WE HAVE all started projects which for whatever reason we have not been able to finish. It might be a DIY project where you bit off more than you could chew, or it could be a house redevelopment project where you ran out of money. Either way, we started off with good intentions, only for circumstance to get the better of us.
Now then, who remembers this?
That’s right, folks, it’s an excerpt from a leaflet which was frantically circulated in South Shore just before residents went to the polls to elect their latest batch of councillors in 2011. Its author was Councillor Ian Fowler, who was responding to a leaflet put out by resident David Palmer which made claims about a property on Crystal Road, owned by Councillor Fowler and then controversially sold to Blackpool Council.
Palmer’s leaflet, entitled “Profit before politics”, claimed that the valuation of 25/27 Crystal Road appeared excessive due to the structural problems which the property had a history of and, from his observation, appeared to still have. Furthermore, the leaflet claimed that builders on site had informed Palmer that the property was in such a poor state that it would have to be demolished.
As you can see from the above leaflet excerpt, Mr Fowler claimed that this statement was libellous, even going so far as to say that the property is not set to be demolished.
Of course, the truth is never libellous.
Freedom of Information
David Palmer recently submitted a Freedom of Information request to the council, which was answered today by the Chief Executive, Neil Jack.
As of this date, does Blackpool Council own 25/27 Crystal Road?
Yes, the Council owns 25/27 Crystal Road although the intention is to grant a building licence agreement to Great Places Housing Association who will redevelop the site. Once works are finished the Council will transfer the freehold.
Is 25/27 Crystal Road set to be underpinned?
Options are still being appraised but it is likely that the best value for money option will be to demolish the property and build 3 new family homes for sale on the site under affordable housing rules.
If so, what is the cost and who is funding it?
If the property was to be remodelled it is estimated that the costs of underpinning would be in the region of £15,000. It is anticipated that the development costs will be funded by Great Places with the support of the Homes and Communities Agency.
So, the Chief Executive has confirmed that the property does indeed have structural defects which require either expensive remedial work or demolition. David Palmer was correct.
The valuation
Valuer Keppie Massie, who are still doing work for Blackpool Council, placed a valuation of £180,000 on 25/27 Crystal Road. Keppie Massie’s valuation report states in the Appendix that;
‘Unless expressly instructed, we do not undertake structural surveys’
‘Any readily apparent defects or items of disrepair noted during our inspection will be reflected in our Valuations, but no assurance is given that any property is free from defect. We assume those parts which have not been inspected would not reveal material defects which would cause us to alter our Report and Valuations’
Hence, the valuation took into account the history of subsidence and the current state of affairs but a structural survey was not done because the council didn’t ask the valuer to do one.
‘In the case of properties which may have redevelopment potential, we assume that the site has a load bearing capacity suitable for the anticipated form of redevelopment without the need for additional and expensive foundations or drainage systems. Furthermore, we assume in such circumstances that no unusual costs will be incurred in the demolition and removal of any existing structure on the property.’
Since the council are considering two options of demolition or underpinning, it can be concluded that the site does not have load bearing capacity suitable for the anticipated form of development. However, there were tell-tale signs of a problem before the council bought it.
Many complaints were made to the council, but they pressed ahead in a seemingly determined effort to waste taxpayers money on this property. They were wrong not to ask for a structural survey and were perhaps wrong to use a valuer from out of town with less local knowledge than any of the Blackpool-based firms would have. Was it an oversight that the property was not properly checked out? Perhaps we will find out when the forensic report from KPMG finally surfaces.
What we do know, though, is that David Palmer was once again totally correct to suggest that the valuation was too high.
The question I would like to know the answer to is what the true value should have been.
Note that when commenting on this, I will not accept slagging off of any of the Usual Suspects, for I am told lawyers could be involved. Stick to the topic.
loading…
Three cheers for the mighty Dave Plamer,Blackpool citizen of the year for 2011!!!
