image description image description
GOLD MENU                    SILVER MENU                    BRONZE MENU                    MOST VIEWED

Related Issues

------ ooOoo ------

In this first video, Huw Merriman, MP, introduces us to the plight of "Vulnerable Pensioners trapped in Retirement Properties with their assets depreciating thanks to the dominant involvement of FirstPort".  

On this occasion, the Right Honorable Theresa May, MP, who was Prime Minister at the time, responds with : “This is why we are committed to clamping down on those Agents who abuse the system and protecting Leaseholders who are suffering at the hands of Rogue Agents.”  

That's right, there is no shortage of Politicians on both sides of both Houses willing to nod sympathetically; say the right words at the right time; and try to make us believe that they actually "give a damn".  BUT WHEN IS SOMETHING GOING TO BE DONE about the way that Older People are being treated by these "Big Property Interests" like FirstPort?

(Don't forget, all videos can be expanded to full screen size.  Bottom Right Corner for Windows; Top Left for IOS)


When a Leaseholding is established between a Landlord and a Leaseholder, the Landlord undertakes to provide certain services to the Leaseholder; for which the Leaseholder is usually required to reimburse the Landlord in the form of periodic Service Charges.

The Covenant to provide these services and to reimburse the Landlord's Outgoings are contained within The Leasehold Agreement (The Lease), and the Leaseholder is only required to pay for what the Landlord provides.

Various constraints are placed on the manner of calculating the reimbursement and these constraints are contained within Primary Legislation applicable at the time; but these can never override the conditions of the Lease.

The relevant Outgoings to be included in the Service Charge should comprise only "the relevant expenditures reasonably incurred by the Landlord in connection with the repair management and provision of services ... and should include only reasonable costs and expenses payable to persons whom the Landlord may from time to time reasonably employ."

(Quoted from the Leasehold Agreement for Oaklands Court, Clause 7.5)

They do not include the costs involved in running another company's business; nor do they include the making of unreasonable (and therefore exploitative) profits from The Lease and they certainly do not include turning their Leaseholders over to a bunch of proven crooks (see elsewhere on this website) to be exploited mercilessly (see elsewhere on this website) by those crooks (see elsewhere on this website).

However, and over time, it has become the practice for Landlords in this country to avoid the onerous tasks to which they themselves have legally covenanted and to "farm-out" – lock-stock-and-barrel – the administration of these covenants – and the payment thereof – to a Third Party Service Provider.

The Leaseholder then becomes trapped in a three-way relationship which has no bearing whatsoever on the original contract between Landlord and Leaseholder but within which the Service Provider is able to effectively hijack the relationship and manipulate conditions in order to CREATE CONFUSION; to CONFLATE PURPOSE; and to facilitate and ENCOURAGE CORRUPTION.

Armed with one of these much-sought-after and highly-lucrative "contracts" between themselves and the Landlord, the Managing Agents concerned then proceed to turn this CONFUSION, CONFLATION AND CORRUPTION into their CORE BUSINESS.  This CORE BUSINESS – supported by either naturally-and-criminally dishonest managers or else by thoroughly brainwashed employees – then becomes the SOLE REASON for the Managing Agents Existence.

In terms of the Original Leasehold Agreement, the rights and expectations of the Leaseholder become subject to the (almost certainly unlawful) "Business Model" of the new "Cuckoo in the Nest".  Under these conditions, the treatment of even ordinary, working age people (single people, young couples, young families) at the hands of these Third-Party Parasites" is DESPICABLE.

But when these practices are applied to Old People they become even more DOUBLY DESPICABLE.  Everyone who works for FirstPort should be ashamed of themselves and what they doing to the Older Generation Leaseholders!

These bastards know that old people are not as quick-witted as they might once have been; and that they can be easily confused and bamboozled.  And yet knowing this, these Third Party Parasites take advantage of the situation and use it to their own advantage.

Right now, in one FirstPort Retirement Development in particular, the Development Manager (RAY SAVIN) – supported by the Area Manager (CHRIS HILL) – is forcing cash-strapped Pensioners to pay for a number of works that are NOT NECESSARY; are, in any case, NOT  "LIKE-FOR-LIKE"; and are actually IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LANDLORD'S OWN PROPERTY.  This is unlawful according to both the Lease and the Law.

There are a number of FAR more serious frauds – detailed in other parts of this site – being perpetrated against Vulnerable and Voiceless Old People who have often been Targeted, Groomed, Intimidated and frequently and deliberately Bamboozled to support this very purpose.


It is time that FirstPort was independently INVESTIGATED!

It is unacceptable that current and previous employees of the Managing Agents who have behaved so disreputably for personal and company gain should escape the consequences of their dishonesty.

This website will stay here until the whole mess is sorted out; and until an appropriate number of people have been charged, prosecuted, convicted and hopefully jailed.


Clicking this button will bring up a checklist on the right-hand side of the screen.  (Test it now)

Going through this checklist item-by-item will show you that your problems with FirstPort are real not imagined; that you are not going crazy; and above all that you are not alone.

That's right; your experience is being shared by a growing number of sympathetic Politicians, Charities, NGOs, Campaigning Websites and Social Media Forums, that have – and for a long time now – labelled FirstPort as a "Corrupted Company".

But on which the relevant External Authorities have refused to take action.

There is much here that will be useful to other victims (regardless of their age or circumstances) of The Leasehold Scandal and Property Managing Agents; so please pass this web address to ANYONE who you think might be helped, informed or simply encouraged by ANY of the information presented on this site.

There is much that is said and/or written these days about Mental Health, Worry and Depression.  Don't let that person you know about who has become a victim of "The Leasehold Scandal", "Third Party Property Managing Agents" and "These Big Property Interests" suffer in silence – be it a friend, a work colleague or a neighbour.

Pass this website address to them.  Let this site be a source of reassurance, confidence and strength to them.  For the time being FirstPortWatch is not able help them in any practical way.  But it might comfort them to know that injustices HAVE been noticed and that things ARE starting to happen.


The Trustpilot Scandal!

Are We Stupid Or What?

Click here To Find Out


Other Sites Of Interest

If you are reading this, you might also find the following websites useful

Companies Controlled By The Tchenguiz Family Trust

About Vincent Tchenguiz

Handout To Offshore Freeholders

FirstPort Frauds

Exploitation And Abuse Of The Elderly

------ oo0oo ------

Sheltered Housing For The Elderly

"It is a serious failure amounting to Systemic Corruption within both the Firstport Group of Companies and Warwickshire Police that the individuals concerned in these frauds have not been charged under the Fraud Act 2006."

For a number of years now there have been calls from a variety of sources for the appointment of an OLD PEOPLE'S COMMISSIONER FOR ENGLAND with responsibility for tackling the growing Financial Exploitation and Fiduciary Abuse of The Elderly on the parts of certain Private Companies and Public Agencies.

For some reason, this idea has never quite taken off.  Which seems decidedly odd if you think about it; especially given that there are Commissioners and Advocates for just about every other vulnerability in the land.  Can it really be that we, as a society, care so little about the Elderly?  Or is it equally possible that any such notions have been repeatedly sabotaged under the influence of what one particularly outspoken politician has called "These Big Property Interests" which have such a grip – socially, politically and economically – on this country?

------ oo0oo ------

The purpose of this website will be to expose the fiduciary and financial abuse of Elderly Leaseholders in Sheltered and Retirement Housing and to move our Government towards setting up a "Commission For Older People" that will investigate and oversee the treatment of the Elderly at the hands of Private Companies like FirstPort and The Tchenguiz Family Trust; along with the disparagement of those same Elderly People at the hands of Public Agencies whose job it is the protect them.

------ oo0oo ------

To that end, this website features a series of Video Presentations from a variety of Politicians and Public Figures who have been moved to express their disgust at what is happening to the victims of "The Leasehold Scandal" and "Third Party Property Managing Agents".  So far there are a total of 24 mini-videos (one on each page) with more to follow.  This Editor urges all FirstPort "victims" to listen to what these Prominent Figures are saying; to make careful note of the frauds that have been perpetrated at one FirstPort Sheltered Housing Complex in particular; and to closely examine whether your own FirstPort Managed Development is being cheated and abused in similar ways.

------ oo0oo ------

Question everything! FirstPort's scams are imaginative, inventive and have been going on for years!

The latest scam identified by FirstPort is the complete digital upgrade of the Warden Call System throughout THEIR properties for which WE, the cash-strapped pensioners, are going to have to pay.  Typically tens of thousands of pounds per flat.  

So if you are being told you need a new warden call system – remind FirstPort that the last time they engaged in this kind of "upgrade" was when they pleaded guilty to systemic price fixing.  The infamous "Cirrus-Collusive-Tendering-Frauds".  Remember?  To add insult to injury, FirstPort are saying that if we want an independent survey for the necessity of this operation – WE are going to have to pay for that too.

Old People have no independent body with the guts or the teeth to stand up to FirstPort and demand Justice for the Elderly.  The Government (baring a few individuals) are SHIT SCARED of the Mafia Cartels like The Tchenguiz Family Trust, FirstPort, and the half-dozen or so smaller players who ride on the coat-tails of these bastards.

------ oo0oo ------

Alongside the stated purpose, this website more-than-adequately demonstrates that the MAJOR obstacle to the establishment of a Genuine Advocacy for this last remaining and most Vulnerable Group in our Society has been the cast-iron grip that these (often overseas based) "Interests" have on the UK Leasehold Sector in general and their treatment of Our Old People in particular.

This website further demonstrates that the serious breaches of Primary Legislation chronicled herein represent PROVEN Instances of Corporate and Individual FRAUD on the parts of FirstPort as a company and their employees as individuals.  And furthermore that in none of these instances would FirstPort have wished for the facts to be brought to the attention of an Independent COMMISSIONER FOR OLDER PEOPLE tasked with the responsibility for looking after the best interests of The Elderly.

