(Subsequent note in April 2008 : The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) is currently investigating alleged "bid-rigging activities, and in particular cover pricing" as well as "compensation payments" among 112 construction companies (see http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2008/52-08).

Mansell is one of the companies under investigation (listed number 12 in the OFT's list). Its ultimate holding company, Balfour Beatty is reported to have "co-operated fully" and as a result "to have been granted leniency to reduce any possible fines")

 

(NB: Mansell is covered in my 3 June 2008 (74 pg) Witness Statement; (4 pg) Main Points)

Mr Brian Gale, MRICS, stated under " 2.05 - Tender procedure " of his 13 December 2002 report that Mansell had been invited to tender for the works.  

As evidenced by the enclosures attached by Ms Hathaway, MRICS, Martin Russell Jones, to her 15 July 2002 letter, Mansell opted to NOT tender for the works.

Nearly two years later, in her 26 March 2004 letter Ms Hathaway wrote to "All Lessees":  

"Due to excessive delays in collecting the contributions from all lessees we have to inform you that it has been necessary to commence renegotiations with the original contractor and other contractors (NB!!!).

At the current time the contract administrators Brian Gale and Associates are in discussion with the original contractor and others (NB!!!) to obtain updated prices for the works.

Once these prices have been obtained we will write to all lessees again giving the current cost, the intention being that the proposed works can be started as soon as possible..."

In his 2 August 2004 letter, Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, Martin Russell Jones, wrote that the

"contract has been awarded to Mansells"

As Mansell was NOT one of the contractors who tendered against Killby & Gayford (as stated under point 2, the LVT determination, ref LVT/SC/007/120/02 (ref #992 on the LVT database) was based on the Killby & Gayford quote ) - and never issued a tender - the 'so called' Section 20 Notice of 2002 has been invalidated and a new one should have been issued. (See also on the LVT section # 4 , # 6 , # 7 )

THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED

Consequently, I do not know what works Mansell tendered for. (Although I can now see some of the outcome)

Mansell and Mr Brian Gale have a most unique way of describing building a penthouse flat "replacing asphalt roof" (See Mr Brian Gale's description of the works required (2.4MB) i.e. the "defects" he identified and the "remedies" v. the outcome) ( See also Photo gallery ). Of course, they continued to misrepresent the works actually undertaken, as evidenced by Mr Brian Gale's letter of 19 October 2005 "...Mansells, the contractors undertaking the works.have now completed the external redecoration" .

"The external redecoration" ?

•  How about the construction of the penthouse flat?  

•  How about the conversion of flats resulting in the addition of three other flats? 

These works resulted in 39 flats v. 35 flats at the start of the works . (For evidence of 35 flats at the start of the works see, for example, point 7 of the 17 June 2003 LVT report).)

Do Mr Brian Gale and Mansell think that people are blind?

(NB: In his 2 August 2004 letter, Mr Barrie Martin, FRICS, also wrote

"At this stage we will not require further monies from you as the contract sum of £513,656 (US$905,200) plus VAT will not at the present time exceed the original lowest estimate" .

Not only does he not include the VAT amount, he also does not include the management fees (which on the original demand was 11%).  

I view this as deception as the addition of both, actually brings the total to £669,937 (US$1.81 million) - making this just £66,269 (US$116,850), or 9% cheaper than the Killby & Gayford quote - on which the LVT determination was based.

In actual fact, the LVT's view of the "reasonableness" of the service charge demand of 15 July 2002 led to a reduction of nearly 70% (including the contingency fund) ( See Leasehold Valuation Tribunal # 4 , # 6 , # 7 )

Indeed, the original sum demanded was £736,206 (US$1.3 million). The outcome of the LVT determination was a reduction of £500,000 (US$882,000) (including the contingency fund) leaving a sum that can be demanded of £235,947 (US$416,000) - or 32% of the original sum demanded

As a new Section 20 Notice was not issued, the implication of this under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985, in particular the statutory   instrument 2003 No 1897 which came into force on 31 October 2003, is that of the £6,350 (US11,200) Steel Services - Martin Russell Jones have had from me (for nearly two years), they can only spend £250 (US$440) on Mansell) .

The scaffolding started to be put in place in the third week of August 2004. As can be seen from the Photo gallery, by 1 May 2006 (photo of the entrance corridor), the works were not completed.

(As an aside, as can also be seen from this pack - and the Photo gallery - it took them 11 months to repair the step in front of my windows that had been broken at the start of the works).

Evidently, it takes time to build a penthouse flat, as well as convert flats such that the 35 flats at the start of the works have now grown to 39 flats .

In addition to the Photo gallery, consider the letter from Mansell to inform that water will be "turned off.for testing and commissioning on 13 June 2005 " i.e. 10 months after the start of the works).

Consider Ms Hathaway letter of 16 June 2005

"The refurbishment of the front entrance is progressing well."

- against the evidence contained in the Photo gallery

Back to top