
To replace all windows and lounge window to Patio Doors £6,000 plus ### VAT ###
50 % up front, 50 % on completion
Doors "comp0site" with 6 bolt system - Guess like 209 - 4 bolts, mortice, and latch,
IF paid in cash - no ### VAT ###.

The lessee declined Charalambous’ offer.

Charalambous acted for Sun Trade Windows and sold "new" front doors to many lessees which were NOT compliant with the Fire Regulations. In 2021 the London Fire Brigade issued a notice and consequently these doors have now to be replaced, along with doors on the ground floor which are not subject to the same regulations, and all to be paid for from the reserve fund.

In the Board's letter dated 19th June 2023 this was stated to be "at no additional cost to leaseholders" - a false statement as the leaseholders pay into the reserve fund out of their annual service charge.

Replacement of the Articles of Association

On the 24th October 2019 The Board presented a case for the adoption of a new set of Articles of Association.

The reason for this was stated as simply to bring KML “up to date and in line with current best practice”

It appears in fact and in practice to have had other objectives, namely:

• limit the Liability of the Directors e.g. in regard to executing unnecessary works,
• make it difficult for “any” lessee to stand for election.
• ensure the decision making process is controlled by the so called Chairman.

Conversations with the Cladding Erector

One lessee had established a good rapport with the erector in 2017, and passed on his contact details to the Author.

In 2021, the Author made contact with the Erector, who requested that no written record of any conversations be made. This has been the case, and the following is from the Author’s recollections:

• When asked if he had checked that all necessary permissions had been obtained, he advised that he was verbally informed by Charalambous that this was the case. Noted that a contractor has responsibility to do this prior to commencing any works.
• He was required to purchase the cladding from Sun Trade Windows.
• Charalambous demanded a “warranty” though for what was unclear.

Obviously there are two possible warranties as follows:

• Warranty as to the fitness of the materials supplied by Sun Trade Windows
• Warranty of the workmanship in erecting the cladding etc etc.

Charalambous appears to have instructed JCFPM NOT to make payment of the final stage payment which had been invoiced.

It is unclear exactly what happened, but the erector visited JCFPM’s offices and stated that he would commence removal of cladding, and report his actions to the police if he was not paid. He was paid, and no warranty of any sort was provided.

He did confirm that the specifications for the cladding materials were sent to JCFPM on three separate occasions being the Author understands the Rehau Specification Sheets.

Other Cladding in Kersfield Road

On 24th January 2022, Craig Raybuold emailed the Author and included the following comment:

I have personally visited the site in the past few days and note that many of the residential blocks on Kersfield Road in-fact have had the same grey panels affixed to the front elevation for many years and, in my view, look perfectly acceptably from an aesthetic and town-planning point of view.

Attached to the email were four photographs of different blocks in Kersfield Road.

Research using Google’s street view indicated that the photographs were probably of the following estates in Kersfield Road:

• 17-30 Heath Royal, Putney Heath - 100 % as per GR
• 31-34 Heath Royal, Putney Heath - 100 % as per GR
• 55-72 Heath Royal, Putney Heath - 100 % as per GR
• Ewhurst, Kersfield Road - Black boards but mostly brick
• 12 Putney Heath Lane - White boards and dummy shutters

An FOI was raised as to whether these estates had applied for and ever received planning permission for the erection of cladding.

On the 1st July 2022, Wandsworth Council response included the following statement:

In regards to the blocks you have listed, there have been no planning applications submitted to install new cladding or panels to the front elevations However, a review of historic photographs of these buildings show that grey / black panels have existing on these properties since at least 2009 ....

It is not known which firm of Property Managers allowed or enabled this cladding to be erected.

Parking Regulations

In 2002, at the AGM a rule regarding parking was introduced. See here.

It seems as if it made little difference and Charalambous continued to use the Contractor’s Parking Bay which had been introduced by Gerald Rashbrook.

Messrs Priors introduced a Parking Management Contractor. It is not known whether they had any success of otherwise with preservation of the Contractor’s Parking Bay.

In any event, when Priors were replaced by JCFPM, the contractor was dismissed.

Charalambous issued the “Garden Royal Rules”. The latest version was issued in December 2022. Some of the rules were acceptable, and some constitute a breach of the average lessee’s human rights - viz forbidding the use of “video door bells”.

The parking rules maybe summarised as follows:

• Parking in marked bays only,
• Parking Permit must be displayed,
• Contractors to park in the road or in the nominated bay,
• Commercial Vehicles are NOT allowed in “forecourts”

It appears that these rules apply to everyone except her friend’s van shown in the photograph to the right.

In March 2021, Richard Quick became the lessee of Flat 31, but found access to his garage which was caused by Charalambous’ friend parking his large van in the Contractors Bay which it exceeded due to its size.

He then obtained unrestricted access to his garage, and since then the van is habitually parked outside the first three garages on the left on entering, i.e. those to the rear of Block A, effectively blocking them and making access to the garage owned by the lessee of Flat 22 difficult.

An example of abuse of the parking rules:

• Flat 22's tenant lent the parking permit to a visitor,
• The visitor left with the permit . . .
• The tenant told the story to Charalambous having known her for several years and asked if the could park without a permit for a few days, to which she agreed.
• Some months later Charalambous raised a parking fine - which was challenged but then paid.

A second case was even more blatant:

• When the Rendall & Rittner parking permits were issued, Charalambous ensured that the one sent to the lessee of flat 32 was not sent out.
• Some months afterwards Charalambous raised a parking fine which remains unpaid.

These two cases are simple examples of what is known as “entrapment” and both are a consequence of a “malfeasance”.

The London Fire Brigade and their Notice

As mentioned above, on the 29th June 2021, the London Fire Brigade were advised of the erection of the cladding.

The reason for this is simple. When a fire is reported, it is important that the fire brigade send an engine which is suitably equipped: using water on a fire which is supported by petroleum products such as polystyrene has the adverse effect of spreading the fire. Foam must be used, and thus an engine equipped with foam must be sent.

As a consequence of this advice, the London Fire Brigade conducted an inspection and on 6th September 2021 issued a notice, of which three main points were raised:

• Lack of procedures relating to Fire Safety, and no External Wall Survey.
• Fire Doors on the first and second floors were non compliant. Noted that many of these doors had been supplied through the offices of Charalambous acting for Sun Trade Windows. Further noted that a Section 20 notice re these doors has been issued.
• The Fire Escape routes were compromised.

The last item is of very considerable importance, and the notice issued pursuant to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 included the following two statements, the first regarding article 17 as follows:

Requirement of Article 17

The corridors, lobbies and stairs used for access to and from flats in the premises (the access routes) are intended for use by relevant persons as a PROTECTED ROUTE. This route should provide a safe means of escape in event of fire and must be maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and good repair. During audit it was found that the responsible person for management of the access route has not prevented or addressed deficiencies in the FIRE RESISTANCE of the PROTECTED ROUTE and/or required rectification of defects that have arisen in, and/or alterations made to, the protection to the access route. Upper level of maisonette front doors are not FD30 fire doors. The PROTECTED ROUTE has been compromised by the fitting of doors that do not provide 30 minutes fire protection to the access route.

Finding:

Ensure the access corridor is returned to its intended state as a PROTECTED ROUTE to afford protection from fire in a flat to relevant persons who may require use of that corridor for safe escape from the premises in case of fire. Remedial work that may be necessary for this purpose, must be assessed and completed by a competent person who is practiced in application of the relevant standards for means of escape. Your attention is drawn to the provisions of subsections (2) (3) and (4) of Article 17 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in the attached extracts of legislation. You are advised that walls in PROTECTED ROUTES should have a minimum of 60 minutes FIRE RESISTANCE. Openings in the walls leading to accommodation off a PROTECTED ROUTE (including doors in entrance ways, service openings, borrowed light glazing, holes around cables trunking and pipework) should be of a minimum 30 minutes FIRE RESISTANCE. Available means the responsible person could use to comply with Article 17(1) may include enforcing terms of lease and Landlord and Tenant / Property legislation as lessor/owner.

