Coning the public with public money

[David Foot]

The HOUSING CORPORATION was a very powerful quango / regulator, now turned
in to the TENANT SERVICES AUTHORITY (TSA) which is just as bad as when it
operated under its old name. However, most of my dealings have been with the
Housing Coroporation and the Tenant Services Authority will not re-visit the
problems left by the Housing Corporation as far as I was told, so the name
change has made no difference.

Any way the regulator for social housing (whoever that is) allows some
memebers with not the best reputation to operate in a very dubious way, this
was the case of Crystal Palace Housing Association in 1991 which went about
mis-representing leases to the public in the media and by any means it saw
fit, in order to sell its leases in difficult times as its portfolio was
going in to negative equity it presented its inferior leases to first time
buyers as a far superior product and gave guarntees it had no intention of
keeping.

The Housing Corporation (now TSA) member I am referring to has many names
and has a new name now: Crystal Palace Housing Association, South London
Family Housing Association, SLFHA Ltd, Horizon Housing Group and now has
started calling itself AmicusHorizon Ltd.


*THE OPERATION COMPLAINED ABOUT WAS ONE OF ABOUT 70 to 80 PROPERTIES: 4 to 5
Million Pounds of 1991 money! And values were falling, there was a crisis.


*The leases were mis-represented at the time of sale targetting specifically
people without experience, while the "professionals" who drafted the leases
and sales contract appear to have catered for this process of supplying
people without experience illegal information behind their legal advisors
back, because the lease / sales contract combine to disown anything
guranteed during the process of sale by any dishonest landlord, and in so
doing leaving the public without regulatory protection and exposed to the
dishonesty of this big landlord in the Redriff Estate:

"Calling first time buyers" they said in the Evening Standard 31-07-91
and
"Absolutely no requirement to buy the remainder" they also assured us
and
"Does the rent ever go up?" they asked in their own leaflets
"Yes it is assessed every year in line with inflation" they answered.

This pack of lies were masking a rent which is assessed in line with
inflation, but AFTER this adjustment come two massive increases of an order
of a third and a quarter (years 10 and 15) and a yearly increase in real
terms of 2% a sort of compound increase above inflation. This phrase is very
easy to explain in a minute flat, and there is no excuse for the now
AmicusHorizon Ltd. or their associates from a financial services company
peddling endowment pension mortgages on their premises not to have explained
these facts properly instead of denying them at the time of sale. After all
the Housing Corportation (Now TSA) assured me that they had a duty to
explain the contracts so that we could make an informed decision! And they
shouldn't give us any financial advice!

So ten years later the dishonest sellers (CPHA - AmicusHorizon Ltd.) wrote
the following words to us: (from their letter 16-03-99) threatening that if
we didn't staircase our rent would go up in line with inflation and then by
2% and then by a third!

"As you are aware..." !! "In October 2000, the 2(b) applies... Obviously
this has some " CONSIDERABLE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS" to all "LEASEHOLDERS
WHO DO NOT OWN 100%" !!

(the implications to which they referred: 40 % rent rise indexed year on
year 2 % ABOVE inflation and something more or less the same a few years
latter according to this lease described above as with ABSOLUTELY no
requirement to buy the remainder!).

They didn't get away with all their desired rent rises, however they did
make their increases in real terms of 2% 1992 - 2011, 40% in the year 2000
and all this formidable rate of increase is maintained by increases of 0.5%
above inflation the last two years.

So here is what they were advising us in 1999 / 2000:

"and I suggest that you may wish to consider staircasing in the percentage
you currently own." !!

The sales contract dis-owns any mis-representations the dishonest landlord
made to us, even publicly and in the press (Evening Standard)!. Was this
premeditated? Did they read the lease and the sales contract? What advice
did their solicitors give them? The Housing Corporation (Now TSA) says this
is not against their regulations! But the Ombudsman found some evidence of
mal administration!! Fantastic regulator the Housing Corporation (now TSA).

All this I have well documented.

So there you have the 4 million pound question, and which curiously is the
same one they have the courage to ask me: "and what did "THEIR" solicitor
tell "THEM"?"

And crucially: "Did "THEY" read the lease?" .. was this premeditated?

Was all this in deed a deliberate plan as it appears to be? I understand
that the then CPHA now AmicusHorizon Group actually was responsible for
chosing this type of lease themselves! for this 4 million pound plus
operation! (according to the Housing Corporation the landlord actively chose
this particular lease)

The Housing Corporation (now TSA) doesn't want to look in to this ! and it
also told me that I should have gone with a guy put by CPHA and who was
peddling pension endowment mortgages, possibly an ex employee of CPHA.. it
was all not very clear if he wanted to give legal or financial advice or
both on CPHA premises during their "Sales Seminar", he certainly was there
to try and get our mortgage business. The Housing Corporation (now TSA) also
say that my landlord ..didn't breach any of the Regulator's procedural
guidelines.. wow!.. what a regulator! and what guidelines! This financial
services company on the landlords premises criticised certain mortgage
lenders! Against whom he was SELLING his own mortgage products.. and was
suggesting pension endowment policies.. Isn't that financial advice?

Should public organisations, landlords, lawyers, etc have freedom to operate
as other professions can't (and shouldn't) when they sell something to the
public who have less experience and technical knowledge?

Should public bodies be allowed to compete with the private sector in this
unfair way protected even from Parliament by a Quango and criticising the
private sector which most likely was a ton more honest than them in this
particular case?

So much for the integrity of operations with public funds through the
Housing Corporation now TSA.
Misrepresenting leases in the process of sale should be a crime just like
any other way of deceiving the public. Actually it may be a crime.. there
was a law in 1991 against misrepresentations, but I am not sure..if it can
get past the protection of the Housing Corporation.

Even worse this is coning the public with public money. That is our taxes
being used without integrity through a Quango to deceive the public. This is
why the Regulator is not doing what it is supposed to. Is the new regulator
the Tenants Service Authority going to consider like the Housing Corporation
did in the past that mal-administration is one of its valid guidelines for
the sector?

Thank you for your attention and if you would like copies of the
documentation supporting these claims or you think that you may be able to
recommend a solution please write to me at adria...@hotmail.com quoting
CPHA so that I know it is not junk mail.

Kind regards
David A. Foot

[Peter]

Hi everyone.

I think that we could determine the flow control of the equity rapidly;
I must also mention that more details can be obtained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/usbms/ in the
particular case of the mortgage
Yours, sincerely