------ oo0oo ------

FirstPort Retirement Property Service Ltd. are responsible for the "management" of almost 60,000 retirement homes in the UK; housing potentially up to 70,000 Elderly People – including qualifying spouses – across 1,600 separate developments.

Is there anyone out there who seriously believes that 1,599 of those 1,600 developments under FirstPort's management are being treated fairly, with dignity, and in line with The Lease and The Law? And that Oaklands Court is the ONE Development in the whole of the UK that is being "ripped off by", and as Esther McVey, a Housing Minister at the time said, "companies like FirstPort?"

------ oo0oo ------

There is an URGENT SOCIETAL NEED for The FirstPort Group of Companies – along with The Tchenguiz Family Trust and other "Big Property Interests"– to be exposed as being ROTTEN TO THE CORE in their dealings with UK LEASEHOLDERS in general; and in their treatment of THE ELDERLY in particular

------ oo0oo ------


------ oo0oo ------

The remaining few paragraphs on this page by no means constitute a comprehensive list of all the frauds committed by FirstPort; it is simply that it was this particular set of serious and interrelated frauds which ultimately persuaded this Editor that enough is enough.  That the disgusting "Toe-Rags" who have wormed and weaseled their way into Fiduciary Positions Of Trust In The Service Of The Managing Agents of Oaklands Court cannot be allowed to continue to treat Vulnerable and Otherwise Voiceless Old People in the way that they have been doing.  On that premise we can start with:

1. The Targeted And Secretive Acquisition – on the parts of a certain incestuous and self-serving cabal of managers and employees within The FirstPort Group of Companies, including employees of Retirement Homesearch Ltd (an estate agency within the FirstPort Group) of the title deeds to a certain property in Oaklands Court; such acquisition being for the sole benefit of an Individual Holding A Fiduciary Position Of Trust In The Service Of The Managing Agents.  And furthermore in conspiring to ensure that the said title deeds would only ever be available for purchase by one in particular of the said Cabal; and at a price set by Retirement Homesearch Ltd deemed to be advantageous to the said colleague acting as purchaser.  (The veracity of that statement has been confirmed by Detective Sergeant Gareth Unnet of Warwickshire Police in a recorded interview in Leamington Police Station).  This offence by an Individual Holding A Fiduciary Position Of Trust In The Service Of The Managing Agents is a Section Four (Fraud By Abuse Of Position) offence under The Fraud Act 2006 and subject to up to ten years imprisonment on conviction; but on which the relevant External Authorities have refused to take action.

------ oo0oo ------

In light of this and other instances of Frauds and Abuses affecting The Elderly; it is now imperative that HM Government extend the same protection to Old People as it does to other Vulnerable Groups.

------ oo0oo ------

2. The Fraudulent Occupation – and over a three year period – of a flat in Oaklands Court by an Individual Holding A Fiduciary Position Of Trust In The Service Of The Managing Agents.  Such occupation involving an unauthorised and therefore unlawful change in the purpose-and-use of the flat in question from being "Sheltered Housing" for a Single Elderly Household – as prescribed by both the Planning Permission granted by Warwick District Council and the Lease – to an "Unauthorised HMO" (Housing in Multiple Occupation) for more than one (two, in this particular case) Separate Households.  (Again, these details were well-noted as part of the same recorded interview with Detective Sergeant Gareth Unnet of Warwickshire Police in Leamington Police Station).  This offence by an Individual Holding A Fiduciary Position Of Trust In The Service Of The Managing Agents is not only a Section Four (Fraud By Abuse Of Position) offence under The Fraud Act 2006 and subject to up to ten years imprisonment on conviction,  it is also an offence under The Housing Act 2004 which could potentially bar FirstPort from operating as Property Managers ever again; but on which the relevant External Authorities have refused to take action.

------ oo0oo ------

In light of this and other instances of Frauds and Abuses affecting The Elderly; it is now imperative that HM Government extend the same protection to Old People as it does to other Vulnerable Groups.

------ oo0oo ------

3. On the part of an Individual Holding A Fiduciary Position Of Trust In The Service Of The Managing Agents – and such action being on behalf of the "Second" of the two "Households" mentioned – the Obtaining of Services Dishonestly –  thus purposefully withholding around £15,000 of the total service charges due over the three year period of occupation.  This offence by an Individual Holding A Fiduciary Position Of Trust In The Service Of The Managing Agents is not only a Section Four (Fraud By Abuse Of Position) offence under The Fraud Act 2006 and subject to up to ten years imprisonment on conviction, but also a Section Eleven (Obtaining Services Dishonestly) of the same Act and would result in prosecution and forfeiture of the Lease for an ordinary Resident; but on which the relevant External Authorities have refused to take action.

------ oo0oo ------

In light of this and other instances of Frauds and Abuses affecting The Elderly; it is now imperative that HM Government extend the same protection to Old People as it does to other Vulnerable Groups.

------ oo0oo ------

4. The Fraudulent (as defined by the Fraud Act 2006) Resale by an Individual Holding A Fiduciary Position Of Trust In The Service Of The Managing Agents of the said flat thus netting a clear profit of £55,000 over a three year period (and representing a 50% return on the initial "investment").  This offence by an Individual Holding A Fiduciary Position Of Trust In The Service Of The Managing Agents is a Section Four (Fraud By Abuse Of Position) offence under The Fraud Act 2006 and subject to up to ten years imprisonment on conviction; but on which the relevant External Authorities have refused to take action.

------ oo0oo ------

In light of this and other instances of Frauds and Abuses affecting The Elderly; it is now imperative that HM Government extend the same protection to Old People as it does to other Vulnerable Groups.

------ oo0oo ------

5. The Unlawful and apparently Secretive Restoration of a Qualifying Long Term Agreement between the employers and an Individual where the said Qualifying Long Term Agreement had previously been Terminated on the Grounds Of Dishonesty.  To wit : Following the unlawful Aquisition, Occupation and Re-sale of the said property, the Regional Manager announced that he would not be renewing the contract of the person concerned.  However, the Resident Manager of Oaklands Court nevertheless went ahead and re-hired the person concerned for a further two years.  This represents a number of offences under Section Four (Fraud By Abuse Of Position) of The Fraud Act 2006 on the parts of a number of people and subject to up to ten years imprisonment on conviction; but on which the relevant External Authorities have refused to take action.

------ oo0oo ------

In light of this and other instances of Frauds and Abuses affecting The Elderly; it is now imperative that HM Government extend the same protection to Old People as it does to other Vulnerable Groups.

------ oo0oo ------

6. If that were the sum of these particular frauds, we might be able to draw a line under the matter; regard it as a "one-off" and accept that these digressions from common decency will never happen again.

But these events cannot be dismissed so lightly.  The fact is that at least half of the people mentioned in this brief summary of events are still employed by FirstPort in positions of trust around Vulnerable Old People.  The other fifty-percent have moved on and there is no telling whether or not they continue to work with Vulnerable and Voiceless Old People in other capacities.

"It is a serious failure amounting to Systemic Corruption within both the Firstport Group of Companies and Warwickshire Police that the individuals concerned in these frauds have not been charged under the Fraud Act 2006."

------ oo0oo ------

The first indication of these attitudes on the parts of FirstPort Management came from an Area Manager called Alec Brown.  Alec Brown is no longer with us but he is the one who first confidently and sneeringly declared that what FirstPort Management do between themselves is "none of your business".

Complaints were made to Eileen Fingleton, a FirstPort solicitor who stated that there was "no reason for us to interfere in these perfectly legitimate activities"  One wonders whether Eileen Fingleton (a Solicitor remember) has ever actually read the Fraud Act 2006!

Paul King, yet another Area Manager, did not claim these activities to be lawful but simply said there was "nothing he could do about it" – before resigning from the company giving just twelve days notice!  One wonders whether the speed of his departure might be an indication that Paul King HAD read the Fraud Act 2006!

Around the same time Louise Smith – a Retirement Coordinator with Estates and Management and who, together with Eileen Fingleton, travelled up from London to see this Editor personally in Oaklands Court – tentatively suggested that, in this particular case there could have been a "clerical error" on the part of her department.  (An "error" which, by some astronomic coincidence just happened to benefit one of her colleagues to the tune of £55,000 – CASH!)

But this suggestion was very firmly and confidently put down by Kerry Shugar, another Area Manager who, in the presence of this Editor and Ray Savin in this Editors flat, stated that these activities were "common practice within the company" and that practices involving even greater financial gains on the parts of those concerned had been known.  At this point, and in support of her argument, Kerry Shugar, in the presence of this Editor and the Development Manager of Oaklands Courts categorically stated that Development Managers had, in the past, been known to have been bequeathed entire flats – lock-stock-and-barrel – of deceased Residents who had been under their charge.

Perhaps this would be good place to insert the fact that on the very same day that Paul King left the company, Residents were informed that Nick O’Donnell (the Regional Manager ) had been very conveniently “seconded” to another part of the organisation (believed to be in the North East of the country) for a period of six months leaving a substitute Regional Manager in his place.

In other words the Regional Manager was equally quick to make himself scarce in the face of what was potentially coming.

A few days after Paul King and Nick O’Donnell had decided to make themselves scarce, James Bellamy, the FirstPort Surveyor whose Formal Report had stated that the windows in Oaklands Court were “in good order” and that “due to their condition would not recommend replacing at this time”, a conclusion that was a major contributing factor in these related frauds, gave notice of his resignation from the company.  The circumstances surrounding James Bellamy's principled resignation and his refusal (no blame there!) to present his Report to the Elderly Leaseholders who had requested and paid for it speaks volumes.