Question is: were the valuers told to ignore the defects,( and induced to do so) thus providing an overvaluation. If so and by whom, one may ask, and did that person/persons involved directly or indirectly benefit by such an overvaluation? Not just the owner but the valuers as well?? At the very least this company stands to be accused off gross incompetence and thus should be considered not fit for purpose;at the very worst collusion to defraud??? Police matter???can an association ombudsman help here???
loading...
It’s possibly worth contacting the local government ombudsman, yeah.
In retrospect I don’t think Keppie Massie have done anything wrong and it’s hard to say Cllr Fowler did anything wrong but he did still benefit to the tune of £180k, a decent percentage of which he arguably should not have had due to the structural problems with the property.
The onus is on the buyer to perform due diligence, but clearly the council never felt that it was necessary to perform a structural survey on the property. Well, not until they had purchased it, anyroad.
loading...
Can the council be held to account then?? If so, who exactly? Its very convenient for Fowler who was also a member of the council at the time,that the buyer, yes the council!!, didnt perform due diligence,yet no-one is held to account for what is a serious failure to administer properly the purchase of the property: malfeasence?.But when you see that it was a councillor who benefited from this failure ,then,well tahts another story, it just doesnt seem right and someone,somehwere has to be made to account for this abuse of taxpayers money and the difference between this ‘valuation’ and a more accurate valuation taking into account the subsidence, be returned to the taxpayer, at the very least.
loading...
Having seen and heard much comment about the Crystal road “concern” I am really pleased that Phil has pieced together a very interesting and brief summary of the circumstances as they appear to me.
As a lay person I find myself asking the question: Will the council be looking to challenge the valuer for what appears to be a less than credible evaluation considering their valuation criteria?
Secondly; If I were buying such a property with someone else’s money and on behalf of other people; Would I be ensuring that the purchase did not appear excessive, the information I requested from professionals was accurate and my funders were not being excessively charged?
Finally; If I were selling such a property and held a certain position and status; Would I be ensuring the highest levels of integrity to prevent creating such a concern? You damned right I would so! I am assuming that; this was the case from our high standing members of the community and those who held privileged positions within the authority at the time.
But then again; I am merely a member of the public; what do I know about integrity; honesty and decency? You see I only want to ask a question; I only want honesty and truth; I only want people to do what they say they will do on my and our behalf. Its what we expect when our X marks the spot.
I do get the feeling that things will get better eventually; but we need to see our concerns being addressed and lessons learnt where necessary; to enable us all to move on.
loading...
Don’t want to say to much just yet to I have been furnished with more facts, I have recommended to Simon Blackburn that the council should have these property’s re-valued using a local valuer / surveyor especially 25/27 Crystal road, this is the only way we will get the truth, I have not as yet been furnished with the KPMG report, so not sure if they got any property’s re-valued, one thing for sure rest assured me and others will not give up to we get to the truth and those who misled and gained out of this saga are made answerable to the tax payer. I am still puzzled as to why Crystal road was picked for this scheme as opposed to St Chad s or Alexander road as these two streets sit either side of Crystal road and had very similar make up of property’s
loading...
Just released..article in Gazette and interestingly no comments allowed on website, “councillors not guilty of any wrong doing”..failure to ensure a proper survey seems a failure. Callow states If something is recommended by officials you trust they have done their job” … oh like Donnellon forgetting to tell the contractors about what was supposed to be happening at Lauderdale. SO AS USUAL, NOBODY ACCOUNTABLE , taxpayers money wasted and an unpleasant smell surrounds the Town Hall.
loading...
The gasjet has spoken of the official report today
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/local/mistakes_made_in_3m_housing_deal_1_4195141
Long and Short is no councillors were found to be at fault of anything and that errors were made by certain individuals within the council obviously to do with instructing the survey.
Quote “There are a number of key recommendations to ensure no such situation arises in the future – not least ensuring basic structural surveys are conducted prior to future purchases, and valuations are robust.
“Those council staff responsible have now either left the authority, or have been dealt with through internal procedures.”
Which basically means we have dealt internally with the problem and we will not be informing anyone of the disciplinary measures taken or against who.
The report still does not explain how Keppie Massie’s surveyor failed to spot such compelling evidence that all was not right with the structure. At the very least that report should have mentioned there was a need to instruct a robust structural survey.