The following comment was added:

** RECOMMENDATIONS NOT FORMING REQUIREMENTS OF THE SCHEDULE**

The Commissioner would strongly urge that you consider the presence of combustible facade cladding materials as part of the risk assessment process for these premises. All relevant information about any replacement window and facade schemes should be made fully available to fire risk assessors. Where no reliable information is available for a given property, a strategy to assess the risk and where necessary implement short, medium and long term actions to address the risk should be implemented.

In summary, this notice in effect requires the removal of the polystyrene cladding.

The notice required that the necessary works should be completed by 7th March 2022.

The External Wall Survey was carried out by FRC on 25th November 2021, but not signed off until 8th April 2022 - a month after all works should have been completed.

External Wall Survey ratings are for valuation and mortgage lending purposes only. They have no relevance to Fire Safety, and the suitability [fire safety] of for example cladding.

The “EWS” classification was “B1". In explanation, there are two principal classifications as follows:

• “A” which means that the external walls are NOT flammable,
• “B” which is for all other wall types, viz which ARE flammable.

In addition, there is attached a number which indicates whether works are required or not.
These are defined in a document published by the RICS at:
https://www.rics.org/content/dam/ricsglobal/documents/to-be-sorted/ews1-form-version-3_interactive.pdf

In the case of Garden Royal, the “1" indicates that no remedial works are required as the buildings at Garden Royal are less than five floors in height.

On the 25th September 2023, Richard Davers BSc (Hons) FCIH, FRICS, FIRPM, Managing Director of Rendall & Rittner, wrote in an email to the Author as follows:

R&R will continue to liaise with its client regarding any works required at the building, though will note for the record that we disagree with your assessment of the fire escapes and findings of LFB.

To which the brigade replied to the Author, after he had forwarded the email to them, as follows:

Rendall & Rittner can disagree with the notice of deficiencies that we served, if they wish. As long as their fire risk assessor can prove us wrong.

The Author comments that he is surprised that Davers has the temerity let alone the technical competence to challenge a notice issued by a competent authority.

One question that may be raised is whether he and others including Charalambous understand the difference between an EWS classification, and a materials Fire Safety classification.

Noted that the Author produced a document explaining to the other lessees that the cladding which was NOT on the fire escape routes was not subject to the notice. Following discussions with various professionals including Member of the Institution of Fire Engineers as well as staff of the London Fire Brigade, it appears there are “gaps” in the regulations which probably need to be addressed.

It is to be noted that this deficiency was highlighted in the Institution of Civil Engineers' magazine New Civil Engineer for July 2023, and is known as the Swiss Cheese model. Using this one can conclude there is a significant [self inflicted] risk at Garden Royal, which as the London Fire Brigade state puts their members at an unnecessary risk.

Early in 2024, I was in contact with a member of the London Fire Brigade who stated that he had attended Garden Royal to conduct a further inspection to check status of the remedial works which, and was denied entry despite trying a number of flats on the various staircases. In
every case he was denied entry without a word being said.

This is a an example of the abusive use of the door entry phone system. Noted that Charalambous operates the “concierge” service which is enabled.

A comment on KML’s motive in raising complaints

The Time Line of the complaints and some related events might explain why the complaints have been raised. To date [31st March 2024] not one complaint has been found to be valid.

The Time Line is as follows - noted that the complaints to the ICE remain unresolved . . . even after twelve months:

KML’s motive appears to be an attempt to stop the Author’s investigations. Of course, this only serves to remind one that the investigation was necessary - as evidenced by this report.

KML Complaint about an Article

A referral by one of the other lessees to a PR Man who had formerly been a newspaper and television journalist with The Sunday Times, Daily Express, and Sky Sports, etc resulted in a hybrid article being written, using Garden Royal as an example, featuring the Author.

The title of the article published on the 8th September 2023 indicates the content, which is:

UK Government must now identify low rise residencies with dangerous cladding in the wake of the Grenfell Tragedy.

It included the Author’s view as follows:

The act of replacing non-flammable tiles in many places [hung red clay] with highly flammable [pvc/polystyrene/pvc] cladding and cladding to the fire escape routes is a negligent act of incompetence which simply does not pass the common sense test.” said Townsend-Rose. "As a Chartered Engineer, it is not surprising that I am working to reverse this calamity, in accordance with my Institution's Mission Statement.

The Institution [of Civil Engineers] on its web site states as follows:

• Our purpose is to improve lives by ensuring the world has the engineering capacity and infrastructure systems it needs to enable our planet and our people to thrive.
• We qualify engineers working in infrastructure to maintain their competence throughout their careers to create safer infrastructure for society, https://www.ice.org.uk/about-us/who-we-are/our-mission-and-work

The history of the article is as follows:

• 8th Sept 2023 - Article about Garden Royal and cladding etc published in the Daily Mail Online.
• 13th Sept 2023 - Board issue letter re the article. Get the name of the ICE wrong !
• 26th Sept 2023 - Article on Daily Mail Online taken down

As indicated above, KML wrote to IPSO, and advised the lessees of their action in the following terms:

• The Directors are aware of the anonymously authored article in the online version of the Daily Mail that makes a number of inaccurate claims about Garden Royal.
• The Directors will not be doing a point-by-point rebuttal on the basis that it would merely be repeating information that has previously been provided to lessees.
• Formal complaints will also be lodged with the Daily Mail and the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO)
• The Directors can however confirm that a formal complaint has been made to the Institute of Chartered Engineers (ICE), which is currently under consideration by their Professional Conduct Panel. Since the matter is sub-judice, we cannot comment further at this time.

In response the Author comments as follows:

• There are no inaccuracies
• Agreed - the Board have consistently lied to lessees about the cladding.
• IPSO rejected the complaint - see the paragraph below
• The matter is NOT sub-judice as the Institution of Civil Engineers is not a court of law - noted that the Board reference a non existent organisation.

On the 20th December 2023, Tom Glover of the IPSO responded to the Author’s enquiry as to the validity of KML’s complaint to them in the following terms:

Thank you for your email to IPSO’s Chief Executive, and I apologise that it has taken us some time to respond.

In accordance with IPSO’s standard on releasing information on complaints to third parties, I can confirm that IPSO did receive a complaint framed under Clause 1 (Accuracy), Clause 3 (Harassment) and Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) about the article you cite, although (again in accordance with our policy) I am not able to confirm the identity of the complainant or further details of the complaint.
The complaint was determined by IPSO’s Executive staff to raise no possible breach of the Editors’ Code, and did not proceed further. I hope this is of some assistance

KML Complaints about the Author

A “lawyer’s letter” dated 6th September 2021

The Board instructed a lawyer to write a letter which in effect was a litany or history of complaints about the investigations being carried out by the Author to determine just what was going on at Garden Royal. It became known as the “Russell Cooke Letter” and has been given several “outings” by KML viz in other complaints.

Said letter is nine pages long.

Factually when issued it was already well out of date, and based upon the “updates” issued by the Author to interested lessees one of whom confirmed that she passed everything on to Charalambous, as had been expected.

The effect of the letter may be summarised as follows:

• It has caused loss and damage to the estate in that “lawyer’s letters” have to be paid for, even if said costs cannot be identified in the service charge accounts.
• It has had absolutely no effect on the Author whatsoever. Whether KML’s conduct may be construed as harassment under the law is irrelevant. It is best described as a failed attempt at bullying !