Finally, Samantha Gibson was asked to look into this and other suspicious activities.  Samantha Gibson stated that she could find no evidence of wrong-doing and that in any case, since these events were "historical" (Ed.  they had happened more than three months previously and investigation had been deliberate "strung out" by FirstPort) the whole business had to be considered as "Timed Out".  Again, one wonders whether Samantha Gibson has ever actually read the Fraud Act 2006!

------ oo0oo ------

Oaklands Court now has a new Area Manager, Chris Hill, whose activities are already showing signs of being fraudulent, cynically dismissive and certainly conspiratorial.  We also have a relatively new Resident Manager Ray Savin who, in collaboration with Kerry Shugar (the previous Area Manager) has caused cash-strapped pensioners to fork out for replacement windows which, according to a survey conducted by a RICS Qualified Surveyor, did not need changing and which, in any case, were eventually changed in ways that conflicted with both the Lease and the Law.

Additionally, and since the appearance of Chris Hill on the scene, both Ray Savin and Chris Hill have conspired together in making "Improvements To The Landlords Property"; (which according to both the Lease and Primary Legislation, is unlawful).  This latter demonstrating yet more evidence of fraudulent, dismissive and conspiratorial behaviour on the part of FirstPort employees.

------ oo0oo ------

So, that's about it really.  That's why the Vulnerable, Voiceless, Exploited and Abused Pensioners of England need a COMMISSIONER FOR OLDER PEOPLE with responsibility for protecting these Old People from the growing Disparagement; Fiduciary Abuse and Financial Exploitation at the hands of certain Private Companies, Public Agencies and the Employees of these Bodies.


Each and every Leaseholder in Oaklands Court has signed a legally binding contract with the Landlords containing – among other things – a commitment that Oaklands Court will be administered in accordance with the Lease; in accordance with the Law; and (tacitly) in accordance with common decency.


The Law Provides for Custodial Sentencing


------ oo0oo ------

Grace Slick (singer with Jefferson Airplane) reminded us in the '60s "Lewis Carroll was looking at how things are run and the people who rule us."  Lewis Carroll didn't know it but he was talking about FirsPort.

The Gold Menu, from the very outset, confronts the politicality of what ultimately amounts to "Elder Abuse".

That's right – it's not only Rogue Landlords, Crooked Agents, Dishonest Employees and Fat-Cat Shareholders who are responsible for the plight of Elderly Leaseholders in Private Sheltered Housing.  Our Politicians have a lot to answer for too.

Given the implicit self-interest within the Political Establishment concerning various aspects of the wider cartel; and given that more than 40% of members of the Lower House, together with a majority of those in the Upper House, are themselves income or investment Landlords; these activities must be regarded as being as much Political as they are Criminal.

The Silver Menu Contains Additional Information, Goes Into More Detail, Presents Arguments, Dispels Myths, Exposes Lies; etc.

The editor believes this section to be just as important as the Gold Section; but perhaps in different ways.

However, and as stated, the First-Time Visitor's time will be more profitably spent  – initially at least –  in first making themselves familiar with the Gold Section.

The Bronze Menu Contains Interesting Insights into the Rationale, Business Philosophies and Inner Workings of FirstPort Retirement Property Services Ltd; as well as something of the quality of the people who work for the company.

Again, the editor believes the Bronze Section to be just as important as the other two sections; but reading the Gold and Silver Sections first will make this section more meaningful.

The "Most Viewed" Menu presents statistics for the numbers of unique visitors to this website for the month of July 2021; and presents the top ten pages viewed – page by page – with the number of visitors who have viewed that page.

These statistics are extracted from data supplied by Siteground, the hosting company for this site.

The total number of unique visits for the month of July 2021 was 1,719.

The "Most Viewed" statistics are updated monthly so what you are seeing are the statistics for last month.

(Close This Box)

Because anyone with even a shred of decency would have resigned from FirstPort and found themselves a more wholesome job well within the customary period of six months that it takes to realise what a Lying, Cheating Bunch of Crooks FirstPort are.

(Close This Box)


the enjoyment of your Retirement Home is being impacted by the fiduciary abuse, financial exploitation and other forms of bullying on the parts of FirstPort Retirement Property Services Ltd and a number of their (often comparatively senior) employees.

------ oo0oo ------

If this describes your predicament, be assured that there is much on this website that will give you confidence.  The more you know about these bastards – their background; their history; their business model; the ways they have made other peoples' lives a misery; the contempt in which they hold their victims; and in particular their "Buy Outs" (e.g. Mainstay, Chamonix, etc) and "Sell Outs" (e.g. Knight Square, Equistone, etc) using massive loans paid for by the hundreds-of-thousands of existing Leaseholders – the more able you will be to confront FirstPort effectively and emerge victorious.

------ oo0oo ------

(Close This Box)

The Trustpilot Scandal

Before we start on Search Rankings, let's just remind readers that Google also do a ranking system similar to Trustpilot.  Google ranks FirstPort at 1.4 out of 5.  The difference between Trustpilot and Google is that Google makes money out of advertising ALONE; NOT from its customers.  Whereas Trustpilot's ONLY source of income is its customers; i.e. companies like FirstPort.  Google publishes every honest review.  Trustpilot are known to filter out bad reviews.  Bad reviews don't bring in the money!  Work it out!



On 20 July 2020 FirstPort had a Trustpilot score of 1.7 out of 5 which translates as “BAD” according to Trustpilot’s own system of transliteration.

By 20 April 2021 that score had increased to 4.1 out of 5 which translates as “GREAT” according to Trustpilot.

So, FirstPort have gone from “BAD” to “GREAT” in exactly nine months!

From observation over time, and from second guessing Trustpilot’s necessarily simple algorithms, this degree of improvement in such a short space of time is statistically impossible to achieve organically; i.e. if the system is left to its own devices.

It can only be achieved by jiggery-pokery. And this is exactly what is happening.

In the hope and anticipation that the wider issues concerning this website will eventually by aired in court, it would be imprudent to disclose too much too soon.

However, what can safely be disclosed at this point is that two forms of trickery are being employed.

1.  The first method is to invite "genuine and verified FirstPort clients" to submit positive 5 Star reviews.  These reviews can be identified by the “Invited” tickbox next to the score for that particular review.

However, it has been made known – by disgruntled ex-employees of FirstPort – that these "invitations" are instigated primarily by those who are presumed to know the most about these "genuine and verified FirstPort clients".  And who might that be?  That's right, their own Resident Managers of course!  These Resident Managers will have been previously canvassed by the relevant Regional and Area Managers with the intention of identifying likely “candidates” for this scam.  These “candidates” (it is said) are specially selected by Resident Managers as being the most likely to comply with (or be taken in by) this scam.

So, in other words, these suckers have not been "INVITED" so much as deliberately "TARGETED".

It is interesting and thought provoking that most of these invited reviews are, actually, comments on the performance of Resident Managers as individuals rather than FirstPort as a company.  "She took my rubbish out when I didn't feel well".  "She always greets us with a smile".  "She changed a light bulb for me".  (And for this Resident Managers get £18,000 a year, plus furnished flat, plus sick and holiday pay, plus private pension, plus a Five Star review for doing what they are paid to do anyway!  Sheesh!)

2.  The second method employed is through FirstPort buying false positive reviews from the multitude of scam companies who engage in this type of thing.  Before going any further, the reader is invited to do a Google search on “buy fake trustpilot reviews” or similarly worded searches.  Prepare to be gob-smacked.

Or if you are willing to trust this Editor, start with these :

These fake reviews can be identified very easily once you learn that false reviews are generally sold in batches of ten (very occasionally five).  So all you have to do is look for the “spikes” in FirstPort’s 5 Star reviews.  So for example, a common situation is where batches of ten “reviews” will appear in a single clump; all at the same time.  (Another "batch" sent out!  Go on; count them!)  How STUPID do they think we are?

Scrutinise the FirstPort reviews on Trustpilot for the short 5 Star "spikes".

And yes, there is a third way whereby it is highly likely that FirstPort is increasing its ranking with Trustpilot.  But that will only be revealed when the time is right.

At the time of writing, Trustpilot shows FirstPort as having received 42 five-star reviews ("She took my rubbish out".  "She greets us with a smile".  "She changed a light bulb for me"; remember?) in the space of twenty-hour hours.  You can almost smell the panic!

(Close This Box)

FirstPort Merge With Mainstay

To quote from an unrelated website :

"Those familiar with the utter shambles that is Firstport would undoubtedly have been able to warn Mainstay of the complete chaos they are walking into. There is more than an even chance that the alliance will bring Mainstay down "

Wow ! Bold claims from other "FirstPort Watchers". But highly informed claims, nevertheless.

It is to be wondered whether Mainstay really do know what they are letting themselves in for; and whether Mainstay realise the extent to which their reputation will be tarnished by their association with FirstPort.

(Close This Box)

------ oo0oo ------

The Marketing Brief :

Note that the following Marketing Brief, promulgated by Nigel Howell, is all about Corporate Growth.

There is nothing here about providing a fair, affordable service catering to the everyday needs of the "single-widow-living-alone-and-struggling-to-survive-on-her-single-State-Pension".

There is nothing here about the outright frauds being inflicted on hard-working individuals and families just trying to survive in an increasingly dangerous and insecure world.

There is nothing here about the fear, frustration and sleepless nights inflicted on their victims by faceless corporations who threaten, bully and intimidate those trapped in their vicious schemes with no recourse to the justice which would otherwise be their right.

All these things will be found on this website; but not in the following disgusting marketing brief.

On the contrary, Nigel Howell is telling us in this brief that "For FirstPort and Mainstay customers, clients, employees, management, and supply partners, day-to-day operations will remain unchanged."