Still I bet Mr and Mrs Fowler creamed their shreddies when they realised how much they were going to be paid for what essentially was a pile of badly stacked bricks.
loading...
I agree,fuckin coverup,lets get back the difference betwen an accurate valuation and this “valuation”, say about 150k, and force the fowlers to give it back, this is a whitewash; it sucks.
loading...
Do councillors act in the public interest? Particularly when dealing with public money?
I only ask as surely if they were aware the Local Authority was substantially overpaying for something and they were privy to knowledge that the something was not worth what was being offered they would say something wouldn’t they?
loading...
Interesting point, that.
I personally am of the belief that if they had knowledge of the property’s structural condition and had knowledge that, basically, they were being paid far too much, that these people of outstanding moral fibre should have fessed up.
The question is, how could they not have seen what was staring everyone else in the face?
Who knows!
loading...
£150k? You’re rather generous there Harold!
A condemned property in a shit area with no chance of getting planning permission for anything, with a history of subsidence so any buyers would have to pay CASH.
Oh and add on the demolition cost which, incidentally, was billed to the owner of the former Saville hotel but I don’t doubt the demolition of 25/27 Crystal Road it will NOT be billed to the previous owner.
loading...
What a joke. The Gazette seemingly have now had the KPMG report as well, yet still David Palmer has yet to receive a copy, though I understand he has now requested one under the Freedom of Information Act. I have just spoken to him and the Gazette did not even ring him for a quote for today’s article, yet gave Callow a soap box to spout his venom.
I know David has been sharing a lot of his material with the Gasjet, and Shelagh Parkinson has shafted him here.
Regarding Keppie Massey, what I am wondering is whether they were even contracted to do the surveys on these properties, given that they were already working for the council on the Talbot Gateway stuff. What exactly was their brief?
I’m not sure whether they are or were obliged to recommend or not recommend a structural survey; they did their Red Book valuation and that was the end of it. The valuation states on what basis the value has been achieved, and that is that there are no serious structural defects, etcetera. It is as if they were turning a blind eye to the problems with the property, however, since they were not asked to do a structural survey, you can’t expect them to go and do one (especially if, as expected, they weren’t actually brought in to do these valuations, and did them as some kind of paid favour part of a pre-existing contract for something else).
Essentially the vendor has had money that they would not have had if the council had done its job properly. What should happen is that Fowler should get the value for the land only and being a good, moral citizen he should refund the difference, plus interest, into a pot which can be reinvested in Blackpool.
On the plus side, it shows that David Palmer was telling the truth all along.
loading...
Given what we know now, and my experience of instructing surveys (have bought and sold about 8 times now) if this report does not contain a recommendation that a fuller structural survey was needed then there may be a case for a professional negligence claim.
Every standard or valuation survey should mention this if there is the slightest chance there is something wrong. This places the onus back on the prospective purchaser to ‘check it out’ and absolves the surveyor commissioning the report.
Or to put it another way… If a member of the public had bought this and the surveyor had not thought to inform him by way of his instructed professional opinion that a much closer look was needed then that person would be jumping up and down and looking for redress.
Of course as this was public money and a bit of back scratching was taking place it will quietly be shuffled under the carpet.
loading...
Phil if a bank overpaid me that amount they would be on my case, why not the foulers? why no attempt to recover the money???
loading...
I think it would only be possible to recover it if any actual dodginess was unveiled.
loading...
The Fowlers are not really guilty of anything.
If someone offered you £25,000 for a 10 year old Ford Focus you owned you would snatch their hand off. This is essentially what has occurred here with them.
Clearly it shows lack of judgement in them keeping stum whilst elected public servants but they have not broken any laws. In any event they are out of office now and will probably not stand again fearful from someone dragging all this up again. (You know who you are
)
What should be happening is the Council should be suing the surveying firm for the difference between what they paid the Fowlers and what the actual building/land is worth.
It will be up to a court to decide if that should include damages for time wasted and demolition costs.
loading...