A second “lawyer’s letter” dated 1st December 2021

This letter was issued by BDB Pitmans addressed to the lessee of Flat 22 and was about the monies withheld in respect of the increase in insurance costs brought about by the unlawful erection of cladding. It included this statements:

• In breach of the above covenants, you are in arrears in the total sum of £565.70 as set out in the attached schedule.
• Our client’s legal costs to date in connection with this letter are £500 plus VAT.
• We therefore request that you make payment of the total sum of £1,065.70 in cleared funds by 4.00pm on 15 December 2021, failing which our client will have no alternative but to commence court proceedings for the recovery of the sums due.

BDP Pitmans were advised of the dispute, and nothing more was heard from them. Again, the effect of this letter was:

• It has caused loss and damage to the estate in that “lawyer’s letters” have to be
  paid for, even if said costs cannot be identified in the service charge accounts.
• It has had absolutely no effect on the lessee whatsoever.

Other “lawyer’s letters” to the lessees

The owner of flat 32 has been subjected to a barrage of letters from Realty Law regarding the service charges for the period to 31st December 2022. The accounts for this period are disputed, and are probably in error in any event.

In particular the allocation of insurance charges for the year are at best questionable, and the total of the service charges due which was fixed in 2019 is wrongly stated.

This matter has been complained of to the ICAEW, and remains extant.

History of the Complaint to the Institution of Civil Engineers

It should be noted that the complaint(s) raised have not yet been considered by the Professional Conduct Committee. It is over a year since the complaint was first received by the Institution of Civil Engineers.

The complaint is one long “bleat” with no substance. It is clear that Charalambous and the other members of the Board of Kersfield Maintenance Ltd would like to put an end to the Author’s research into the “goings on” at Garden Royal.

It is difficult to summarise the complaint, but the following reduces the 56 pages to a manageable size:

The author has been accused by KML of “egregious breaches” of the ICE Code of Professional Conduct and Ethics.

In essence, KML believes that the author failed to seek a formal determination by a First Tier Tribunal to resolve their dispute which constituted a “failure to act in a professional manner as befitting an ICE professional member”.

KML further asserts that the author has made numerous “false and unsubstantiated” allegations in connection with the external repairs at Garden Royal and in his lengthy dealings with bodies such as RICS, IRPM and ICAEW.

The author is also accused of “mysogyny”, waging a “personal vendetta” against the female chair of the KML Board and a former female property manager, and of acting “maliciously and recklessly”.

A lawyer who is not only a lessee but who has a detailed knowledge of not only the “happenings” at Garden Royal, but also an insight into the research conducted by the Author has commented in his letter of the 9th August 2023 to the ICE as follows:

Nothing that Richard has done relates to (a) a criminal offence, (b) improper conduct or © negligence. Richard’s help in investigating the failings of the Garden Royal Board does not have ‘anything to do with his work’ as set out in your Guidelines for making a complaint about an ICE member. In fact what Richard has done, is to ensure the health and safety of others.

Richard has and continues to conduct himself in a professional and ethical manner with the interests of others at the forefront of his efforts.

It seems to me that this complaint is a vain attempt by desperate individual(s) to slander Richard for uncovering the Board’s own failings.

You will easily find that there is not only no case to answer, but that the complaint is not justified and has nothing to do with Townsend-Rose’s professional conduct

The same argument word for word has been used in the Author’s defence.

Much of the response provided by the Author to the Institution in the short time allowed is repeated in this document.

The ICE’s rules for handing complaints follows the same as might be found in a court of law:

• Complaint Received
• Complaint forwarded to the member complained of
• Member’s response required within a month or so, but in this case because of family commitments was extended.
• Member’s response sent to the complaint for their review and comment.
• Complainant has a short period to respond.
• Comments to the member’s response forwarded to the member complained of
• Final comments by the member made to the ICE.

Sadly this process seems to have faltered, and the complainant’s comments to the Author were not received in a timely manner. Indeed the Clerk to the Professional Conduct Committee does not seem to have acted on the lack of response from the complainant.

On the 11th September 2023, the complainant then issued what is best described as an update on the Author’s research. They used the following statement:

Further to our earlier comments on Mr Townsend-Rose's observations sent on 23rd August, the KML Board of Directors wish to make a further urgent additional submission to the Professional Conduct Panel / Disciplinary Body . . .

This relates to the publication by the Daily Mail Online of an article on cladding in low rise buildings - see above, about whom KML complained to the Independent Press Standards Office, who found that their guide lines had NOT been breached.

It is submitted that this is NOT a second complaint, but an extension of the first one.

There seems to be some dubiety over the dates of when communications were sent and or received. Certainly if the dates are correct, then the Clerk to the PCC failed to forward these to the Author in a reasonable time.

It is to be noted that justice delayed is justice denied, and the ICE seem to be in default. Nevertheless, the Institution has treated it as a second complaint, and the review process has again faltered.

The Author’s response remains constant.

The Author comments as follows on the summary presented earlier:

• The Author has in no way breached the ICE’s ethics code,
• There is no legal or ethical requirement to take disputes before the First Tier Tribunal. On the advice of Richard Bayfield, the Author briefed counsel and sought his opinion. The opinion might be summed up as “you would win, but the costs will be very considerable”. The lessee of Flat 22 decided against such a course of action on purely commercial grounds.
• The so called “false and unsubstantiated” grounds have resulted in:
  • The Property Ombudsman Service Ltd finding that JCFPM had failed, it is presumed on the unlawful instruction of KML, and fined them for failing to provide the cladding specification. The monies received were donated to the ICE’s Benevolent fund
  • The ICAEW fined Messrs Kirk Rice, KML’s accountants, a substantial amount for failing to certify the accounts.
• The charges of mysogyny and waging a personal vendetta are utterly refuted. The Author does not engage in such practices being a Professional Engineer. His professionalism is attested to by the ICAEW’s investigator.

History of the Complaint to the Worshipful Company of Skinners

The complaint submitted to the Worshipful Company of Skinners of which the Author has been a Liveryman since 1972 preceded by a period as a Freeman, and before that as an Apprentice is simply a cut down version of that submitted to the Institution of Civil Engineers.

The complaint was received by the Clerk to the Company Andrew Kennett CB CBE who forwarded it to the Author on 19th August 2023, and commented in the following terms:

I am forwarding this unusual correspondence simply to make you aware of it. I and the Court of Skinners’ Company have absolutely no interest in this matter whatsoever and wish you every success in dealing with what is an entirely private and/or professional matter that has nothing to do with your membership of Skinners’ Company

On responding to the Clerk, the Author received a last comment from him as follows:

I most certainly have ignored it and have no intention of gracing it with a reply !

The Author comments that the Institution of Civil Engineers could well have reviewed the original complaint and come to the same conclusion as the Clerk. They did not.

Introduction to the Estate

Built circa 1960. KML Incorporated 9th August 1960. Planning permission for the building of blocks B and C was granted along with special permission for the type of roofing material, and the cladding in red tiles, which was granted in 1960.

The worth of the estate then could be assessed as 50 flats at an average price of £6,000 - £300,000. If the current typical value is £450,000, the estate is worth £22,500,000 - an increase of some 75 times.

The structure may be said to be system built - a reinforced concrete frame, with concrete floors - possibly using products sold by firms like Bison. The walls are panels, almost all of which include windows or doors. The non glass part of the panels is formed of asbestos within a timber frame. The asbestos panels are clad with red tiles hung on battens [except for the protected fire routes] - much like the average roof. This gives a pleasant appearance of being a traditional brick built structure. It has a flat roof of mastic asphalt laid on concrete.

The outline design is of ground floor flats and two storey maisonettes with ground entry, and on the upper floors, flats and maisonettes with entry from open walkways accessed from a central stairwell behind which is he bin room accessed from the rear for bin removal.

One point of design is that all the drainage, and gas and electrical services are hidden and internal. The diameter of the drains is generally smaller than would be currently installed. The electric cables are mostly contained within conduit embedded within the walls, which acted as
the earth wire, although this is now not accepted.

There are garages, which are simply and cheaply built single skin brickwork, with a flat roof made up of a planks on joists covered with bitumen coated felt. The life of the garages will not be unlimited as the bricks will deteriorate.