"Unchanged" – More lies, more deceits, more rip-offs, more disparaging sneers ...

------ oo0oo ------

Here is Nigel Howell's brief in full.  Have your sick-bag ready!

FirstPort, the UK’s largest residential property manager, has today announced a transaction which will see it combining with leading property and asset manager, Mainstay Group.

For FirstPort and Mainstay customers, clients, employees, management, and supply partners day-to-day operations will remain unchanged. Completion of the transaction only remains subject to approval by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Last year FirstPort welcomed Equistone Partners Europe as its new majority investors to support its continued growth, investment in a comprehensive digital transformation programme and make further enhancements to its customer service offering.

To date, FirstPort has completed two previous transactions, strengthening its team and service offerings with the acquisitions of Barratt London’s property management company, BRAM, in 2019 and Linden Homes’ property management provider, Pentland Estate Management, in 2017.

For Mainstay Group, 2019 was a significant year with the business achieving record growth, winning appointments on a number of high-profile developments and securing a national, multi-million-pound portfolio.

Nigel Howell, CEO of FirstPort, commented: “We are delighted to be joining forces with Mainstay to deliver the very best property and asset management services for our customers and clients. Mainstay’s achievements and track record are impressive, and we are proud to be welcoming them into the FirstPort group.

“This is a great milestone for both businesses, which will see us learning from each other and working together to continue to drive the highest industry standards and realise new market opportunities.”

Luke Sanders, Group Managing Director of Mainstay, commented: “This is an exciting opportunity for the Mainstay Group to continue to deliver a market-leading service, while benefiting from the skills, expertise and efficiencies available being part of a larger group. I am very much looking forward to working with FirstPort, as the right partner for our next phase of growth and to help build on Mainstay’s achievements and successes to date.”

Statement From
Sir Peter Bottomley, M.P.
02 October 2019 – Hansard Vol 655  Col 980

Clicking this link will open a video recording in a new window where Sir Peter states :

"I declare this in public : if any of these big property interests threaten defamation proceedings against any of the leasehold campaigners, I will say on the Floor of the House of Commons exactly what can be said about them, in spades – I won’t hold back.

Up to now I have been pretty restrained, but I want people to know this : do not bully those who campaign for justice.

We are all on the side of the small voice.  By all means have discussion, and by all means have disagreement, but do ​not think that you can get away with lawyers’ letters of the kind that get prominence every now and again in Strobes’s legal pages."

Question To The Prime Minister From
Huw Merriman, M.P.
06 March 2019 – Hansard Vol 655  Col 955

"Across the country, freeholders and leaseholders are being ripped off by management companies charging excessive service charges, often for services they do not require.

Many of these people are vulnerable pensioners who are trapped in McCarthy & Stone properties with their asset depreciating thanks to the dominant involvement of FirstPort and Vincent Tchenguiz.

May I ask the Prime Minister for two reforms: first, ground rents at ​peppercorn levels for retirement homes; and secondly, bringing in a charging schedule and an automatic re-tendering process so that all freeholders and long lease holders can bid with their own community interest companies to deliver services that they actually require?"

Click the link on the left to watch the video

Point Of Order Question From
Seema Malhotra, M.P.
06 March 2019 – Hansard Vol 655  Col 980

"On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been contacted by residents in Camellia House in my constituency, who are distraught at being left without a lift for the last two months, which is causing great stress to many residents, and particularly those with disabilities.

The situation has now become more serious, with one of the residents, who has had a stroke, now being discharged from hospital.  FirstPort has failed to provide any explanation for the delay or any compensation to residents.  It has also failed to respond to inquiries from my office since the issue was first raised with the company on 25 January.

Madam Deputy Speaker, what advice can you give me on how to raise that matter in order to get Ministers’ attention, so that pressure can be applied to FirstPort to get the lift fixed and so that FirstPort can be held to account for its clear disregard for residents and their needs?"

Click the link on the left to watch the video

Intervention From
Sir Geoffrey Clifton Brown, M.P.
11 July 2019 – Hansard Vol 663  Col 523

"The two areas for scams in leasehold are either the ground rents or the service charges.  The ground rents in older leases tended to be a fairly small proportion of the total cost, but in recent years modern developers have hiked the ground rents, often doubling them every 10 years.  The so-called proposals to modify this with reference to the retail prices index could lead to an even greater scam, because if inflation started to rise, ground rents could double not every 10 years but every five years. We need to look very carefully at that proposal. There are other proposals to make ground rents more moderate.

The other area, which is perhaps a bigger concern, is that of service charges. They can often be completely unknown, and they can include elements that are not immediately apparent to the person buying a leasehold. Those elements include administration fees, accountancy fees, commissions, insurance—the list goes on forever.  The problem with all that is that a purchaser’s solicitors often assume that their client has a greater knowledge than they really have and are not explicit about what the obligations amount to."

Click the link on the left to watch the video

Intervention From
Rosie Cooper, M.P.
11 July 2019 – Hansard Vol 663  Col 523

"Before I make my observations, I must declare my interest as I ​am one of the many thousands to have been caught in the leasehold trap. It appears that we have 18th-century practices operating at 21st-century prices and, more fundamentally, that a person’s home is not really their own, with the freedom to do within it as they please. In West Lancashire, nearly a quarter of homes sold in 2016-17 were leasehold, and the figure was still over 15% in 2018. The issue seems to be that leasehold has strayed into being an extortionate money-making racket at the expense of house owners.

Owners are forced to pay extortionate ground rents and locked into rip-off service charges, with nearly 60% of them lacking an understanding of their contractual obligations.

Perhaps leasehold would not be talked about so negatively if leaseholders did not find themselves obliged to Dick Turpin-like companies that require them to stand and deliver—in this case, it is “your money and your home” that they are after. "

Click the link on the left to watch the video

Statement From
Sir Peter Bottomley, M.P.
02 October 2019 – Hansard Vol 655  Col 980

"I declare this in public : if any of these big property interests threaten defamation proceedings against any of the leasehold campaigners, I will say on the Floor of the House of Commons exactly what can be said about them, in spades – I won’t hold back.

Up to now I have been pretty restrained, but I want people to know this : do not bully those who campaign for justice.

We are all on the side of the small voice.  By all means have discussion, and by all means have disagreement, but do ​not think that you can get away with lawyers’ letters of the kind that get prominence every now and again in Strobes’s legal pages."

Click the link on the left to watch the video

Statement From
Sir Peter Bottomley, M.P.
02 October 2019 – Hansard Vol 655  Col 980

"We also did not have the kind of crooks, such as Martin Paine, who came in and gave informal leases, which really made a mess of people’s lives.

We did not suffer from the Tchenguiz interests, which were responsible – both in the retirement field and in other fields – for some of the worst excesses.

Frankly, the public authorities, such as the fraud people, the economic crimes people, the police and the Competition and Markets Authority people failed, and the Tchenguiz-controlled business got away scot free, when the people in that business should have been sent to jail and fined millions of pounds.

The millions of pounds would have made up for the losses of the ordinary leaseholders who were failed by them."

Click the link on the left to watch the video

Statement From
Clive Betts, M.P.
21 March 2019 – Hansard Vol 656  Col 1263

"The Committee has never undertaken an inquiry that has had such an overwhelming response from individual members of the public.   We received over 700 written submissions, mostly from leaseholders who wanted to tell us about their personal experiences.  It is clear there is a great deal of dissatisfaction: onerous ground rent terms; high and opaque service charges; unfair and excessive permission charges; alleged mis-selling of leasehold properties by developers; imbalanced dispute mechanisms; and unreasonable costs to enfranchise or extend leases.

In the worst cases, people have been left trapped in unsellable homes. More common are leaseholders with opaque service charges and poor levels of maintenance who have no reasonable means to challenge or query how their buildings are being managed.  The Committee concluded that​ “too often leaseholders, particularly in new-build properties, have been treated by developers, freeholders and managing agents, not as homeowners or customers, but as a source of steady profit."

Click the link on the left to watch the video

Question From
Mike Amesbury, M.P.
23 October 2019 – Hansard Vol 666  Col 971

"Eight consultations on, and millions of people are still caught by the leasehold scandal. At what stage are the Prime Minister and his Government going to get a grip and end this feudal system once and for all?"

The Prime Minister : "I thank the hon. Gentleman, because he raises something that is of great importance to all our constituents. We are delivering a strong package of reforms. We will legislate to ban new leasehold houses, reduce future ground rents to zero in all but exceptional circumstances and close the legal loopholes that currently subject leaseholders to unacceptable costs. He raises a very important issue, and believe me, we are on it right now. "

Click the link on the left to watch the video

Intervention From
Justine Greening, M.P.
09 May 2019  Hansard – Vol 659 Col 692

"Frankly we all need to reflect on the fact that these building owners are quite happy to take the gains that come with owning a building but if they do that they must take the responsibilities as well.”

The following comment on Justine Greening's intervention comes from ""

"Justine Greening is 100% correct. Freeholders are only the owners of a building's income streams.  Although freeholders are often called Landlords they have no legal duty to pay for the upkeep of their buildings.  They are entitled to dump the bills on their Leaseholders.  Freeholders’ interests often amount to a mere 3% of the capital value of a block.  Yet they wield so much power over the lives of the real flat owners.  Freeholders (Landlords) enjoy the incomes but do no paying at all – ever.

Let’s put an end to faceless investors speculating in ordinary families’ homes."

Click the link on the left to watch the video

Statement – The Minister For Housing
Esther McVey, MP
02 October 2019  Hansard – Volume 664 Column 366

"We have also committed to regulating Managing Agents, and to improving the transparency and fairness of Service Charges.  Too often, people feel ripped off by fees and charges, sometimes not even being told what they are paying for.

