This is a letter to Mr. D Spiro of Reality Estate Management, the freeholder of the property.
Dear Mr. Spiro
RE: THE ABOVE PROPERTY
I wrote to you on 15/11/06 informing you of my intention to start a blog re this property and enclosing a copy of letter of complaint dated 11/11/06 to Mr. P. Rayden, Managing Director of County Estate Management.
I have not received a reply from you as yet. Perhaps you are saving the contents of my letter for a little light Xmas reading . I now look forward to your response.
The blog has now started.
Mr. Rayden has not replied to my letter nor instigated a proper investigation into the complaints, and as a result of this I have written to him again, including my response to Mr Freilich's letter of 22/11/06, as you can see from the blog.
The blog can be most easily accessed at either Blogger.com or at Google Blog Search by entering 'countyestate'. Full address: http://countyestate.blogspot.com.
You are welcome to enter comments on the blog and may wish to copy any letters to the blog to ensure fair representstion.
I have however received a bill from you on 5/12/06 for 2 amounts:
1. Ground Rent. £150 for a period of 12 months from 25/12/06. I am enclosing a cheque for this amount; however, ground rent has always been previously paid at 6 monthly intervals, for the good reason that this is what the lease apparently demands. If you agree with this interpretation could you in future please send bills for ground rent and insurance at said intervals?
2. Arrears Service Charges Year Ending 25/12 /05 of £334.25. (Background for bloggers-- Reality Estate took over the freehold in December 05, close to the service charge year end of 25/12/05. Up to that point the property had been managed by a firm called Barnes Allen.)
We last discussed this issue several months ago when you said that you had someone sorting through the paperworks sent to you by Barnes Allen to find out how the amounts of arrears the latter told you were owing by leaseholders ( in my own case £334.25) had been worked out, including evidence of outgoings etc.
I have reason to believe that the only outgoings for the period in question was for insurance renewal.
Subsequent to this discussion , I wrote to you on 18/05/06 requesting you send me an itemised list of such outgoings for the year ending 12/12/05. I pointed out that I had made a cheque payment of £800 to Barnes Allen dated 7/4/05, an amount considerably more than stated in the records sent to you from Barnes Allen. I suggested that only a properly worked out service charge account for the period in question would therefore clarify the credit/debit situation. I did not receive a reply to this letter.
As the period of time in which such an account is supposed to be produced once requested has passed I would therefore request this now be forwarded as soon as possible so that this matter can be finally settled.
Yous sincerely
NOTFOBBEDOFF
cc. Blog
Monday, 18 December 2006
Monday, 11 December 2006
COUNTY ESTATE MANAGEMENT 2
As per post of 10/12/06 , letter to Mr. Paul Rayden.
Dear Mr Rayden
I note you have not replied to my letter dated 11/11/06.
I informed you therein as Managing Director of County Estate Management of my intention to start this blog - here is the second post- and suggested you could use this as an opp0rtunity to enhance the reputation of your company with readers of the blog including the professional bodies such as ARMA, ARLA and IRPM of whom your company and individual members including yourself are members; that such enhancement would be simplicity itself, requiring you just to manage this property according to the professional standards espoused by yourself on your impressive website -http://www.countyestate.com. In order to facilitate this I offered/invited you to take action to wipe the slate clean regarding the various problems that have accrued in the management of the property in the last few months in the areas of major works/general management/communication and are still outstanding. I listed these and asked you to properly investigate them in the hope that you would acknowledge where your company has been in the wrong (whilst of course defending yourself should you think I have been unfair or alleged any untruths in any way) and to assure me that you would take steps to ensure that similar problems would not arise in the future- this would then mean that the blog could start afresh with no outstanding issues to deal with in regard to your company.
I am sorry that you have so far chosen not to take me up on my offer, or even acknowledged my letter, but true to my blogname I am writing to you yet again to ask you to reply to my request and deal with these issues.
