The Housing Corporation (now TSA) and crime: AmicusHorizon Ltd.

[David Foot]

The HOUSING CORPORATION now TENANT SERVICES AUTHORITY (TSA)are old and new
names for a powerful quango / regulator of Housing Associations

Any way the regulator for social housing 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, they also
tried to give mortgage business to their associates of an independant
company for whatever incentive or reason. This landlord would describe their
leases as a far superior product to what they really were, as the first year
of the leases was running out at the time, property values were falling and
they had nearly all the properties on their books. Any way the Ombudsman
when shown all the evidence explained that he saw some evidence of mal
administration. Unfortunately the police were not called in to investigate
this mal administration.

The Housing Corporation's (now TSA) member I am referring to has had many
names and has a new name now: AmicusHorizon Ltd. and has gone through
Crystal Palace Housing Association, South London Family Housing Association,
SLFHA Ltd, Horizon Housing Group, obviously they are not proud of their
brand .. nothing of value to keep there..


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

*THE REGULATOR: the Housing Corportation (Now TSA) assured me that the
landlord had a duty to explain the contracts so that we could make an
informed decision! But they shouldn't have given us any financial advice,
for example try to get us to buy their friends pension mortgages, or assure
us many times that their leases were financially a completely different
product.

*THE MORTGAGES they were advising us to take were peddled by their
associates, who wanted us all to buy pension endowment mortgages even
without seeing our individual financial situation! These were the best
mortgages and such a good idea and their mortgage provider had been on
Channel 4 etc...Financial advice if there was any ... The landlord should
also be made responsible for those financial products as they were leaning
on us to get these contracts by promoting them on their premises. Their
associates were selling against the two main mortgage lenders at the time
with whom most of us had already made arrangements.

*The leases were mis-represented at the time of sale targetting specifically
people without experience in leases, 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 and then until recently was incremented 2% above 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.

So ten years later the dishonest landlord 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 question for such a landlord is 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). It appears that the Regulator too would
have wanted us to arrange the pension endowment mortgages with the
associates of the landlord and go with such an organisation as our legal
representatives too.

So there you have the 4 million pound question. And what did "THEIR"
solicitor tell "THEM"?".. still a mystery.

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

*SO WAS THIS DELIBERATE 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) 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 person on the now 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 under the protection of a Quango to deceive the
public. This is why the Regulator is not doing what it is supposed to.

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