We have committed to introducing a single mandatory and legally enforceable code of practice to set standards across the sector.  We will also require agents to be qualified to practice.

Last October, we established an independent working group, chaired by Lord Best, to look at how standards can be raised across the property sector, and to consider how fees such as service charges should be presented to ​consumers. The working group published its final reports to the Government in July. We are considering its recommendations and will announce the next steps in due course."

Click the link on the left to watch the video

Statement – Justin Madders, MP
20 July 2017  Hansard – Volume 627 Column 1072

"But there also needs to be a long, hard look at how we got into this position in the first place. I would like there to be a full Select Committee inquiry into how this practice developed.

Who were the authors of those leases that now nobody will sign up to? How much profit have they made out of this scam? And who exactly are the beneficiaries of the leases now?

These properties are being passed around from one company to another. Some are based outside this country, and there is secrecy about who the ultimate recipients are of the substantial incomes coming from the leases.

That brings me to what I would like a Select Committee inquiry to look at : the legal profession. Speaking as a former solicitor, I know that mistakes are made, but it seems incredible to me that so many people make the same complaint.

I hope I have demonstrated the range of issues that need to be dealt with in respect of this scandal. A full Select Committee inquiry is the way ahead. This has not happened by accident and we need to know why it started. "

Click the link on the left to watch the video

Statement From
Sir Peter Bottomley, M.P.

"There are two points on which I criticise (The Tchenguiz Trust).

When they controlled Peverel (the name of which the Tchenguiz's later changed to FirstPort), who owned a business called Cirrus, some of the company’s large number of freehold blocks were said to have needed the call system replaced.  (Editors note : This "need" was, and still is, disputed.  No technical details were ever revealed to leaseholders; some of whom would, by virtue of their previous careers, have been in a position to understand it.)

There was a competition between Cirrus, and two little minnows.  So, there was collusive tendering involved.

Sadly, the economic crime unit of the police, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Serious Fraud Office did not manage to get together at the same time to work out how to deal with this rip-off of millions of pounds from leaseholders.

If the police, the fraud office and the FCA had been together, they could have stopped it, but they did not, so those involved got off scot-free."

Click the link on the left to watch the video

(Close This Box)

But they are not.  Not only are FirstPort failing to protect Elderly residents from the mundanities of property ownership and increasing vagaries of old age; they are failing to protect Elderly Residents from the dishonesty and rampant corruption of their own Managers, Employees, and Contractors.

Instead, FirstPort Retirement Property Services Ltd – under the influence and stewardship of CEO Nigel Howell – have turned what started out as a simple and straightforward protective covenant within the Leasehold Agreement between Landlord and Leaseholders into a HIGHLY lucrative Income Stream for both FirstPort and the motley crew of "strip-off" merchants – in the form of whichever Private Equity cowboys FirstPort happens to be in cahoots with at any particular time – and in the process has turned the simple needs of Elderly People living in FirstPort Retirement Complexes into a HIGHLY lucrative Cash Cow.

This particular cash cow – there are others – has become a completely separate income stream funded entirely from the limited pensions of the said Elderly Residents themselves; the majority of whom have been bullied and bamboozled into accepting the apparent "authority" of Nigel Howell and other managers of what in reality is no more than a sub-contracted service provider operating under an entirely separate and subordinate contract between FirstPort and the Landlordsthere is no comparable contract between FirstPort and the Leaseholders.

As a result, Elderly victims of FirstPort Retirement Property Services Ltd have been hit with a double whammy.  Not only are they victims of the nationwide Leasehold Scandal that continues to hit the media headlines from time-to-time; they are additionally victims of FirstPort's Property Management Scandal.

(Close This Box)

By this is meant the appointments to positions of Fiduciary Trust within FirstPort of certain individuals whose core principles the vast majority of decent people would find DEEPLY OFFENSIVE.

Here's a story.  The other day I received a phone call from my step-son in Hong Kong.  Much to my delight he hinted that – after the pandemic – their little family might spend a couple of months touring around the whole of the UK and Ireland next summer.  

Although Zoe, my granddaughter, is a pupil at a "UK Affiliated School" in HK, and is a UK citizen in her own right, she has never actually hits the UK before so this would be a wonderful and exciting new experience for her.  Michael and Eva, on the other hand, have hits the UK a number of times and have even, on at least a couple of occasions, stayed in Oaklands Court as visitors.

But that was the "old" Oaklands Court.

That was before Oaklands Court was "entrusted" to a pair of White South African Freeloaders who have been "persuaded" by the circumstances of life to dump themselves onto the naive generosity of the United Kingdom because their Country of Origin will no longer allow them to treat people like Michael and Eva and little Zoe like SHIT just because of the colour of their skin and the shape of their eyes.

How typical of FirstPort not to understand the qualities needed of their front-facing personnel at least; qualities like humanity; humility; and respect for those they are supposed to be serving.

And especially that the very generation who were so vociferous – and over so many years – in their condemnation of the vile ideology represented by the current wave of White South African "Escapees-From-The-Consequences-Of-Their-Own-Failed-Ideology" who are now flooding (FLOODING) into the UK (as well as, reportedly, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Netherlands, etc) should now be forced to suffer the humiliation of having these same bastards DUMPED onto us in our old age.


Well, we foolishly bothered because we never imagined that The Brave New World we thought we were working towards would include disgusting, money grubbing thieves like FIRSTPORT; aided and abetted by the tattered remnants of an ideology we thought had been sent packing by the 1940s generation (in Europe and the Far East) and again by the 1960s generation (in Southern Africa, including SA and "Rhodesia").  Both of which generations are still widely enough represented among FirstPort's current Residents; and yet FirstPort are now allowing these people to creep back into our lives to take the piss out of us and our next generation – like Michael, Eva and little Zoe.  GET YOURSELVES SORTED OUT FIRSTPORT !!!   THIS IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH !!!

(Close This Box)

The Tchenguiz Family Trust is an umbrella organisation for a staggering 391 companies – included among which is the FirstPort Group of companies.

The Tchenguiz Family Trust is Incorporated in the British Virgin Islands and is the Ultimate Controlling body for the whole of The Tchenguiz Empire and is controlled (reportedly) by just three people – the two Tchenguiz brothers and their sister.

On a personal level Vincent Tchenguiz (The one who has been responsible for most of FirstPort's problems through his misappropriation of Peverel funds and resources – Peverel being the fore-runner of FirstPort) reportedly owns three country and continental retreats in addition to his town house in London; two yachts on the Mediterranean (these latter with his brother) and at one time (before the Peverel meltdown) a fleet of five Rolls Royces.

All this is in contrast to "the-little-old-lady-living-alone-in-a-FirstPort-managed-flat-and-struggling-to-survive-on-her-single-state-pension"; while she struggles up three flights of stairs because the FirstPort-managed block in which she lives has been without a lift (on-and-off) for more than nine months.  And all the time worrying about how she is going to pay her share of the £800 bill for replacing ONE of the lights on her floor consisting of five flats.

Does all this smack of Neo-Rachmanism?  Has the unresolved past come back to haunt us?

As for the Firstport Group of companies, this is, again, an umbrella organisation for a number of supposedly separate companies consisting of Freeholders, Landlords, Managing Agents, Estate Agents, Solicitors, Insurance Companies, etc., all operating exclusively within the Property Industry and under the dubious and highly questionable custodianship of Nigel Howell.

------ oo0oo ------

It has been estimated that there are more than 7,000 UK citizens running tens-of-thousands of UK firms from low-tax jurisdictions like the British Virgin Islands, Channel Islands, The Bahamas, Belize, Cayman Islands, Monaco and Switzerland.  And that a disproportionate number of these have been awarded honours by successive governments or else already hold titles.

Many (if not most) of these Ex-Pat Businesses are both bankrolling and lobbying various political (small 'p') bodies and organisations; additionally donating many millions of pounds to Individual Politicians and Political Parties while living offshore and avoiding taxes.

Is this why Leasehold Reform is taking so long?

Or could it be because a significant number of Members of Parliament – including Members of the Upper House – are themselves Income and Investment Landlords?

(Close This Box)

The following has been extracted from a report in the Guardian Newspaper of 06 March 2012.

"Britain's biggest property manager Peverel (Ed. Now FirstPort) Group has been rescued from administration by two private equity companies in a £62 million deal that severs Peverel's ties with the Vincent Tchenguiz property empire.  (Ed. No longer true. Close but heavily disguised ties between these two groups remain.)

Chamonix Private Equity and Electra Partners have bought Peverel (Ed. Now FirstPort), whose holding companies collapsed into administration with Zolfo Cooper a year ago after property tycoon Tchenguiz ran up debts of £125 million.

Peverel's Leaseholders have previously (Ed. As have FirstPort's more recently) accused the company of charging excessive fees and giving a poor service.

Last year (Ed. 2011) a Guardian Money investigation highlighted a catalogue of accusations – denied by Peverel – regarding rising service charges, maintenance failures, broken promises, excessive insurance costs and high exit fees from retirement homes."

(Close This Box)

The Following is a Roundup from The "About Peverel" website from 04 August 2018

"We are delighted to be able to report that another key part of the Tchenguiz property portfolio has collapsed into administration.

This time it is his ownership of the Freeholds for 10 Hilton Hotels around the country (including the massive Kensington Hilton).

Over the past few years Tchenguizes' crackpot "Can't go wrong, honest Guv" scheme has gradually unravelled.  His setbacks can be traced back to the Icelandic Bank crash; his failure to get the compensation demanded from the failed Serious Fraud Office action; exposure to widespread publicity; and proof that his assets were unsustainably over-valued.

He used income from The FirstPort Group in order to finance his property deals, which is why, in such large measure, FirstPort has became such a Corrupted Company.