I would ask you to consider it a mark of sincerity that I am not going to go into details of these problems in this post- except for the question of how CEM deals with complaints- as I could very easily so do as I would suggest this would not be in the interests of your company .To repeat, all I want is to be able to start afresh in my dealings with your company and all it will take to do this is to sort these problems out. But I won't be fobbed off!
Interestingly I have come across a precedent for this blog in the form of the one belonging to the Westside One Residents' Association who live in a block in Birmingham managed by County Estate Management ; in its case, a member of your staff, Louise Jensen, doesn't just comment but posts directly to the blog.
I would suggest that you could designate a member of staff in your office to comment to this blog and i would even consider allowing direct posting, It is obviously in your interests to be closely associated in such a manner with the blog because in this way you can ensure a fair representation . I will come back to this at the end of the post.
'
COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE You will recall that in June I became unhappy with Mr Freilich's management of the major works and as I could not resolve this with him I tried on 2 occasions to contact his linemanager Mr Chris Burbridge to resolve the matter. Mr Burbridge did not return either of my phonecalls so I wrote instead to his linemanager Mr Tony Gayer, who is head of all residential property management in your company, detailing my concerns re Mr Freilich's handling of the major works and Mr Burbride' failure to reply to my attempts to communicate with him; Mr Gayer did not reply so I sent him a reminder but again got no response. Accordingly in August I wrote my first letter to you as Mr Gayer's linemanager and as well as asking you to look into the original complaint re Mr Freilich I asked you to explain the nonresponses of the 2 linemanagers. You did not reply. Hence I wrote to you my most recent letter in which I also raised and listed concerns about both the general management of the property by Mr Freilich and issues regarding general communication. Again you have not replied or investigate my complaints.
I would like therefore to understand how six communications with three linemanagers including yourself has as yet produced not one reply nor any investigation by any of you into my complaints- and why in particular has yourself as the person ultimately responsible for all matters to do with CEM not responded?
Can you please describe the explicit/ implicit complaints policy under which your company operates ?
Lastly,I would refer to a letter received from Mr Freilich since my latest letter to you. In it he refers to my letter 'having been received in my office ' and goes on to ask me what my concerns are regarding the major works. Now I have to guess at what is going on here, but it would seem that somehow he has got hold of a copy of my letter to you and perhaps been asked to sort the matter out at least as regard the major works, (he makes no mention of the general management or communication issues.)?
If so l just to make the matter clear- the basic issue is Mr Freilich's management of these areas- it is mindboggling to suggest that he should investigate the complaint of which he is the subject.
If Mr Freilich had sorted these problems out months ago there would have been no need to make a complaint about him in the first place, and if his linemanagers had responded there would have been no need to contact you- unfortunately this has now happened and the matter has become your responsibility to deal with by default. You would not , I suggest, find a Customer Services Department in the country who would think that such a complaint should be referred back to the member of staff complained about to deal with himself.
I would also add that even though I am willing to treat these matters under the category of 'teething problems' that does not mean I think they are trivial. It raises the question of how any of your staff could be subject to disciplinary process if complaints about any of them are refereed back to them to deal with.
If you do not wish to deal with my complaints regarding Mr Freilich yourself then by all means delegate to an appropiate member of staff to look into- appropriate meaning someone not implicated in the complaints . I do however want your response to my questions on your complaints procedure and my suggestion that someone be delegated to interact with the blog.
I have replied to Mr Freilich's letter, requesting a copy of the surveyors report and asking for consultation with lessees on the way forward in implementing the works , on the basis that when he is asking what my concerns are he might at least partly be meaning concerns for the future - it is unclear from his letter .
Lastly, and as the end of the service charge year is close, I would like consideration be given , when working out the service charge account, to an appropriate reduction in management fees up to the year end to reflect the degree of problems described.
So , for the seventh time and counting,,,,,
I remain
Most sincerely
NOTFOBBEDOFF
Dear Mr Rayden
I note you have not replied to my letter dated 11/11/06.