As long as they get the money back, fine by me, but its an astounding coincidence that 2councillors should benefit on this sale,invoving money by the said council.Another thing did they check the bank accounts of the officials involved,council and company as well as the bank accounts of the fowlers, to see if any transactions had taken place,between the aformentioned parties? Bet they didnt.
loading...
Aye but that’s where the grey area arises geezer; were Keppie Massey even contracted to survey Crystal Road? Dum dum dummm…
I agree the Fowlers have done nothing criminally wrong, however, I believe if they knew about the condition of their property, they were morally wrong to simply ride along until the ridiculous sum of cash landed in their bank account, particularly given that both of them were senior councillors at the time.
loading...
Is there not an ethics commitee to deal with this kind of thing?they and those freaks the callows must never ever be allowed office again.
loading...
The valuation report (at your link in the article) mentions:
‘Furthermore it was noted that the premises have suffered from some settlement in the past but we understand that the vendor has settled a claim from Norwich Union and works have been undertaken to rectify the problem’.
This is the surveyors get out of jail card, he is saying yes I have noticed settlement but the vendor assured me a (insurance) claim had been settled and works (implying underpinning) has taken place to rectify the problem.
So on that basis there would be little point in pursuing the surveyor.
Clearly if this statement had not been made then the surveyor would have recommended a robust structural survey.
Now someone has made a statement that the (settlement) problems the property had had been solved under an insurance claim. This is to clearly imply that underpinning has taken place.
Now either it did or it didn’t this would be easy to establish.
If underpinning did take place why are they now planning on demolishing it?
If it did not someone has deliberately set out to mislead the surveyor.
Fraud or Caveat Emptor?
This now of course throws up additional questions. The solicitor handling the sale should have had sight of the survey report and as such should have asked for the building control certificates certifying the underpinning work. When none were forthcoming the advice should have been (to the local authority) not to proceed until such time as certificates were produced or a separate structural survey report commissioned.
This sort of stuff is bread and butter for a council, they do it every day. It is them who certify such work and issue building control, the more one delves into this the more it looks like an almighty criminal cockup has occurred.
loading...
Show me any property the authority buy with full certification
loading...
This gets better, keep it up geezer,this isnt over by a long chalk.
loading...
Unless the council publishes in full the detail behind the failures and the action taken against the persons that caused these failures then there will always be a bad smell around this.
Hopefully if we can tease the report out with a FOI then it will shed more light on all of it.
As it currently stands there is a suspicion either Mr or Mrs Fowler deliberately misled the surveyor and a solicitor (person unknown) has failed to ask the right questions and demand the correct certification in the conveyancing process.
Wouldn’t it be a thing if this solicitor and the Fowlers are the best of buddies?
loading...
you are right geezer, theres a connection somewhere.
loading...
The Freedom of Info went in a week ago so we’ll either get the report or get a reason why we can’t have it.
Simon Blackburn promised release of this report a long time ago so it seems very suspicious that it’s taking them so long to print out some pieces of paper, stick them in an envelope and post them to David Palmer.
It is my belief that it is the new chief executive, Neil Jack, who is holding the report back, because I understand that Simon Blackburn has (aside from making broken promises) been helpful on this issue and he did instruct KPMG in the first place.
One town hall correspondant tells me that quite a bit of criticism of the council is being removed.
They clearly do not want to provide David Palmer with ammunition to pursue this issue, especially as Cllr Blackburn has already admitted to the Gasjet that David was 100% correct in his Waterloo leaflet.
I understand this issue will be taken further and further and further until there are no further places to go.
loading...
I know David has been sharing a lot of his material with the Gasjet, and Shelagh Parkinson has shafted him here.
Did this come as a surprise to you?
Shelagh Parkinson looks after Shelagh Parkinson, for she knows that the council can quite easily turn off the tap of ‘good news’ stories that form the bedrock of her career.
She’ll run the occasional ‘real news’ item – like this one – but won’t rock the boat with any unhelpful questions or comments.
loading...
That paper is used toilet paper,simple as.
loading...
Made me laugh that the Gasjet have used a picture of 25/27 Crystal Road that makes it look like a palace!
loading...
lol typical gasjet, never let the facts get in the way of a good story eh?
loading...