The Early History to 2005

From the first set of accounts available on the Companies House web site, in 1985, the management of the Garden Royal estate was by Gerald Rashbrook FSVA IRRV MIAS of H E Rashbrook & Son - a small family firm of several generations from their offices at 91 EAST HILL, SW18 2QD London. The Auditors were Nash Broad.

Gerald was Secretary to KML and resigned on 31 October 2003. The firm has now closed, but their office sign can still be seen on Google Street View, photography dated July 2019. Gerald advised me that the sign covers up some brickwork that would better not be exposed. He also vividly remembers Board Meetings that went on for several hours.

The accounts were in traditional format, with simply a Balance Sheet and a Property Maintenance Account. The filing for 1985 is exemplary, though for later years this latter part of the accounts was not included in the accounts but appears to have been separately presented separately to Owners. It appears on the index to the 1993 accounts, but was apparently not submitted.

For the year ended 31st December 1995, the auditors were changed Chantrey Vellacott DFK.

Noted that Rashbrooks were able to get KML's accounts audited, and the results submitted to Companies house by mid March most years.

In the year ended 31 December 2000, rather than showing the funds in the bank, £101,827 was moved to form a "Reserve Fund" for future major works, such as replacement of the roof covering. It appears this decision was taken in 1999 so is shown as a "prior year adjustment".

In 2002, at the AGM, the following rule was published:

“In November 2002 a regulation, binding on all lessees, was introduced to ban the parking of untaxed vehicles and motorcycles on the Garden Royal property”

This was understood to apply in particular to the lessee of Flat 41.

On 1st July2003, Jeremy Brown of Bells was appointed Secretary as Bells took over Rashbrook's business, and Gerald Rashbrook resigned. A full list of members [Owners] was also submitted to Companies House.

Chantrey Vellacott DFK continued as Bells' Auditors. Bells first accounts were signed off on 31st March 2004, and submitted promptly to Companies House just two weeks later.

In the July 2004 newsletter, lessees were advised of the introduction of parking rules as follows:

A FEW HARSH WORDS ABOUT PARKING

We have always had a shortage of parking places here, and it is always a contentious issue, but if you add up the parking spaces and the garages there is in fact one garage or parking space for every flat. This means that with care most residents should be able to find an off-the road parking space. Where a flat's residents have more than one car they will simply have to decide between themselves which one uses the forecourt at any one time.

This will only work if the following are observed:

All contractors' vehicles should be parked up at the
garages, in the contractor's space, which is clearly
marked. They should never be parked in the forecourts.

Motorbikes should be parked as neatly as possible.

History from 2005 to June 2015

For the year ended 31st December 2005, Bells changed auditor to Tilbury Young. Exemption from Audit was claimed under clause 249A of the Companies Act.

Thus the provision of audited accounts as required by the Lease were not met.

Bells' last accounts were signed off on the 12th March 2007, but not submitted to Companies House until the 9th of October.

Bells issued two newsletters in 2008: one on the subject of parking, and one on the subject of using garages for business use. It is understood that the lessee of Flat 41 was the principal miscreant.

On the 10th August 2007, Bells were replaced by Priors. Their first accounts were prepared by Tilbury Young, and signed off somewhat late on 13th October 2008, but submitted shortly afterwards on 31st October.

There was no Directors Report included within the accounts for that year as in previous years.

Noted that Thoxoula Charalambous, of Flat 41, born 1969, was elected and appointed Director on 24 June 2009. Noted that her status on Companies House was given as "Unemployed".

The 2009 accounts claimed exemption under a different clause of the Companies Act namely Clause 476, it having been revised in 2006.

Thus again the provision of audited accounts as required by the Lease were not met. Further more, Tilbury Young were instructed not to audit the accounts, and made the following statement in their report in the accounts

We have not been instructed to carry out an audit of the financial statements For this reason, we have not verified the accuracy or completeness of the accounting records or information and explanations you have given to us and we do not, therefore, express any opinion on the financial statements.

For the year 2010, the Service Charge Account was separated from the Company Accounts for Kersfield Maintenance Ltd whose accounts were filed as a non-trading company with shares only, no income and no expenditure.

The lessees were not consulted about this rather major change.

The accountants were changed to Hillyates who were instructed on 9th March 2011. However, the separation of the Service Charge Accounts from those of Kersfield Maintenance Ltd is in accordance with guidance from the ICAEW.

In June 2015, Messrs Priors were replaced by J C Francis & Partners.

On 1st September 2020, the Author had a short conversation with Andrew McKeer of Priors during which the following notes [amongst other] were made:

• The transfer from Priors to JCFPM was effected professionally.
• On parking: Photos taken and sent to the company who issue parking tickets to the Registered Owner [Via DVLA as an approved scheme] and collects fine / fee.
• On double glazing of the staircases commented “What is the point ?”
• On the garage wiring of 2015. Stated categorically that he had checked Priors works order book, and had not issued any such order. The Author indicated that Vic of V&B had wanted contract but refused to provide a boiler to Charalambous, about which he was unsurprised.
• On explaining the cladding and the new boiler at Flat 22, he agreed that such replacement was "reasonably foreseeable".

The Author asked if further questions could be made by email, but he politely declined.

The Author attempted to open the subject of the external redecoration contract which was started in 2010.

The minutes of the AGM held on 4th July 2012 reveal an unhappy story of disruption with the contractor Steel & Co. The following statement was included:

Although it was no consolation to the lessees Priors confirmed that this redecoration work was exceptional and although Steel & Co had carried out other jobs for Priors last year no problems such as those had been encountered to the extent of those at Garden Royal.

Messrs Steel & Co when contacted stated that “never ever again would they contract for anything at Garden Royal”.

Problems with the external redecoration contract were said to be one of the reasons for the change in property manager.

The key event - which triggered the investigation

This was the replacement of an elderly Potterton gas boiler in June 2020. It should have happened earlier, but due to the author's third [and nearly fatal] heart attack in November 2017 a delay occurred.

Cladding was been erected in the summer of 2017 without the necessary Section 20 approval [and its two thirds majority for works of improvement] or [what is now known to be necessary] planning permission.

New boilers are now mounted high on kitchen walls as opposed to being floor mounted within kitchen cupboards. This necessitates removing the old low level flue and moving to a high level. In this case replacing a small window with a board to accommodate the flue, and plugging the
low level hole in the wall and the cladding.

During the careful removal of the flue, Charalambous created a public nuisance causing the tenant to telephone the Lessee on an emergency basis. JCFPM were immediately contacted and cautioned to control Charalambous lest the Police were called.

A few days later JCFPM issued a demand for some £2,000 for damage to "cladding panels".

The Author responded to JCFPM requesting a method statement for re-fettling panels as the removal of the flue was "reasonably foreseeable", and had not in any way caused any damage.

This was not met with a reasonable response. And so the investigation was triggered - the excessive demand for two panels each worth about £100, and which were no longer manufactured might be considered fraudulent.

Rather than enter into a sensible discussion on the matter, JCFPM declared that they could only communicate with the legal owner, not her nominated representative. Noted that JCFPM have ceased to pursue for the cost of replacement, and are now communicating with the nominated
representative.

History after June 2020

The events and actions are as described in the two sections entitled:

• The principal Unlawful Instructions
• Other Matters affecting Lessees

There seems little point in repeating the information already presented.

About Thoxoula Charalambous [Lessee of Flat 41]

Newsletters for previous years [See History to 2005, and from 2005 to 2015] mention parking etc.

The newsletter for December 2007 contains this statement:

PARKING . . . AT THE GARAGES & IN GENERAL
All lessees and tenants are reminded that the area marked for "Contractors' Vehicles" by the side of the garages is precisely for that purpose - for contractors vehicles only, and NOT for lessees and/or tenants personal parking.
(NB: The owners of the black scooter / white transit van / maroon vehicle currently parking there please take note).