I informed you therein as Managing Director of County Estate Management of my intention to start this blog - here is the second post- and suggested you could use this as an opp0rtunity to enhance the reputation of your company with readers of the blog including the professional bodies such as ARMA, ARLA and IRPM of whom your company and individual members including yourself are members; that such enhancement would be simplicity itself, requiring you just to manage this property according to the professional standards espoused by yourself on your impressive website -http://www.countyestate.com. In order to facilitate this I offered/invited you to take action to wipe the slate clean regarding the various problems that have accrued in the management of the property in the last few months in the areas of major works/general management/communication and are still outstanding. I listed these and asked you to properly investigate them in the hope that you would acknowledge where your company has been in the wrong (whilst of course defending yourself should you think I have been unfair or alleged any untruths in any way) and to assure me that you would take steps to ensure that similar problems would not arise in the future- this would then mean that the blog could start afresh with no outstanding issues to deal with in regard to your company.
I am sorry that you have so far chosen not to take me up on my offer, or even acknowledged my letter, but true to my blogname I am writing to you yet again to ask you to reply to my request and deal with these issues.
I would ask you to consider it a mark of sincerity that I am not going to go into details of these problems in this post- except for the question of how CEM deals with complaints- as I could very easily so do as I would suggest this would not be in the interests of your company .To repeat, all I want is to be able to start afresh in my dealings with your company and all it will take to do this is to sort these problems out. But I won't be fobbed off!
Interestingly I have come across a precedent for this blog in the form of the one belonging to the Westside One Residents' Association who live in a block in Birmingham managed by County Estate Management ; in its case, a member of your staff, Louise Jensen, doesn't just comment but posts directly to the blog.
I would suggest that you could designate a member of staff in your office to comment to this blog and i would even consider allowing direct posting, It is obviously in your interests to be closely associated in such a manner with the blog because in this way you can ensure a fair representation . I will come back to this at the end of the post.
'
COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE You will recall that in June I became unhappy with Mr Freilich's management of the major works and as I could not resolve this with him I tried on 2 occasions to contact his linemanager Mr Chris Burbridge to resolve the matter. Mr Burbridge did not return either of my phonecalls so I wrote instead to his linemanager Mr Tony Gayer, who is head of all residential property management in your company, detailing my concerns re Mr Freilich's handling of the major works and Mr Burbride' failure to reply to my attempts to communicate with him; Mr Gayer did not reply so I sent him a reminder but again got no response. Accordingly in August I wrote my first letter to you as Mr Gayer's linemanager and as well as asking you to look into the original complaint re Mr Freilich I asked you to explain the nonresponses of the 2 linemanagers. You did not reply. Hence I wrote to you my most recent letter in which I also raised and listed concerns about both the general management of the property by Mr Freilich and issues regarding general communication. Again you have not replied or investigate my complaints.
I would like therefore to understand how six communications with three linemanagers including yourself has as yet produced not one reply nor any investigation by any of you into my complaints- and why in particular has yourself as the person ultimately responsible for all matters to do with CEM not responded?
Can you please describe the explicit/ implicit complaints policy under which your company operates ?
Lastly,I would refer to a letter received from Mr Freilich since my latest letter to you. In it he refers to my letter 'having been received in my office ' and goes on to ask me what my concerns are regarding the major works. Now I have to guess at what is going on here, but it would seem that somehow he has got hold of a copy of my letter to you and perhaps been asked to sort the matter out at least as regard the major works, (he makes no mention of the general management or communication issues.)?
If so l just to make the matter clear- the basic issue is Mr Freilich's management of these areas- it is mindboggling to suggest that he should investigate the complaint of which he is the subject.
If Mr Freilich had sorted these problems out months ago there would have been no need to make a complaint about him in the first place, and if his linemanagers had responded there would have been no need to contact you- unfortunately this has now happened and the matter has become your responsibility to deal with by default. You would not , I suggest, find a Customer Services Department in the country who would think that such a complaint should be referred back to the member of staff complained about to deal with himself.