My God, I fell about laughing when I viewed the picture of the Crystal Road property in the Gazette, that was in its hey day possibly, certainly not when it was being sold.
loading...
Place 100, 2011: 31 to 100 F-L
The annual property power list for the region…
Keppie Massie builds valuation team
26 Jan 2010, 09:34
Independent surveyor Keppie Massie has appointed Peter Eustance and Steve Lang to its valuation department.
Eustance was made redundant by CB Richard Ellis in September last year and will head up valuation at Keppie Massie, whose founders were both at Richard Ellis prior to setting up on their own in 1999. Eustance is based in the Liverpool head office and started work earlier this month.
Lang joined from Christopher Rodgers this month and is based in the firm’s Manchester office.
Keppie Massie’s valuation clients include banks, regeneration bodies, local authorities and property companies. The firm employs 36 staff.
Eustance said: ” I saw this is an excellent opportunity to develop the valuation department of a renowned and established practice which has a great track record across the North West region.”
Massie commented: “We are delighted to have Peter join us to develop our valuation team with the benefit of his experience and contacts in the north west market, and with Steve joining in Manchester it provides us with an excellent opportunity to grow this area of business.”
The previous head valuer at Keppie Massie, Andrew Earl, left last year to pursue other interests.
loading...
commercial agency and consultancy Keppie Massie has secured a compulsory purchase order (CPO) that will allow a £220m regeneration scheme for Blackpool to move forward.
The scheme will transform Talbot Gateway, a run-down and neglected part of the town, into Blackpool’s central business district with hotels, offices and retail outlets anchored by a 60,000 sq ft Sainsbury’s store, cafes and restaurants, and a new transport interchange.
Handled by the regeneration and strategic development arm of Keppie Massie, the confirmation of the CPO means that, within the next few months, Blackpool Council and its partner, Muse Developments, will have all the land ownership they require to start on site.
Keppie Massie has advised both parties on the strategy to ensure the development commences in accordance with the proposed timescale.
Outline planning consent for the entire scheme was granted early in 2010.
And, according to Stephen Lashmar, associate partner with Keppie Massie’s regeneration division, the CPO confirmation was achieved within the timeframe they had anticipated, enabling the first phase of the scheme to proceed on programme early this year.
“We were able to successfully acquire approximately 75% of the properties required in advance of the CPO decision and believe this reflects the fact that Blackpool’s business community recognises the urgent need for such a scheme,” he said.
Phil Mayall, development director at Muse Developments, added: “Working in partnership with Keppie Massie, Blackpool Council and all stakeholders, a successful resolution to the CPO process was achieved and we now look forward to delivering the regeneration of this important gateway.”
Read More http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/ldpbusiness/business-local/2012/01/04/keppie-massie-wins-cpo-for-220m-blackpool-scheme-92534-30055907/#ixzz1jTGsWC1J
loading...
This scheme will be reliant on whatever contractor being appointed to build it getting satisfactory funding from the commercial banks (with no doubt a top up from Blackpool Council).
Clearly Keppie Massey’s wedge for managing the compulsory purchase aspect (although what actually needed managing is another story) will not be insignificant.
Question is should the scheme be allowed to proceed in phases before all the contracts are awarded and funding in place.
It is very obvious that banks will be reluctant to lend on such lavish regeneration projects in the current market. Every day we are hearing stories about the death of the High Street and or another big name going out of business. There simply will not be an appetite to lend on the basis of the likely take-up of the retail units (have they let all of the Houndshill yet?).
Yes they an sit on the project for several years until the market improves but that will leave the area blighted and semi derelict… Just what Blackpool needs.
loading...
Good Morning Kate
Further to your below email I can confirm that Stephen Lang is registered as a Consultant for Keppie Massie. All employees whether they are full time staff or in the case of Mr Lang, an ad hoc Consultant who has worked for us in the past, have to be registered with the RICS.
His main employment though is with Aztec Property Valuers and it is with them that he is registered as a Valuer with the RICS.
As your instruction with Mr Lang was through Aztec you will need to contact them direct with your query/complaint.