The "lessee" is understood to be Charalambous.

On 28 October 2019 Thoxoula Charalambous wrote a reference for SDL HOME IMPROVEMENTS, of Clacton-on-Sea which reads as follows:

SDL PKB is a great company to work with and would highly recommend them. I made contact looking for an honest, trustworthy company that was fair in price. From the moment I spoke to them within days, an appointment was arranged to have someone come over to give me a quote for a new bathroom and kitchen. Rob arrived went through all my needs. He gave me honest advice which I found constructive it is incredible what you don't take into account or consideration. With his guidance, I had the outcome I truly wanted and have been very happy. Within the next day, I received my quote for all works, and with options to consider as discussed. Once all was agreed, a date was brought forward as my start date. A group gets created on WhatsApp by SDL PKB for all the people that would be involved in the project, which included me. I felt this was an excellent way to be introduced to everyone that was going to be involved in my refurbishment. Knowing I had a place to bring forward questions and to be kept updated during this whole project, Is an excellent touch to the company's process.

A day was arranged before the start date to go over everything and that's when I met the project manager Dotty. I found her very helpful and honest with great experience after meeting her. I felt I could trust that no matter what, the results would be to a high standard. During the works, they came across some unforeseen's.

I had advice that this could be the case from the start. The obstacles were resolved very quickly, and everyone knew what was going on, and I felt very informed. Family and friends had told me nightmare stories they had faced with contractors and how hard it is to find good contractors. In the beginning, when I was looking for contractors, I will admit I too had concerns I would face the same as they did. That is until I met SDL PKB they have ultimately brought back my faith that you can find honest, fair and quality contractors. The completed bathroom and kitchen are fantastic, and a lot of friends and family have complimented the work. I have recommended them to everyone I know. Some have gone with SDL PKB, and all have experienced the same as I have, which is excellent to know as they have shown themselves to be consistent in what they do and pride themselves for the quality, honesty they promise you.

This reference has now been removed, but fortunately a screen shot had been taken on the 27th October 2020.

Another lessee questioned JCFPM as to who was going to inspect the external decoration in November 2020 to paint the external woodwork. JCFPM replied that Charalambous would inspect and manage the external painting contract in Nov 2020. It was appallingly executed, and probably worthless. The standard of preparation before painting is inadequate as shown. Rotten wood was replaced by putty !

Lenny Davis brought the matter up, but never received an answer. [4xb_20201111_Mollo_JCFPM_Temp_works.pdf]

See note below on bullying re keeping documents confidential.

The standard of repairs and maintenance is best described as appalling, with paint peeling off the concrete columns, and garage door frames simply rotting away.

Works are carried out without any due regard for safety. Various lessees reported breaches to the Health & Safety Executive. Complaints from neighboring estates over noise have been received when works were under taken out with permitted working hours on public holidays etc etc.

Bullying by Thoxoula Charalambous

Laws, Rules, Regulations and Contracts

One of the most important aspects of research is to do it having cognizance of the appropriate Contracts, Laws, Regulations, and Codes of Practice.

There are two Codes of Practice which are most relevant, namely:

• The ICAEW's Residential Service Charge Accounts - 40 pages
• The RICS's Service charge Residential Management Code - 66 pages

The contract which is in force is simply the Lease. The lease allows for the following:

• Provision of detailed Insurance information [to wit the Insured’s Declaration, the Certificate of Insurance, Terms of the Insurance], and
  evidence of payment of premium.
• The making of regulations for the benefit of the lessees, e.g. about parking, noise etc etc. These should apply to everyone equally including those lessees who are directors.
• The requirement on lessees to provide [reasonably requested or emergency] access to a dwelling by the landlord.
• Provision of accounts.

The most important Law is the Landlord & Tenant Act. There are three particular provisions which apply to Garden Royal:

• The requirement to provide insurance information
• The holding of service charge monies in trust
• Keeping adequate records for the Service Charge account.

Methodology for the Testing of Regulators

The methodology is simple and consisted of the following steps:

• Choose a well documented, well researched matter, where the conclusion as to the behavior complained is clear and simple, and has been verified by one or two other people - e.g. members of Accountability Scotland who are lawyers.
• Make the complaint, and add a statement that the authority is being tested.
• Document the results - see below.

List of Property Regulations Organisations Tested

RICS, which requires that a complaint about an organisation or firm after having been made to the same are taken before TPOS.

TPOS, which investigates complaints, but within a very restricted time frame under the RICS protocol for complaints against a company.

IRPM, which requires that a complaint about a person, which complaints were at the time made were over viewed by Amanda Gourlay - Barrister associated with Tanfield Chambers, under whose guidance complaints were being upheld.

Following the merger of IRPM and ARMA into TPI, she was replaced by the CEDR, who have turned out to be what is best described as hopeless, but could also be described as disastrous for the typical complainant.

List of Other Organisations tested

Wandsworth Council Planning Department, and in following up:

• Local Govt Ombudsman
• Information Commissioner
• Information Tribunal

The ICAEW - because most leases and the Landlord & Tenant Act require accounts to be kept and presented.

On the RICS “Rules” regarding the raising of complaints

There are two sets of rules - one for complaints against a regulated company and one against people who are Associates, Members, or Fellows.

When making a complaint against a regulated firm the following procedure applies:

• Complain to the firm under their complaints procedure,
• Complain to the firm running the relevant ombudsman service.

Whereas complaining about a person is supposedly easier:

• Complain to the organisation to whom the regulated person belongs.

When a complaint is made to an Ombudsman Service, the time limits make it difficult to proceed with any confidence when one has attempted to engage with the company as that process may well have extended to a year or even longer.

Secondly, the Ombudsman Service does NOT resolve the complaint, but may uphold it and issue an “award” to be made by the company to be paid to the complainant. The amount is paltry compared to the loss suffered.

At Garden Royal the complaint was concerning the failure to provide the specification of the cladding. The award was just £300, and was for:

“the aggravation caused to the lessee for the company’s failure to provide information relating to the panels.”

The conclusion is simple: there is no regulation per se. The information still has not been provided. The make up of the cladding panels was obtained from the erector, who states that the information from the manufacturer Rehau was provided on three different occasions.

RICS - Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

Summary History

This section of necessity involves J C F Property Management Ltd [formerly J C Francis & Partners] [JCFPM] who are an RICS regulated firm and whose Managing Director is a Fellow, and whose Chairman is a Member. These two are also the majority owners of the firm. JCFPM were appointed in June 2015 to replace Priors.

To put it simply, one could not possibly “make this up”. It is far too far fetched for that. This is the brief history:

• The Author notifies the RICS of heads of investigation into JCFPM
• On 15th September 2020, the RICS states the “threshold” required to trigger an investigation has not been achieved. [RICS Reference:
  CRM:024720822].
• The Author notifies the RICS that a complaint has NOT been raised, and requests the definition of the “threshold”. [Not provided, but it appears to relate to the level of fiscal loss sustained]
• The Author notifies the RICS that the request for JCFPM’s complaints procedure has been ignored. Noted that the recorded delivery letter has never been delivered. See here: https://www3.royalmail.com/track-your-item#/tracking-results/NV372786134GB
• JCFPM’s Complaints procedure was then provided within 24 hours
• The Author raised a complaint that the specification of the cladding erected in 2017 had not been provided.
• The specification was not, and has never been, provided.
• A complaint was therefore raised with TPOS - see below. The result was that TPOS ordered JCFPM to make a small payment to the lessee, but of course the specification was never provided.

In my conversation with David Graves of 21st July 2020, after having left a message and he then returned my call. The key points are:

• The failure of his staff to respond to emails and phone calls from the identified manager and her assistant [Varszegi and Platea]
• On cladding, he stated categorically that planning permission was not required. [Wandsworth Council stated otherwise].
• He promised to respond within a week, but some 125 weeks later no response had been received.