And today (however much they try to spin it) the legacy of the Tchenguiz rule is that FirstPort value their assets at £62,000,000, whilst their liabilities are an astonishing and unsustainable £97,000,000.

If their assets are just 20% over valued that puts the true valuation at £49,600,000 and increases the net negative valuation of the company to minus £47,400,000.

(Ed. And remember this was back in 2018. The situation is getting more desperate year-on-year).

FirstPort's interest debts are being compounded by at least £5,000,000 every single year.  They also have to find £1,000,000 in cash every six months to pay down their RBS borrowings."

(Close This Box)

(Extracted from the "Better Retirement Housing" website)

"FirstPort, formerly Peverel, was responsible for systematically cheating pensioners in retirement sites which resulted in an Office of Fair Trading ruling of bid-rigging in December 2014.

The scandal involved FirstPort's subsidiary Cirrus competing for expensive electronic door entry systems against stooge companies which always ended up being more expensive.

The predictably feeble Office of Fair Trading inquiry resulted in no one being punished (Ed. Because Peverel/FirstPort admitted the charge), although Peverel/FirstPort made a “gesture of goodwill” payment of £100,000 into the contingency funds of the 65 ripped-off sites."

(Close This Box)

Smoke ?    Fire ?

It has been somewhat sardonically suggested, that FirstPort is not a Property Management Company at all; but rather a “Shop Front” for a never ending string of “funds-and-assets-shifters”.

If true, this would explain why FirstPort are so very BAD at Property Management; and yet so very GOOD at squeezing money out of Elderly Pensioners, (more than a few of whom can barely keep up with FirstPort's demands); lying to and cheating those same Pensioners; running up millions of pounds in debts; cleverly shifting those debts around; arranging massive loans to benefit individuals associated with FirstPort as well as organisations who no longer have anything to do with FirstPort; and in finding ways whereby their mostly Elderly, mostly reluctant, and always completely innocent Leaseholders can be forced to finance their various scams.

If the powers-that-be were to look into the smoke that surrounds FirstPort, with any serious intent, there is no doubt that they would see what the rest of us see.

(Close This Box)

Just So You Know – It Wasn't Always Like This

From the time Oaklands Court was completed in July 1989 to December 2006, a period of just over seventeen years, Oaklands Court was owned by a company called “Wilcon Lifestyle Homes Ltd” (the Landlord/Freeholder/Lessor) and managed by a company called “Retirement Care Group Ltd” (the Managing Agents). These were two separate companies : the former being the client or customer of the latter. Freehold of the property was with one company, Management of the property was with the other. This being acceptable practice within the industry.  Insurance of the property was covered by a completely independent and reputable insurance company.

During the whole of those seventeen years, the tripartite relationship between the two companies involved and the Elderly Leaseholders they served was professional, harmonious and quietly productive.

Leaseholders paid Service Charges in advance and by direct debit and the Landlords and Managing Agents provided the services required of them in accordance with lease; no more and no less.

On 06 December 2006, “Wilcon Lifestyle Homes Ltd” was apparently wound down and the company was sold to The Tchenguiz Family Trust.  A new company was set up within the Tchenguiz Group called “Retirement Care (BH) Ltd” – note the (BH) – and this company then became the new Landlord/Freeholder/Lessor.

At the same time, the Property Management contract was transferred to a company called Peverel.  It later transpired that Peverel was already part of the Tchenguiz Group.  In other words, both The Freehold of the Property and the Property Management Contract was now held by the same company.  Furthermore, the insurance of the property was transferred to an insurance company belonging to the Tchenguiz Group.

After the take-over of the Property Management contract by Peverel, Leaseholders continued to pay all Service Charges required of them in advance and by direct debit.  In spite of this, the actual service provided by the Managing Agents deteriorated, costs rocketed, and communications between FirstPort and Leaseholders became increasingly combative and confrontational.

Since the elevation of Nigel Howell to CEO, ownership of the company that Leaseholders are giving their money to every month has changed hands numerous times – always into the control of Private Equity companies which are totally unrelated to, and as a consequence totally inexperienced in, property management.

Debts of MILLIONS of pounds have been accrued by the company; loans of MILLIONS of pounds have been taken out by the company.  Service Charges have continued to rocket; Customer Service itself has plummeted; Standards have declined and even been actively deprecated; Properties are deteriorating; Leaseholders who dare to question what is going on are treated with contempt.

The leasehold agreement between Wilcon Lifestyle Homes Ltd and Leaseholders – which, we are told, is still binding – is simple and straightforward : "repair the roof; maintain the grounds; put the fence up after the last storm; redecorate every few years; make sure everything is done in accordance with the law ... etc".

The Financial Shenanigans – debts, loans, sales, re-sales, etc – introduced by FirstPort – especially under Nigel Howell – have nothing at all to do with the simple tasks required of managing a Retirement Complex of thirty five small flats

Is this why Service Charges imposed on Elderly Residents are going through the roof?

Is this the real reason why (because the ever-changing so-called "owners" don't know the first thing about Property Management) FirstPort Properties throughout England and Wales are on the verge of collapse?

Are these naturally complicit Old People being used as a Cash Cow simply because they are ... well ... Old?

The activities of the Tchenguiz Group as a whole should be investigated.

The activities of the FirstPort Group as a whole should be investigated.

The involvement of Nigel Howell (CEO of FirstPort) should be investigated.

The involvement of Samantha Gibson (Director of FirstPort Retirement Property Services) should be investigated.

(Close This Box)

Who The Hell Do FirstPort Think They Are?  The "Prescribed" versus the "Assumed" role of a Managing Agent

The following statement is taken from the FirstPort page of the Equistone website.  An almost identical statement is contained on the FirstPort website itself.

"FirstPort works with developers, investors, and freeholders, taking responsibility for managing and coordinating the maintenance, health & safety standards and estate finances for leasehold properties."

In a nutshell, the Freeholder entrusts FirstPort to "manage and coordinate" the administration of their (the Freeholder's) legally covenanted responsibilities to their (the Freeholder's)   Leaseholders.

In wrongly and deliberately and forcefully and consistently placing the Leaseholder in the role of Customer (which they do whenever it suits them and whenever Leaseholders are not sharp enough to catch them out) and elevating themselves from the subordinate position of "third party" in relation to the two signatories of the Lease, to that of "Overseer and Director", FirstPort is able to force Leaseholders – especially the more easily bamboozled Elderly Residents in FirstPort's Sheltered Housing Complexes – into situations which all too often breach the protective covenants between Freeholder and Leaseholder; but more crucially enable FirstPort to remove from the Leaseholders' bank accounts – via direct debit mandates – monies to which FirstPort are not entitled.

There is incontrovertible and formally documented evidence that these practices have, in fact, been happening on large scales.

(Close This Box)

Specialists In Failure

According to Bloomsberg : “Epiris Managers LLP operates as a private equity firm.  The company focuses on buyouts, co-investments, secondaries, and debt investments.”

In other words, these are the "vultures" of the Private Equity Sector – indeed of the whole of the Finance Sector.  Companies like this circle around on the financial thermals looking for and waiting for companies that have either stumbled into debt through misfortune or mismanagement or, indeed, have been deliberately steered into debt in order that they can be "rescued" with the help of "financial arrangements" that were otherwise not needed and should never have been needed.

(Close This Box)

Creative Failure

What Epiris says about Knight Square :

“Knight Square is the UK’s leading property manager. The group provides general management services to landlords and residents as well as telecare installation and monitoring services that allow people to live independently in their own homes.

(Ed. But FirstPort was doing just fine before Knight Square got involved. The old FirstPort (and the old Retirement Care Group before them) was providing exactly the services that it was contracted to deliver to its clients. Nothing more, nothing less. It just wasn’t providing the multiple opportunities to rip off Old and Vulnerable Pensioners in the various ways that were subsequently and surreptitiously introduced by Knight Square.)

“We (Epiris) acquired Knight Square in 2012 in a complex carve-out (Ed. Of Peverel/FirstPort) from a UK corporate that was in administration (Ed. Due solely to massive debts that were run up by Vincent Tchenguiz – the owner of Peverel/FirstPort at the time.  Debts that were totally unrelated to Peverel/FirstPort but which were in part mitigated by Peverel/FirstPort’s funds being redirected to service Tchenguiz’s debts and – to try and keep it as simple as possible – brought Tchenguiz to the attention of The Serious Fraud Office and catapulted Peverel/FirstPort headfirst into administration.)

(Back to Epiris) “At the time the business was financially robust (Ed. That was true. So what was the problem?) but operationally poor (Ed. No it wasn’t! It was operationally sound and performing exactly as it should. But it certainly has been “operationally poor” ever since you crooks got involved!).

We (Epiris) saw the opportunity to restructure operations in order to create a business that could build on its market leadership positions through a new organic and inorganic growth strategy".

(Ed. As well as being complete and utterly cringe-worthy (1980s style) marketing BULLSHIT, this was a “strategy” that clearly failed since FirstPort left the custodianship of Espiris with debts of £62 million!).

“With this in place we have added business development, sales and marketing and contract mobilisation resources to allow the business to move into a growth phase, whilst also completing three add-on acquisitions. (Ed. Yet more incestuous BULLSHIT! Do you people ever listen to the meaningless drivel you come out with? In any case, none of this bullshit has added value to the services that are contracted to be provided to FirstPort’s Elderly customers; but for which these predominantly upper-working-class and perhaps aspirationally lower-middle-class pensioners have had to fund from their own limited pensions).”

In September 2019 we (Epiris) sold FirstPort (Ed. with outstanding debts of £62 million – thank you very much!); we continue with our investment in Appello, the telecare business.  (Ed. If FirstPort is doing so well, why did you sell it to Equistone?  Perhaps because you couldn't risk screwing any more out of the company without suspicions being raised elsewhere?