I can also confirm that Aztec Property Valuers has no association with Keppie Massie.
I am sorry I cannot help further in this instance.
Terry Reed
From: “kate_burns@btconnect.com”
Date: 14 January 2012 21:54:32 GMT
To: Andrew Byrne
Subject: Contact enquiry from keppiemassie.com website
My name is Kate Burns
Hi, I filled out the contact form on the Keppie Massie website:
Company = Feng Shui House Blackpool
Telephone = 07853313888
Can you please contact me regarding the following:
I contacted RICS as I had a valuation done by Stephen Lang, he stated he was a surveyor from Aztec Property Valuers in Bristol. RICS informed me he is registered with your firm, Keppie Massie. He came to survey my 4 star Hotel in prime position on Blackpools promenade, which had been valued 8 months prior to his survey, needless to say there is a problem that I am desaling with at the moment. Can you confirm that he is still registered with you, and if so is Aztec property Valuers a subsiduary of Keppie Massie.
I’d like to be contacted by Email
loading...
Stephen Lang is RICS registered with Keppie Massie
http://www2.rics.org/MemberSearch/FindColleague.aspx?id=1127871
Aztec Commercial Ltd (company no 05756683) is a 2006 incoporated firm of chartered surveyors which was put into liquidation in 2010, the liquidators statement of affairs showing a deficiency of some £690,000. The directors are the same as Aztec Property Valuers (company number 07282106) which was incoporated when Aztec Commercial went into liquidation ie a phoenix company
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/3f38efb7c7201cbc311b687b25131e0b/wcprodorder?ft=1
http://www.aztecpropertyvaluers.com/the_directors
The Chief Executive was struck off by the RICS
http://www.rics.org/site/scripts/documents_info.aspx?categoryID=492&documentID=1169&pageNumber=21
This is probably the reason why they are using chartered surveyors from other firms
Is there an RICS logo of any sort on the valuation report you received?
loading...
Hello Asgard there is NO logo on the documents at all, just Stephen Lang MRICS typed on the report next to the wording prepared by.
loading...
Asgard thank you for that, I will check my documents.
loading...
Asgard, you seem very knowledgeable when it comes to Ric’s and surveyors, is there a route we could take, to take Keppie Massie to task regarding these valuations that they gave on the council bought properties. At the end of the day surely compensation should be sought if the values were far to high.
loading...
KM didn’t do anything wrong though, they provided a valuation assuming that the property was structurally sound and assuming it was returning £21k p.a. in income, etc. They weren’t asked to do a structural survey.
Liability lies with former council officers.
loading...
I am beginning to feel sorry for KM with everyone determined to find them at fault we have Kate seemingly trying to link her poor valuation to KM because they sometimes use Stephen Lang, although he wasn’t being employed by them so I do think she owes them a “sorry” for suggesting they are somehow corrupt or incompetent. Do you remember the old saying “you get what you pay for” well it seems to me the council went for the cheapest option because ,if you want to be kind, they trusted the person they were buying from. This is fine if it was your money but it wasn’t was it, when £180k is pissed away the blame stops at the top except it seems when local government is concerned.
loading...
Well the big question is, “did KM actually have a brief to do valuations on Crystal Road?”
You get what you pay for indeed.
loading...
And what sort of brief was it just to over look the paper work or do a full structural survey, I do think that KM weren’t asked to do a full structural survey because if they were I am sure the council (or ex council leader) will be pointing the finger at blame at them.
loading...
The KPMG report reveals all, the only problem is the council are reluctant to release it, and even if they do the report will have been heavily edited.
They are, “doing some of their own work on it before it is made public” is the phrase I was given in early January.
loading...
Don’t you find that strange and annoying SB not a stupid man doesn’t he see if full disclosure isn’t met he will end up looking like he is hiding something. Wouldn’t it be better for him to let it go public the Labour council can’t be blamed for this so why hide it?
loading...
Pretty much for the same reasons as Cameron would never allow Blair to be indicted to the Hague for War Crimes.
All politicians have skeletons in their wardrobe, the higher up the food chain they get the more skeletons they will have.