The record of my conversation details the following matters were brought up:

• Failure to respond to emails, to answer phone calls, to return phone calls
• Provision of Information promised at the 2018 AGM
• Abusive language by JCFPM staff
• Car Parking scheme is not registered, and being abused
• Cladding panels are not fit for purpose, erected with neither lessees approval nor planning permission.
• Estimates for renewal of roof are unreliable despite having been produced by another firm of Surveyors.
• The External Redecoration Works for 2017 identified in the Section 20 notice were not carried out, but alternative works viz erection of cladding was.
• Garage 22 belong to Flat 41 being used by a contractor including for works being executed at Garden Royal.

NOTA BENE: The RICS are a wholly shambolic and disconnected organisation with no clear lines of communication let alone authority. Thus the following sections although connected have been presented separately in an attempt to make this section more readable.

Unlawful Instructions

On the 4th July 2022, the RICS [Sonia Kaur] were advised that one of the problems was various staff and officers for JCFPM were accepting unlawful instructions.

Noted also that Messrs Rendall & Rittner continue to accept the same instructions. The principle
ones appear to be:

• Refusing to provide insurance information etc,
• Refusing to accept delegation of authority, and knowledge of ownership,
• Refusing, as Company Secretary, to acknowledge and or accept disputes, let alone be prepared to deal with them.
• Disseminating false information.

This is why it is essential the RICS make clear what is acceptable and what is not regarding unlawful instructions.

No response has ever been received from the RICS.

Complaint against David Graves FRICS

Arising from the above, it was decided to raise a very simple complaint to the RICS, and that
was that Graves had told a blatant untruth to a Chartered Engineer to wit the Author.

The events are as follows:

• The Complaint was raised on 15th February 2022. The complaint was in two parts as follows:
  • Graves ought to have known that planning permission was required.
  • Graves lied to me, a Chartered Engineer and Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
• On the 18th July 2022, some five months after receiving the complaint, Steven Grinnell on behalf of the RICS, under RICS REF: REG0000046714.
• On the 14th September 2022 Mr Grinnell advised me that due to ill health, he would attempt to revert to me by 31st October 2022
• On the 23rd December 2023 Mr Grinnell advised that he was leaving the RICS.
• On the 1st February 2023, a young lady named Natasha Reid being it appears a CPD clerk was assigned “lead investigator”. In her 5 page letter she identified some twelve areas of complaint.
• On 2nd February I confirmed that my complaint [as above]. I expanded on this in my email for 9th February 2023.
• On 13th March Ms Reid advised that Mr Graves had been given two months to respond to my complaint - viz by 13th May 2023
• The findings were sent to me on 20th April 2023, stating as follows:
  • David Graves ought to have known planning permission was required. Mr Graves has provided evidence which confirms that the Board of Directors of Kersfield Maintenance Ltd (the Board) made the decision to replace the cladding and took control of the project. The evidence suggests that a firm of Chartered Surveyors was initially instructed to specify the external refurbishment and oversee the works, however, due to high costs, the Board decided to take over the cladding project itself against the advice of the Firm. This included advice to the Board to seek planning permission if the extent of the proposed work were to materially change the appearance of the building. The Board took the view that no planning permission was needed.
  • David Graves lied to you about planning permission. Mr Graves has stated to me that he has not communicated with you on this subject. He acknowledges that he is not an expert on planning matters and states that he would always defer to others who have that specialist knowledge. I am aware that you have this information in a telephone note you made at the time, and I do accept that a contemporaneous note may be more accurate than an account from memory that could have been affected by the passage of time. However, I do not consider there is sufficient, independent evidence to enable any further action to be taken in this regard. The evidence available to me demonstrates that the Board proceeded with the cladding project without any involvement from the Firm.

The net result is that the RICS simply did not adequately address the complaint, but dismissed it by the simple expedient of stating that Graves had nothing to do with the cladding.

The evidence is overwhelming that he knew everything about it, and was involved in the whole process.

Complaint against Stuart White MRICS

Made to the RICS who have taken no action as yet.

Complaint against Ezsther Varszegi

Made to the RICS who have taken no action as yet.

Noted that the IRPM [whilst Amanda Gourlay managed their complaint handling] admonished her for failure to keep adequate records.

Conclusion

The RICS is not a competent regulator.

This is what Lord Best found in 2019. Sadly Lord Bichard's reforms have, to date, totally failed.

"Prince Andrew" syndrome is considered wholly acceptable . . . "I cannot remember . . ."

The RICS accepts that any instruction, unlawful or not, should be obeyed.

TPOS - The Property Ombudsman Service Ltd

About TPOS

Their web site is at https://www.tpos.co.uk/

This organisation operates as a limited company [number 03339975] the nature of whose business (SIC) is 94120: “Activities of professional membership organisations”.

There are a further eight similar companies to be found at the same address. The terms of appointment of “The Ombudsman” seem reasonable and she reports to a board of nine Directors. There is no Secretary recorded at Companies House.

TPOS Ltd is not regulated in any way, so their governance must therefore be questionable.

Noted that this is the case with all similar “Ombuds Services”.

The general dissatisfaction with the concept and operation such organisations is well researched by various universities and in particular by Messrs Creutzfeldt and Gill, two of whose papers are to be found as follows:

• on http://accountabilityscotland.org.uk/
• https://accountabilityscotland.org.uk/publications-on-democratic-accountability/111-critics
• https://accountabilityscotland.org.uk/publications-on-democratic-accountability/113-adr

TPOS do NOT resolve complaints, but if a complaint is found to be valid, they will fine the organisation or company complained of, the payment being made to the complainant.

History of the first complaint

The history of the first complaint about JCFPM’s failure to provide the specification of the cladding is as follows:

• Complaint form submitted 3rd December 2020, auto acknowledged
• 9th December 2020 TPOS state “will be reviewed” in 3-4 weeks as they are “currently experiencing a high volume of complaints.”
• By the 10th February 2021 after a chase up phone call, TPOS suggested that the complaint be sent back to JCFPM.
• On the 12th February 2021, further research had added further questions.
• On the 15th February 2021 TPOS referred the complaint back to JCFPM.
• The formal complaint was then lodged with TPOS on 30th April 2021.
• On 21st May 2021, JCFPM responded, attempting to negate the complaint.
• On 6th June 2021, the Author responded with further argument and data.
• By the 18th June, the Author had conducted further research, and this data was sent to TPOS.
• On 20th November circa 11 o’clock, the Author had a 20 minute telephone conversation, as time limits were now being approached.
• TPOS suggested on 26th November 2021 that the erection of the cladding should be examined by them.
• This was rejected by JCFPM

Comments of TPOS’ Process

The history above for the first complaint illustrates the dilatory nature of the TPOS process. This rapidly eats into the time limits allowed. The process was started on 16th October 2020, and not completed until 11th February 2022 some 483 days later !

Nevertheless, a second complaint regarding other information was also submitted, but due to the delays occasioned by the first complaint was deemed to out with the year allowed from of the information being discovered as not being supplied.

The Author was encouraged to reopen the request for information, which was stated by JCFPM as having been provided when it had not been, and when the complaint was submitted to TPOS it was deemed out of time.

The information requested remains outstanding.

JCFPM did write a letter on 25th May 2021, which full of inaccuracies and impossibilities such as “bubbling of asbestos sheets”, and further blamed this on the firm who had prepared a Bill of Quantities for the 2017 redecoration. No record exists of that in the Bill of Quantities.

This letter also referenced Messrs Rehau in the following terms:

On 24 June 2020 we emailed the details of the specification of the panels that we held, the cost and details of the supplier Rehau in Germany and the installation company Sun Trade Windows.

This was not true, and by the time that the External Wall Survey was conducted by FRC in November 2021 they appear to have forgotten the name of both the cladding manufacturer and the supplier, the erection having been carried out by another small firm.