(Close This Box)

The "Core" Of The Matter?

What Chamonix says about itself :

"Chamonix Private Equity LLP is a private equity investment firm which, while it has created its own individual method of acquiring non-core assets, prefers to acquire businesses wholesale by acquiring portfolios of direct investments from other professional investors.

Chamonix understands that there is no 'one size fits all' solution for companies that need to sell off non-core and often unloved assets and so, unlike traditional private equity investors that are locked into long-term funds and must adhere to strict investment strategies, Chamonix is structured in a way that allows ultimate flexibility at all stages."

(Ed. “Traditionally” there are two main reasons for selling non-core assets.

1. The company is in need of cash for its core operations, for capital expenditure or expansion, and there are no other ways of raising the needed cash or capital;

2. The company’s debt position is precarious, and outstanding debts need to be settled immediately.

Apropos Point 1. FirstPort’s core operation – by definition – is fixed, stable and revolves around short-term – quarterly or monthly – fixed, regular and comparatively modest financial transactions.   The payments for servicing these transactions are always-and-by-design available – in the form of direct debit mandates previously authorised by the end-customer – in advance of invoices even being issued. The system is designed that there is never any debit in the system. Similarly, and since these payments are intended to balance the books on a monthly or quarterly basis – where is the need for “capital expenditure”? And since FirstPort is a service provider who’s business model and customer base are – again by definition – fixed and immutable, where is the need, the space or the justification for expansion?

Apropos Point 2. There are only two reasons why “The company’s debt position is precarious, and outstanding debts need to be settled immediately”:

Either (a) : The company has been ineptly managed; and over a very long period time


(b) “Debts” have been deliberately manufactured in order to justify the otherwise unnecessary involvement of outside companies and the raising of phoney loans intended to cover outstanding “debts that need to be settled immediately”.)

(Close This Box)

Let's Get The Hell Out Of Here!

The following published by Electra Private Equity on October 04 2018

"Electra Private Equity is to wind-down.  The U.K.-based investment trust has decided to sell its remaining assets after concluding a strategic review of its operations.  (Ed. Translation : “This ain’t working out the way we expected, Guys”)

The listed investment trust, which let go (Ed. Sacked?) its investment manager last year, said it will sell off all remaining assets in its portfolio.

It has arranged to sell its shares in the U.K. property management group Knight Square Ltd.  (Ed. worth £34 million as of March 31, according to a separate statements) to U.S. private-equity firm Lexington Partners for a premium.  (Ed. The so-called "premium" has not been disclosed; but ... I mean ... come on ... does anyone seriously believe that premiums for shares in a failing company would not be substantial?)

Electra has also decided to sell off other remaining assets following a strategic review of its operations that began in May 2018.

“The board has therefore concluded, and recommends, that it is in the best interests of shareholders to conduct a managed wind-down of the portfolio over a period of time,” Neil Johnson, Chairman of Electra, said in a statement.  (Ed. Translation : “Let’s get the hell out of here while we can!”)

Electra meanwhile abandoned an attempt to sell itself  (Ed. There is an old-fashioned word for this – nowadays apparently gender-neutral – look it up in the dictionary) in August, opting instead to sell its assets instead.

(Close This Box)

About Equistone

(Ed. The "Word On The Street" is that Equistone are EXTREMELY good at what they do; and that in purchasing FirstPort Property Management Services Ltd, Equistone is about to become EXTREMELY successful in this latest venture also.  In spite of the fact that they know NOTHING about Property Management.

That's right, they know NOTHING about Property Management   or any other business they get involved in.

But they do know how to manipulate money!

What companies like Equistone do is to buy up businesses which appear to be in trouble – or whose résumé have been deliberately doctored to make it appear that they are in trouble when they are actually quite sound – and cleverly syphon off the literally hundreds-of-thousands of individual income streams into an eventual handsome profit for themselves and their cronies.

The following is a quote from Equistone: "We have a core focus on change of ownership deals and aim to invest between £25m and £200m or more of equity in businesses with enterprise values of between £50m and £500m. Since we started managing dedicated external funds in 2002 we have built a consistent track record in this market, encompassing over 160 investments. We are dedicated to supporting middle market companies seeking to grow organically or by acquisition."

(Ed. There is NOTHING in Equistone's core focus to indicate that they give a damn about providing a fair, affordable service catering to the everyday needs of the "single-widow-living-alone-and-struggling-to-survive-on-her-single-State-Pension".

There is nothing in Equistone's core focus about the outright frauds being inflicted on hard-working individuals and families just trying to survive in an increasingly dangerous and insecure world.

There is nothing in Equistone's core focus about the fear, frustration and sleepless nights inflicted on their victims by faceless corporations who threaten, bully and intimidate those trapped in their viscious schemes with no recourse to the justice which would otherwise be their right.)

(Close This Box)

Hard Cash

Which, as far as has been uncovered so far, is re-distributed as dividends to share-holders and as apparent "back-handers" to co-collaborators in the murky world of Finance.

(Close This Box)

About Nigel Howell

From Nigel Howell (CEO of FirstPort) :

“Epiris has been hugely supportive as we have worked to revitalise FirstPort."

(Ed.  "REVITALISE"?  What do you mean "REVITALISE"?  The original relationship between (the old) Retirement Care Group and its customers was vital enough as it was.  It was YOU who created what at least three other major websites; a number of social-media forums; and a dozen or more professional observers have described as a "Corrupted Company" with the sole purpose of exploiting and abusing Elderly Pensioners and screwing as much money as you can out of them.

(Back to Nigel Howell) "Together we have built a great business delivering exceptional service for customers and clients.”

(Ed. Customer Service has COLLAPSED on your watch.  Your employees are free to abuse their positions in order to make tens-of-thousands of pounds "on the side" in personal (repeat, personal) gains – these are offences that have been PROVEN and documented but which FirstPort have refused to acknowledge or investigate.  Your company is raking in potentially hundreds-of-thousands of pounds in fraudulent corporate (repeat, corporate) gains – again, these offences have been PROVEN and documented but predictably denied by FirstPort.  All this has left Elderly Pensioners struggling to service the millions of pounds in debts that have been NEEDLESSLY created in order to gratify your own greeds and grandiose aspirations to emulate Vincent Tchenguiz!

To exploit the hundreds-of-thousands of ordinary younger-generation leaseholders on your books, who did not sign up to your megalomaniac self-serving, expansionist scams is one thing.  But to bamboozle and cheat the tens-of-thousands of Elderly Residents in your Retirement and Sheltered Housing Complexes – who have contributed more to this country than you ever have or ever will – is doubly despicable.

You should be ashamed of yourself !

More to the point; you – personally – should be charged, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for breaches of a number of instances of primary legislation against the Elderly.


Defined as a scheme whereby a select number of elite participants profit greatly at the expense of a hugely disproportionate number of secondary participants who, in their turn, make absolutely nothing out of the scheme and frequently end up losing everything.

(Close This Box)

Anyone who doubts this vice-like "grip" needs to get fully up to speed on the Cladding Scandal; the Leasehold Scandal; the conversions of Freeholds into Commodities; the growing numbers of bankruptcies and repossessions; the growing numbers of Leaseholders who are now squatting in what used to be their own homes because they can't keep up with the demands of Landlords and Property Agents; the control of UK Housing by Foreign Based Companies; all as a result of the failure of the Government to protect leaseholders from exploitation by "These Big Property Interests".

Not to mention the number of times that sympathetic MPs have been foiled in their attempts to secure debates on this topic in both Houses of Parliament.

(Close This Box)

It has been roughly calculated that FirstPort made over £20 million profit by selling their interests in the Leaseholds of ex-Managers' flats; having spent a mere £1 million in bribes to those Developments who saw fit to take part in the scam.  All academic, of course, because those ill-gotten gains have long since been "distributed" – as has the £23 million in inter-company loans between a variety of FirstPort Divisions.  But that's another story ...

Staying with the story of the ex-Managers Flats for a while longer ... many people at the time said that what FirstPort were attempting to do was unlawful and that they couldn't possibly get away with it.

Well they did get away with it.  They were, and remarkably easily, able to cheat a bunch of Old People that Samantha Gibson, The Director of FirstPort Retirement Property Services Ltd, is reported (AND BY HER OWN COLLEAGUES) to have described as being "best ignored because those who don't succumb to dementia, will eventually die anyway".

The question is : How were FirstPort able to get away with this scam?  The answer is that (so far) there is no regulatory body with the power to protect Elderly People at this level; and no-one in authority would listen to this bunch of (according to Samantha Gibson) "Dribbling Geriatrics".  Remember :


To anyone who might be inclined to scoff at the idea that FirstPort would be able to jeopardise the integrity of the possession and occupancy of "YOUR" property in the ways suggested : this editor simply challenges those scoffers to explain how FirstPort managed to acquire the Leases of – and then to subsequently sell off – more than one hundred Managers' Flats in order to bolster their flagging capital at a time they most needed it.  Go On !  Explain !  And then explain how the UK's antiquated Leasehold Laws (Laws designed SPECIFICALLY to protect the Landlord Classes) are going to protect you when the time comes.  Go On !  Explain !

Until Old People get the protection they need and deserve from the Government – FirstPort can do what the hell they want and no-one in (so-called) "authority" gives a damn !

Or in street parlance : "Conned Into"

(Oxford.  Verb informal : Persuade (someone) to do or believe something by lying to them.)