SB will not dob the Callows or Fowlers in it on the basis that one day the favour will be returned and it will come back to bite him on the arse.
As I have intimated up there there is clearly not something right about this and they are hiding something. My money is on a cosy relationship between the Councils conveyancing officer and an out of work councillor.
On the other hand what is the purpose of the FOI act if redaction and censorship of public documents and reports is permitted.
loading...
John, what you say is right, and thats precisely why I cannot for the life of me understand why Blackburn will not release it. The only conclusion I can come to is that in withholding the document, it gives David Palmer no ammunition to present to the Local Government Ombudsman. But why would this concern Blackburn? No idea here. Maybe something to do with funny hand shakes? Or maybe what geezer says?
loading...
No offence to geezer but I do think what he says as far as local government goes does seem a bit of a stretch. SB who does seem to be a committed socialist having funny handshakes I can’t see that either (but I could be wrong about that). So do you think he is covering up for unelected officials, if he is then he why? SB may feel this was the official job to make sure this was done correctly but because of political pressure from the then council he let it slip through, this is the best interpretation I can put on it. I think this is wrong and if it is true it still should come out I don’t think if this was the case it would come as any surprise.
loading...
John
Do you ever read anything properly, I doubt it, dont put your own slant on my comments. I have other info on Keppie Massie, that will be brought to the fore when the time is right and I have all my facts un like you.
loading...
“I have other info on Keppie Massie, that will be brought to the fore when the time is right and I have all my facts un like you.”
So Kate you are implying that KN are incompetent or corrupt , I do hope your other info has a sounder base then the Lang one as you didn’t have all your facts over that one.
loading...
Phil. They must have been aware that the property was not sound as any fool could see that, a professional should certainly have picked up on it, they obviously made further enquiry’s regarding the condition of the property as we have a copy of the emails between the council officers and keppie Massie, if you remember they were furnished with some copy’s of invoices that showed that the Fowlers had some cosmetic work carried out on the property, they never asked or saw sight according to these emails that proved beyond doubt that the foundations had been fixed, they never asked to see accounts for the rental income of the property.
I am guessing that they just took the Fowler’s or their representatives word for this, indeed the council could have cross checked that all the flats were rented out by checking the council tax payee’s on each one. I feel a lot of corners have been cut and at the end of the day someone should be made financially responsible for the waste of the public purse.
loading...
These are my thoughts on this matter. David Palmer took a brave stand and I applaud him for this. I think it is wrong that the Gazette didn’t give him chance to comment before they run this story. I have to say that I am losing respect for them rapidly. Good point from Phil – the truth is never libellous. If any libel had taken place then I would expect action to have taken place by now.
If I was a senior Councillor for Blackpool I would want to make sure that if I sold a property to the Council that it respected value for money to the public purse. Conjecture – if I was a junior member of staff and I was asked to pay a large sum of money to a respected seller I might be in awe of that person’s position and pay it without asking for a surveyor’s report if told to do so by my manager. But clearly if I sold a ‘pup’ and was paid a huge sum of money I WOULD be thinking now was it right to accept £180,000 for a property that was experiencing subsidence? And I might think that it would be right and proper at this stage to consider making some form of recompense to the Council or to a local worthy charity. £179,999.99 is a large sum of money to write off by any ones standard.
In my opinion the Council should furnish David with a full copy of the report and advise if they are taking any further action. And yes I think that if no further action is to be taken then the Local Gov’t Ombudsman should receive a complaint. That is what they do is it not? Investigate wrong doing at local Government level when all else fails!
loading...
Hi Bill,
Great comment; I agree entirely.
I’ve only one thing to say and that is that without the KPMG report, it’s very hard for David to lodge a complaint about the issues we’re really concerned about (possible negligence/abuse of the public purse/accountability).
Sure, we can complain that they have not released the documents, but they’ll get a slap on the wrists. That’s not going to get justice served. However, the Freedom of Information request went in and as such the council will be obliged to respond.
If they fail to disclose this document, it looks terrible for Simon Blackburn, who promised to represent the Residents’ Party and promised transparency. I think perhaps one issue is that some of the protagonists still work at the council and there is some protectionism going on, but I could be totally wrong there!