The result was a paltry award as indicated below. The fact of the award negates the above letter in its entirety.

The findings and outcome

CEDR - Center for Effective Dispute Resolution

About CEDR

Researched on 3rd December 2023 using CEDR.com, and usual sites.

The CEDR is a charity whose senior management team enjoy “healthy salaries” to put it mildly. The body claims to be a leading independent Alternative Dispute Resolution Center”. See here: https://www.eileencarroll.co.uk/story/

There is no mention of handling complaints in the Property Management industry. Resolving “complaints about misconduct” is an important area in which they have failed. It is about discipline and adherence to laws and generally “simple” matters where one party [the Property Manager or his staff] has absolutely no intention of backing down.

In fact they state their mission as :

“We provide independent alternative dispute resolution for consumers when they experience problems with a company and have exhausted their complaints procedure with the following guidelines:

• Evidence is weighed up by someone who is independent and impartial to CEDR and the company you have a dispute with.
• If you have an unresolved complaint with a company that is covered by one of our schemes, we may be able to help you.
• Industries we cover include flights (aviation), telecommunications (CISAS) and water & sewerage (WATRS).”

CEDR were appointed to “manage” complaints received by The Property Institute [TPI] which was incorporated on 18th November 2021, and formed by a merger of the ARMA and the IRPM on 9th March 2022.

These are typically complaints about individuals who have allegedly misbehaved, or failed to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.

The Institute of Residential Property Management (IRPM) Independent Adjudication Service has appointed the CEDR to handle their disputes. Note this quote from the CEDR web site:

We provide fast, and cost effective solutions for business-to-consumer disputes for businesses, central and local government, and trade bodies who have registered for our services.

The CEDR replaced Amanda Gourlay who managed the complaints process on behalf of the IRPM. However complaints about a member of the IRPM are made via the IRPM, and handled by the CEDR

The CEDR is not subject to any judicial regulation and there is no contract between the IRPM and anyone who makes a complaint which the IRPM refers to the CEDR.

The complaints raised

Two complaints were raised as follows:

1) About a Director of a Property Management Company who had misinterpreted a clause in a lease which prohibits a lessee from carrying out any works which increases the cost of insurance.

The “sin” was stating that an “investigation” such as the one which the author was carrying out could be construed as “doing something which increased the costs of insurance”. Simply put that is a palpable nonsense.

Noted that the Directors had in 2017 caused the erection of cladding with neither section 20 approval by the lessees nor planning permission from Wandsworth Council, and which when unearthed by the Author led to the insurance company terminating the insurance, which was replaced at some three times the cost by a policy from Lloyds.

2) About an Associate Director of a Property Management Company who took no responsibility for one of her subordinates from demanding some £2,000 from the lessee who had requested the Author to investigate.

This was not the first occasion upon which a similar demand has been made of a lessee who paid some £800. That lessee was assisted by the Author in getting the monies returned.

Noted that the demand was not made under the terms of the lease, and was made on the instruction of the lessor, with the monies to be paid directly to a supplier, which supplier had provided the cladding in the first instance.

Further noted that neither demands to the lessees have been followed up.

The responses were absurd:

1) A professional is at liberty to misinterpret specific terms of a leasehold lease. [In the world of major engineering projects misinterpreting a simple contract clause would be rewarded with instant dismissal]

2) A professional manager is NOT responsible for the actions of their subordinates. [Again that would have led to demotion / possibly dismissal]

Conclusion

ICAEW - Institute of Chartered Accounts of England and Wales

About the ICAEW

One of several institutes for accountants that was founded in 1880 when five bodies merged. In 1975 The Chartered Accountants Company was formed and became one of the Livery Companies whose members are members of the ICAEW.

Regulatory Documents

The principal document of interest is the ICAEW’s Tech 03/11 entitled:

Residential Service Charge Accounts

Guidance on Accounting and Reporting in Relation to Service Charge Accounts for Residential Properties on Which Variable Service Charges Are Paid in Accordance with a Lease or Tenancy Agreement

It is to be found here:
https://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/files/technical/technical-releases/legal-and-regulatory/tech-03-11-residential-service-charge-accounts

It was prepared by a working party whose members included representatives from the ACCA, ARMA, and the RICS as well as ICAS

The matters put to the ICAEW

The following matters were put to the ICAEW

Certification of Service Charge Accounts without any form of audit

Simple arithmetic errors within accounts and between years.

The matter of separation of Service Charge Accounts from Company Accounts is covered in the document below published in 2010.:
https://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/files/technical/legal-and-regulatory/information-law-and-guidance/service-charge-accounts

Thus it appears that Messrs Hillyates gave KML the correct advice. It resulted in the monies held in KML’s service charge being transferred to the client account of the then managing agent Messrs Priors where per Section 42 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 it is held “in trust”.

The requirement for “audit” or “Audit” of the Service Charge Accounts has been discussed with the ICAEW with no satisfactory conclusion reached.

The argument that no Certificate should ever be made unless the data supporting it has been verified [audited] in some manner has not prevailed.

Simply reviewing a set of figures and issuing a certificate upon the basis of that examination in no way verifies that the monies certified have actually been expended, let alone been expended fairly and reasonably.

One firm’s web site support this view, namely:
https://www.pdclaw.co.uk/news/certification-of-service-charge-accounts

In the Author’s view it is necessary - and at the very least, good practice - to carry out randomspot checks to provide some of the necessary validation e.g. Trial Balance to Bank Account, with say 10% of vouchers examined.

Complaint against Kirk Rice

The ICAEW upheld one item of the complaint in that the accounts had not been certified.

Kirk Rice were fined £2,500

The Author considers that the complaint about audit [or verification] should have been upheld as it is the precursor to certification. That Kirk Rice had not certified the accounts was in the Author’s view the correct action; however they failed to explain their actions in the notes to the accounts which is unsatisfactory.

Complaint against Carter Coley

Carter Coley replaced Kirk Rice some time prior to the AGM held in June 2023 when it emerged that the relationship with Carter Coley had also been terminated.

Not only did Carter Coley simply mistype some accounts that they were sent, but they certified them, it appears, with absolutely no verification.

The Insurance figures were demonstrably wrong yet nonetheless were certified.

The ICAEW to whom this was reported have not yet issued a finding.

Conclusion

The Problem

If a property manager provides a set of figures with little or no supporting documentation, it is clearly not possible to "certify" the amount due.
The selection of documents MUST be made independently by the "auditor" [see below], not provided by the client as a typical sample.

The process of certification is one which requires that the amount to be certified is verified - that is the process of audit as would have existed in 1960 when the lease was drawn.

Messrs Kirk Rice failed to certify which strongly suggests to the Author that they had failed to carry out an audit of any nature.

The Author considers that the wording of the typical certificate [included at page 35 of Tech 03] item (b) says it all.

The summary is sufficiently supported by accounts, receipts and other documents which have been produced to me.

If no documents were examined, or if the ones proffered for examination were not chosen by the person issuing the certificate then there is a problem.

It is to be noted that a court may well accept an unsatisfactory certificate: and that can only be said to be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Changes of Managing Agent also result in chages of auditor. This can lead to an unsatisfactory situation.

Results

The ICAEW censured and fined Kirrk Rice.

Update 28th April 2026

The ICAEW have concluded their investigations into Messrs Carter Coley, and Watsons. The latter "undid" a couple of iniquities created by Carter Coley, but have stll made some other [minor] errors - due to the data that they were provided with on Insurance in particular the renewal date.

It must be stressed that in all cases the data provided by Kersfiled Maantenance Ltd was at fault.

The conditions of the lease require as follows:

The account taken in pursuance of the last preceding Clause shall be prepared and audited by a competent chartered or incorporated accountant who shall certify the total amount of the said costs charges and expenses.

The word audited has been downgraded from meaning what might be described as "a sensible and reasonable check" to something much lesser. This allows improper accounting to be certified.