I would also add that even though I am willing to treat these matters under the category of 'teething problems' that does not mean I think they are trivial. It raises the question of how any of your staff could be subject to disciplinary process if complaints about any of them are refereed back to them to deal with.
If you do not wish to deal with my complaints regarding Mr Freilich yourself then by all means delegate to an appropiate member of staff to look into- appropriate meaning someone not implicated in the complaints . I do however want your response to my questions on your complaints procedure and my suggestion that someone be delegated to interact with the blog.
I have replied to Mr Freilich's letter, requesting a copy of the surveyors report and asking for consultation with lessees on the way forward in implementing the works , on the basis that when he is asking what my concerns are he might at least partly be meaning concerns for the future - it is unclear from his letter .
Lastly, and as the end of the service charge year is close, I would like consideration be given , when working out the service charge account, to an appropriate reduction in management fees up to the year end to reflect the degree of problems described.
So , for the seventh time and counting,,,,,
I remain
Most sincerely
NOTFOBBEDOFF
Sunday, 10 December 2006
COUNTY ESTATE MANAGEMENT 1
BLOG RATIONALE.
As the only person with any sense reading this would be someone already with an interest in this area I will assume some knowldege of the problems that have traditionally blighted the landlord/lessee relationship.
There are a number of nightmare scenarios for lessees- 1. The landlord ( usually vicariously through the managing agent) who does little or no work on the property 2. The landlord who does too much work 3. The landlord who charges unreasonable amounts for works done or indeed not done 4. Lack of communication by way of unanswered letters/phonecalls/ lack of consultation on proposed works or services /failure to deal with complaints/etc.
The very worst scenario concerns the problem that lessees have if their leases typically state that any costs borne by the landlord in executing the service charge account are repayable by the lessees, thus making them vulnerable to pressure by landlords to pay fees whether they be justified or not.
Characteristic of all the above is that the landlord increases its profit by managing too many properties with too few staff to give enough time individually to each property to manage it professionally- leading to problems such as poor communication (good communication taking time), standardized fees and services that take no account of different properties' particularities, etc . The corollary of these scenarios is the opposite of the above- simply, works done and services provided as required by the lease to a reasonable standard at a reasonable cost, and communication with lessees at a level accepted as professional across the board throughout society.
This blog will simply record the communications between myself and any body that has anything to do with the running of the lease- the landlord ( Reality Estate Management) , managing agents, etc. such that will become clear where on the sliding scale between Perfection and Nightmare the management of this property resides.
The blog is entitled 'countyestate-files' as it is envisaged it will have most to do with the new managing agents, County Estate Management, who are a company that, it would seem at least from its website www.countyestate.co.uk, takes some pride in claiming the highest professional standards for its activities, including its dealings with lessees. Hopefully therefore its actions will be if not perfect at least reasonable and consistent with its rhetoric and any encouragement this blog might provide for CEM to maintain a favourable public profile prove to be unnecessary.
So as far as I am concerned , therefore, I would like to start this blog with a blank sheet with no prejudice either way as to what impression CEM and other relevant bodies might give of themselves. With this in mind, therefore, I wrote to Mr Paul Rayden, the managing director of CEM, last month informing him of my intention to open this blog, and inviting him to sort out various 'teething problems' with regard to the management of the property since CEM.'s taking over recently, before the blog started. Unfortunately Mr. Rayden has not replied to my invitation. My next post therefore will be a copy of the letter I intend to write to Mr. Rayden in response to his nonresponse.
BACKGROUND .
This property is over an hundred years old, has 6 flats, I live in the studio flat of a converted attic, no work was done to the property for many years by the previous agents although due to pressure from lessees a structural engineers' report was produced (but not acted on) nearly four years ago, the freehold was transferred last Dec mber to Reality Estate Management (REM) who appointed CEM in May this year. I contacted the particular property manager within CEM dealing with the property, a Mr Laurence Freilich, and informed him of the engineers report indicating the need for major works one of which was an emergency, sent him a copy, went to see Mr Freilich in his offices in J ne to discuss the report in detail, agreed a plan of action.
