“It is simply a scandal that a large sum of ......”
1 Star Review
Aug 22,2013
By:
'timeforchange'
Aug 22,2013
Branch: London, 9 Branch Road
Services: Property Management
Would you recommend?: No
Postcode: E14
Branch: London, 9 Branch Road
Property Management
Postcode: E14
8
people found
this helpful
It is simply a scandal that a large sum of flat owners' cash that is paid to secure a high standard of maintenance to their homes is held by unregulated and unprotected managing agents such as HSCPM, who seem to think it is acceptable to introduce fees and penalties as and when it suits them, using an 'excuse' every time referring to the Leasehold agreement, which in itself was derived from the Commonhold provisions in the 2002 Act which was itself poorly drafted and due for reform.
Even down to the insurances you arranged for our block managed by HSCPM - they clearly see this as a profit-making opportunity and the whole insurance market for blocks of flats is, as a result, distorted by the payment of excessively high commissions and quasi-commissions in various guises to brokers, intermediaries and others, often amounting to 30%, 40%, 50% or even higher percentages; thus, the premium charged to the flat owner is substantially higher than it should be, not to mention HSCPM's additional fees and penalties.
HSCPM is a member of ARMA and RICS, but both tend to put the interests of their members before the flat owners that they are supposed to serve, equally there are some excellent property managers who see little or no value in being a member of a trade association choosing instead to concentrate on excellent customer service. With my recent dealings with them, HSCPM is certainly not one of the latter!
The only way to get the 'rogues' out of the sector (such as HSCPM's predecessors Stonedale) is to have a compulsory independent licensing scheme with a high minimum standard, along with severe penalties for breaches of those required standards, and HSCPM is going that way too.
I'm not aware of any other sector in the UK where such significant funds held by a third party are totally unregulated and can in practice be a person or organisation without any qualification who sets up a property management business, irrespective of experience or even of a criminal background but nevertheless is able to take and hold these funds on behalf of flat owners.
This situation has resulted in flat owners being defrauded (our experience with Stonedale) or otherwise losing funds (our collective experience with Stonedale - although HSCPM are now trying to recoup these fees retrospectively.
Bizarrely, there is a whole statutory scheme of protection for rental deposits but none for leasehold home owners service charges who are obliged to advance much greater sums to look after the buildings in which they live, it is true legislation requiring deposits to be held in "trust" is in place but this is very difficult to enforce in an unregulated sector in practice.
It is absolutely essential that some system is devised so that such funds are protected by the Financial Insurance Services Compensation Scheme or similar.
Even if the funds are held in deposit accounts, because of the current limits, protected only up to £50,000 this may well be adequate for small blocks of flats, in the event of failure of the banking institution in question however larger blocks of flats would have minimal protection in such a situation.
And finally, does HSCPM carry out an annual audit by an 'independent' regulatory body? (not the trade association). Could we impose sanctions if they fail to comply?
It's about time this industry was fully investigated.
So HSCPM, maybe now you will think twice before treating your customers with the absolute contempt your company has shown of late.
8
people found
this helpful
Was this helpful?
Yes