That is what is wholly unacceptable.

Sadly the ONLY remedy [apart from proceeding to a Tribunal at considerable expense, and time] is to complain to the ICAEW. After all it is their rules and regulations [viz Tech 03] which are inadequate. Accounts should be required to state if there any disputes have been raised, and whether they have been resolved.

It is worth reporting that the ICAEW are fully aware of the dilemma which the accountants of many leasehold estates face. Advice should be provided in Tech 03's successor document as it is a matter of the conduct of the profession.

 

About the author.

A couple of simple questions: firstly is the author competent to conduct an investigation? And secondly is he competent to document the findings of his investigations ?

The author is a Chartered Engineer and has been for some 50 years. He also bears the title “European Ingenieur”. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Engineer.

The Author belonged to the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators by sitting the entrance examination. However after a few years the authors career path changed and he resigned.

Regarding his competence, the Author has considerable experience in matters of contract and in making contract claims, which after all are only disputes. Please see his CV at rgtr.tdocplus.co.uk.

The author is Treasurer of Accountability Scotland and has been since its inception. He also runs its web site [accountabilityscotland.org.uk], and assisted the late Secretary in publishing scholarly articles on what might be termed the failings in Administrative Justice in Scotland. The Author also runs a web site called unaccountablescotland.org.uk that reports on matters involving members of Accountability Scotland in taking action. This will give an indication of the thoroughness of his research.

Involvement with Administrative Justice

The author’s involvement with Administrative Justice is as the Treasurer of Accountability Scotland, and as result of his reporting on two cases involving Scottish Water - one of which was settled by the managing director as the cheapest [business] option and one which was won by a small firm run by an elderly Hindu tailor.

A recent success, still to be reported, has been a case against the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman for falsification of records where the court ordered albeit minor damages to be paid. The case against a local council will soon be resolved. His involvement has been limited to providing advice only based on his past experience.

This BBC article on School Bullying resulted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-66947706

It is tragic that the level of Administrative Justice is extremely poor. See https://essexcaji.org/ formore on the UK Administrative Justice Institute. They are considering examining Property Management, having reported on Administrative Justice in Scotland.

Please see:
http://accountabilityscotland.org.uk/consultation-on-the-future-of-stajac/156-mapping-administrative-justice-in-scotland

A professional reference

A recent email from one of the investigators at the ICAEW which states:

I have had no concerns about your professionalism over the past two and a half years during which we have corresponded, despite our not always agreeing on some matters.

Experiences with Property Managers

On three occasions the author has fallen foul of a firm of Managing Agents since buying a flat in Glasgow in 1988 for which the annual charges were stated to be about £240 annually.

The first bill from Messrs Hacking & Paterson came in at over £400, and included a charge for "leasing the door entry phone system". It had been supplied by Chubb, and on enquiry they advised that it had been sold. One of the conditions of sale was that it would not be resold, hired
or leased out. The charge was dropped.

Hacking & Paterson then sued him as he had withheld a small amount pending queries on the work supposedly done. Over the next few years they dragged him to court about three dozen times, before settling on the Sheriff's instructions, and following a protracted arbitration which
found in his favor.

Then Hacking & Paterson sued the Author for some £40,000 in costs. The Sheriff laughed as he threw their case out and they "walked off the job", attempting to cancel the buildings insurance.

Fortunately the Author knew the insurance company well, and they continued as insurers as the premium had been paid.

Messrs Hacking & Paterson still trade but under different ownership.

They were replaced by Peverel, then newly created from McCarthy and Stone's in house management company under new ownership. Riverside Park was their first "new client".

For the next several years, costs were low, service impeccable, and the estate prospered. The original "angels" who had funded the Peverel [now Firstport] buy out then sold to Vincent Tchenguiz. Costs rapidly escalated, and service deteriorated. Action was started.

The author assisted Melissa Briggs in her campaign against Peverel when she set up CARLEX, which then morphed into the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership under Sebastian O'Kelly when he left the Daily Mail where he was Property Editor.

Peverel complained to the Institution of Civil Engineers. The Author was cleared. Peverel then took out an interdict that the author was not to communicate with anyone, which was ignored, as it was a blatant abuse of his human rights.

The case of Peverel-v-Townsend-Rose was neither won nor lost: in fact Peverel went bust, and the liquidators, in light of advice sought by the Scottish Legal Aid Board from the Sheriff of East Lothian which explained why Peverel would not win as they had breached his Human Rights,
dropped the case. The Author retained copyright of this document, but this was later transferred to the Scottish Legal Aid Board as so many similar cases followed on.

Costs returned to an acceptable level; twenty years later they have increased but not overly so.

List of campaigning websites

The "unrest" within the community of people who live in leasehold properties with property managers is well known.

The first campaigning web site was probably “The Truth about Solitaire” also known as TTAS.

Although the web site was taken down, the “Wayback Machine” has various copies:
https://web.archive.org/web/20121026204833/http://www.thetruthaboutsolitaire.co.uk

Solitaire was purchased by Peverel [now Firstport].

The next site was started by Melissa Briggs “Campaign against Retirement Leasehold Exploitation” or CARLEX. This later morphed into the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160516120857/http://www.carlex.org.uk/

One very long running site is “All about Peverel” now entitled “All about Firstport”.
http://www.spanglefish.com/aboutpeverel/

The very existence of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, and its appointment as the cross party secretariat with more than a quarter of all MPs speaks for itself as to the seriousness of the situation.

Active [but closed - meaning you have to join] Facebook Groups

Rendell & Rittner Residents Group Action Page
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1101506043730932

Firstport Resident's Action Group.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/186999621645061

Residential leaseholders forum UK
https://www.facebook.com/groups/896920614019991

One item in particular is commissions on insurance. At Garden Royal the cost of insurance is
now some six times what it was prior to the erection of the cladding

Financial Conduct Authority & Insurance

Michael Gove's activity on insurance via the FCA shows that government is taking some action.

The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership recently published an astonishing article:
https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/devastating-criticism-of-fca-for-telling-mps-it-only-knew-of-leasehold-insurance-fiddling-just-prior-to-michael-gove-demanding-a-probe-last-year/

The Financial Conduct Authority have now published their rules with effect from 31st Dec 2023.
https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/ICOBS/6A/7.html

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has announced that it intends to ban the payment or sharing of insurance commissions with property managing agents, landlords and freeholders.
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-confirms-leasehold-buildings-insurance-reforms

List of relevant papers on the web

Lord Best’s report is to be found here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d2f455240f0b64a855315d7/Regulation_of_Property_Agents_final_report.pdf

Lord Bichard’s report is to be found here:
https://www.rics.org/content/dam/ricsglobal/documents/about-rics/bichard_review_design_final.pdf

The Building Regulations and Enforcement

This report demonstrates that there is a major problem with the planning process.

Put simply, there are just too many organisations entering the market to supposedly regulate
professionals in the Building and Construction Industry

Just who is responsible and who can be held to account ? This question applies to not only the Professional Bodies, but also to their regulation.
https://www.regulated-professions.service.gov.uk/

Engineers

https://www.regulated-professions.service.gov.uk/professions/chartered-engineer

https://www.engc.org.uk/
Runs the register of Chartered Engineers in UK
Runs the register of European Ingenieurs in UK

Institution of Civil Engineers - Royal Charter

Building Control

https://www.find-a-building-control-approver.service.gov.uk/public-register-england/results?building-control-approver=&browse-all=true
Runs the register of Approved Inspectors for Building Control Regulation

Document Repository

The documents upon which this report is based are held securely on a “Google Drive” attached to one of the Author’s “gmail” accounts.

Access to the files - just over three thousand spread over some two hundred and forty directories can be granted on application to the Author using This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

One document available publicly from the Land Registry is the Lease. An OCR'd copy of a scanned lease is here.