So far so good, but then from my perspective as a lessee some problems began, which I have been trying to sort out with CEM since.
Note to anyone referring to CEM or other relevant bodies in Comments-you are very welcome, but please nothing defamatory- for this reason comments will be moderated. I intend to pass no judgements myself in this blog on the management of the property, as I feel a record of the various communications should speak for itself, and intend anyway to have the blog filtered by a libel lawyer.
Also I will need to be satisfied any comments from CEM lessees are bona fide before publishing.
As the only person with any sense reading this would be someone already with an interest in this area I will assume some knowldege of the problems that have traditionally blighted the landlord/lessee relationship.
There are a number of nightmare scenarios for lessees- 1. The landlord ( usually vicariously through the managing agent) who does little or no work on the property 2. The landlord who does too much work 3. The landlord who charges unreasonable amounts for works done or indeed not done 4. Lack of communication by way of unanswered letters/phonecalls/ lack of consultation on proposed works or services /failure to deal with complaints/etc.
The very worst scenario concerns the problem that lessees have if their leases typically state that any costs borne by the landlord in executing the service charge account are repayable by the lessees, thus making them vulnerable to pressure by landlords to pay fees whether they be justified or not.
Characteristic of all the above is that the landlord increases its profit by managing too many properties with too few staff to give enough time individually to each property to manage it professionally- leading to problems such as poor communication (good communication taking time), standardized fees and services that take no account of different properties' particularities, etc . The corollary of these scenarios is the opposite of the above- simply, works done and services provided as required by the lease to a reasonable standard at a reasonable cost, and communication with lessees at a level accepted as professional across the board throughout society.
This blog will simply record the communications between myself and any body that has anything to do with the running of the lease- the landlord ( Reality Estate Management) , managing agents, etc. such that will become clear where on the sliding scale between Perfection and Nightmare the management of this property resides.
The blog is entitled 'countyestate-files' as it is envisaged it will have most to do with the new managing agents, County Estate Management, who are a company that, it would seem at least from its website www.countyestate.co.uk, takes some pride in claiming the highest professional standards for its activities, including its dealings with lessees. Hopefully therefore its actions will be if not perfect at least reasonable and consistent with its rhetoric and any encouragement this blog might provide for CEM to maintain a favourable public profile prove to be unnecessary.
So as far as I am concerned , therefore, I would like to start this blog with a blank sheet with no prejudice either way as to what impression CEM and other relevant bodies might give of themselves. With this in mind, therefore, I wrote to Mr Paul Rayden, the managing director of CEM, last month informing him of my intention to open this blog, and inviting him to sort out various 'teething problems' with regard to the management of the property since CEM.'s taking over recently, before the blog started. Unfortunately Mr. Rayden has not replied to my invitation. My next post therefore will be a copy of the letter I intend to write to Mr. Rayden in response to his nonresponse.
BACKGROUND .
This property is over an hundred years old, has 6 flats, I live in the studio flat of a converted attic, no work was done to the property for many years by the previous agents although due to pressure from lessees a structural engineers' report was produced (but not acted on) nearly four years ago, the freehold was transferred last Dec mber to Reality Estate Management (REM) who appointed CEM in May this year. I contacted the particular property manager within CEM dealing with the property, a Mr Laurence Freilich, and informed him of the engineers report indicating the need for major works one of which was an emergency, sent him a copy, went to see Mr Freilich in his offices in J ne to discuss the report in detail, agreed a plan of action.
So far so good, but then from my perspective as a lessee some problems began, which I have been trying to sort out with CEM since.
Note to anyone referring to CEM or other relevant bodies in Comments-you are very welcome, but please nothing defamatory- for this reason comments will be moderated. I intend to pass no judgements myself in this blog on the management of the property, as I feel a record of the various communications should speak for itself, and intend anyway to have the blog filtered by a libel lawyer.
Also I will need to be satisfied any comments from CEM lessees are bona fide before publishing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)