(Close This Box)

"Rogue Agents".  The very term used by the then Prime Minister (the Right hon. Theresa May MP) in a Statement To The House made on 03 March 2019 in which she was replying to a question from one of her own backbenchers which had referenced both FirstPort and Vincent Tchenguiz by name :

------ oo0oo ------

Prime Minister: "I recognise that this is an issue of real concern to many constituents.  That is why we have committed to clamping down on those agents who abuse the system and to protecting leaseholders who are suffering at the hands of Rogue Agents, every day, from unexpected costs or from poor-quality repairs for excessive fees.

We have asked Lord Best to chair a working group to look at regulating and professionalising property agents that will include reviewing the standards around the transparency of service charges and other fees and charges – how they are presented to consumers – and putting them into a statutory code for managing agents.

But I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary will have heard the issue that my hon. Friend has raised and be happy to meet him to discuss this further."

------ oo0oo ------

Unfortunately, and largely because of Brexit and Coronavirus, these promises have not so far been honoured.  But that does not detract in the least from the fact that the existence and reality of Rogue Agents and Dishonest Landlords has been registered by M.P.s like Huw Merriman, Seema Malhotra, Peter Bottomley and others; and that furthermore these facts have been acknowledged at the highest levels of Government.

Ah yes ... there will be those self-serving individuals who will wish to spin the sentiments expressed on this website in ways that might better serve their own purpose.

But what goes around, comes around.

The Coronavirus/Covid-19 saga will pass – but the struggle for justice for all sections of society is perennial.

The Beat (as John Lennon once famously said) Goes On!

To quote from Section Four (Fraud By Abuse Of Position) of The Fraud Act 2006.

Close this box [X]

About Sheltered Housing For The Elderly

The Elderly are among the most vulnerable people in our society.  As a result of natural physical deterioration and failing faculties, many Seniors find it increasingly difficult to manage their daily lives and worry constantly about how they will cope as their situation gets worse.  It is precisely for this reason that a good many opt for Sheltered Housing.

The purpose-and-use of Sheltered Housing is to provide an environment and an ethos conducive to retirement living where elderly residents can live out their days secure in the knowledge that their safety, security and wellbeing – financial as well as physical – is in the hands of caring, compassionate and above all capable professionals.

It is not the purpose-and-use of Sheltered Housing to provide an environment where employees of the Landlords and their Managing Agents can take advantage of the insecurities, dependencies and failing faculties of elderly people in order to make financial gain for themselves or others.

Nor is it the purpose-and-use of Sheltered Housing to provide the Landlords and their Managing Agents with opportunities to use those premises in ways that were never intended; and as part of that process to potentially increase the value of their property portfolio at the expense of elderly residents.

Close this box [X]

Fraudulent Management Of Sheltered Housing For The Elderly

As part of their investigation into abuse and neglect within the Sheltered Housing Sector, the BBC programme “File on 4” ran a Freedom of Information analysis on all councils in the UK having responsibility for safeguarding the welfare of vulnerable adults living in Sheltered Housing. The BBC survey revealed that the second most common type of abuse – after actual neglect and psychological abuse – was found to be financial abuse against the Elderly on the parts of Landlords and Their Agents.

It is by no means suggested that everyone who works in the Sheltered Housing Sector is dishonest. Far from it. Nevertheless, it has been well enough documented elsewhere – by independent investigators from a number of different organisations involved in the welfare of the elderly – that Sheltered Housing has a tendency to actually attract unscrupulous individuals who see the Sector largely in terms of “financial opportunities” to be taken advantage of.

Independent investigations by other well-known organisations working with the elderly have revealed examples of financial abuse ranging from pocketing the costs of lottery tickets that are never purchased; to wills being changed in favour of “a new friend” who just happens to work for the Landlords or their Agents; through to carefully selected old people being systematically stripped of their entire life savings.

It has been well-noted that a fundamental requirement of the prescribed fiduciary care imposed on all Landlords and Managing Agents within the Retirement Housing Sector is that they should be constantly on the lookout for tell-tale signs of this kind of abuse within their own establishments – and certainly not to tolerate it among their own employees.

Close this box [X]

The Effects Of Fraud On The Fiduciary Trust Inherent In Both The Lease And The Law

Frauds have been committed by Persons Holding Fiduciary Positions Of Trust in the service of Vulnerable Members of Society

But this issue is not simply about a few dishonest employees of the Landlords and their Managing Agents "making a few bob on the side" to the disadvantagement of a bunch of doddering old codgers.

Nor is it simply about Law Enforcement Officers laughing at these same vulnerable old people and telling them that the activities they are complaining about are actually legitimate "perks of the job" to which those concerned are perfectly entitled.

In the final analysis this is about the level of CONFIDENCE that SOCIETY AS A WHOLE can have in those who have been entrusted with the job and the responsibility of ensuring the safety and security of this country's Old People – including their finances – in their twilight years.

Close this box [X]

The Failure Of Those In Authority To Protect The Elderly From Fraud

As well as having being brought to the attention of FirstPort Retirement Property Services Ltd, these frauds have been reported to Warwickshire Police several times.

On each occasion, Warwickshire Police have concluded that there was no case to answer and that therefore the decision has been made not to prosecute.

The Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police has been asked to supply a clause-by-clause analysis – in the context of The Fraud Act 2006 – as to why his officers have been negligent in a matter which, according to the Special Characteristics of Criminal Law, are "not just offences against the individual" (which would, indeed, be a matter for Civil Law) "but are offences against the State" (and therefore REQUIRE investigation under Criminal Law) "because they are considered to do SOCIAL HARM".

The Chief Constable has additionally been asked to state his reasons why the three "Tests Of Guilt" posed by The Fraud Act 2006 have not been met in this particular case and why, therefore, there is "no case to answer".

The Chief Constable has declined to communicate on either of these two queries.

The failure to investigate this matter in the context of The Fraud Act 2006, and subsequently to prosecute, serves only to justify the actions of those who habitually exploit The Elderly as well as to highlight the gaping hole that exists in the statutory safeguards which were intended to protect The Elderly from exploitation and abuse at the hands of those who take advantage of the weak and the vulnerable; including Warwickshire Police.

(At this point, readers are referred to "An Open Letter To The Chief Constable Of Warwickshire Police" in the Gold Menu of this website.)

Close this box [X]

Cock-Ups, Contradictions, Conspiracies, And Cover-Ups

There exists conclusive and incontrovertible evidence (in the form of Primary Legislation, H.M. Land Registry records and official correspondences) that Private Sheltered Housing For The Elderly is being fraudulently targeted in such ways – and in breach of Sections Four and Eleven of The Fraud Act 2006 – as to facilitate Personal Financial Gain on the parts of Employees of the Landlords and their Agents; as well as Corporate Financial Gain on the parts of the said companies themselves.  The former to the tune of tens-of-thousands of pounds; the latter involving potentially hundreds-of-thousands of pounds.

These frauds have been reported to Warwickshire Police.

Unfortunately, the job of investigating this case was initially given to some barely literate P.C. Plod (the first mistake!) who proved to be utterly incapable of understanding either the complaint before him or the simple English in which the relevant legislation was couched.

Both the complaint and the legislation had to be explained to this "officer" over and over again to the extent that it soon became clear that he was either totally out of his depth are else had already decided that there would be "no case to answer".

From that point on, the rest of this story has been one of cock-ups, contradictions, conspiracies and cover-ups.

Close this box [X]

The Remedy - Plugging The Gaping Hole

1. The immediate and URGENT NEED is for Sheltered Housing in the Private Sector to be placed under the protection of the Care Quality Commission; or some similar regulatory body.

It might be argued that Private Sheltered Housing complexes are not Care Homes and that "care" is not part of the overall "package" for Sheltered Housing.  In its original conception, this assumption may have been more-or-less true, but times and circumstances have changed.  The fact is – and as a direct consequence of this Government's austerity measures over recent years – Private Sheltered Housing for the Elderly is increasingly being seen as – and increasingly being used as – a more affordable substitute for Residential Care.

2. The next most URGENT NEED is for the appointment of a designated COMMISSIONER FOR OLDER PEOPLE to spearhead a government strategy on tackling the disparagement, exploitation and abuse of older people.

This objective is already under way and is being promoted by a group called "Hourglass" (Part of Action On Elder Abuse) at – this being the only age-related charity that truly understands the problem.

3. Following on from that, there is an URGENT NEED for the establishment of a uniformity across POLICE CONSTABULARIES throughout England and Wales as to the manner in which complaints made by or on behalf of The Elderly are processed.   INCLUDING THE RECORDING OF, AND ACCESS TO, DATA CONCERNING CRIMES AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF OLDER PEOPLE.

Close this box [X]

Confiscation And Reparation
A Restorative Imperative

This website will remain in the public domain until – at the very least – the following measures have been put in place :

That those “outsiders” who, over the years, have shown an “unhealthy interest” in Oaklands Court will be permanently barred from entering Oaklands Court ever again or from having anything to do with Oaklands Court in the future;

That the sum of £55,000 – being the stated profit (according to records held by H.M. Land Registry) resulting from the unlawful purchase and resale of the flat in question by Persons Holding A Fiduciary Position Of Trust In The Service Of The Managing Agents – will be confiscated and donated to charities working for the welfare of elderly people; and

That the sum of £15,000 – being the approximate proceeds (according to correspondences from both FirstPort and The Landlords Agents) of unlawfully Obtaining Services Dishonestly over a period of three years by Persons Holding A Fiduciary Position Of Trust In The Service Of The Managing Agents – will be similarly confiscated and donated to charities working for the welfare of elderly people.

Beyond the immediate confiscation and reparation demanded, this campaign will continue until all those responsible for the Abuses Against The Elderly mentioned on this website have been investigated, charged, convicted and sentenced in accordance with the primary legislation which was intended to PROTECT THE ELDERLY FROM EXPLOITATION AND ABUSE AT THE HANDS OF THOSE WHO PREY ON THE WEAK AND THE VULNERABLE.