Regarding the former owners of that property, I agree with your sentiment; it would be noble of them to return an appropriate sum of money to the residents of Blackpool, but if it was you, Bill, would you?
Of course, if they don’t return the money it means it will be very hard for them ever to be councillors in Blackpool again!
loading...
Good point Phil. Hand on heart who knows how we would act if placed in this position. I note that it is claimed that all Councillors have been exonerated. And that all Council staff responsible have either left or been disciplined. This is no doubt true but the fact remains that the Council have bought property worth only a fraction of what they paid. And as it is public money that has been wasted the Council should I think be a little more forth coming. If lessons have been learned the public should I think be a little more reassured.
It is a tradition in the public sector that usually officials who make mistakes are shielded from the glare of public scrutiny. So I am not convinced that even a Freedom of Information request will not have large sections of details blanked out. The fact is that the last administration wasted £2.7m on this and similar projects. I know that hindsight is a wonderful thing. But surely the public needs a little more reassurance that lessons have been fully learned. The Gazette report does not provide this.
loading...
Bill I am with you 100%, my concern is that no accountability is ever brought to bare on any councillor for whatever they do. I requested site recently of where the Mayors fund went to, and how much is in it, requesting the critera as to who gets it and when it gets paid etc through the freedom of information act. I also want to know what happens for instance when a councillor allegedly misappropriates funds, and later decides to fess up to save their arse before its discovered they hadnt informed anyone at the time of their actions. I am no longer happy at just taking their word that lessons have been learnt with our money, I want proof, ( call it a structural survey of the firm for want of a better term ) that people will be accountable and that heads will roll. If I or anyone like me owed the council a penny in council tax they would be down on me like a ton of bricks. They just seem to sweep all their flaws and cock ups under the rug so to speak, striking millions of pounds of the books at the same time, this would not happen if it was the family budget and coming from their own pockets. Their word is not good enough for me.
loading...
All council staff have not been disciplined or left, which could be one factor in this cover up. I’m amazed that Blackburn is prepared to be a martyr to the protection of these officers, but if he wants a campaign to get going to get him out in 2015, regardless of where he stands, he is going the right way about it.
It’s still hard to conclude any wrongdoing from the vendors of 25/27 Crystal Road. The onus remains fully on the buyer to negotiate the price down based on whatever viewings or surveys they have at their disposal. Only if they knew it was, to put it bluntly, fucked, should they be morally obliged to return at least the amount it cost to do the KPMG report (about £70,000, amazingly). They will of course say they didn’t know and it’s impossible to prove otherwise.
As such, vengeance will have to be delivered upon those who currently work at the council and were involved in this. Their sackings must pay for the report.
loading...
And if it was me in the Fowlers’ position, I can say right now I would categorically not give the money back.
Ironically when Callow claimed all councillors were exonerated, it actually shifted the finger of blame on to him, for he was the leader, and he must have known about the entire thing.
loading...
Yes Phil after all the buck has to stop somewhere
loading...
A labour cllr friend of mine told me last night a number of us on this site were being slagged off right left and centre in the conserative meetings some time ago, well listen up, you might do it behind closed doors thinking your secret wont get out, but people talk. Phil gives us a platform to do it in the public domain. If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about, so whats with all the name calling, from “THAT WOMAN ON THE PROMENADE”
loading...
“THAT WOMAN ON THE PROMENADE”.
It’s nice to be infamous hehehe.
At least you’re not as infamous as that other woman on the promenade who pee’d on the cenotaph and then commited a sex act at the cenotaph, did a bunk from court and when re-arrested assaulted a WPC, let loose by the magistrates only to later start a drunken brawl at carol service and yet again released. I think Blackpool magistrates are on drugs.
loading...
Coming back on topic and removing my tongue from out of my cheek…
We’re never going to get anywhere with these creatures, they are a cabal and only interested in their particular political party to the detriment of the people who foolishly vote for them. British “democracy” is a new form of slavery.
Tongue back in…
Vote Terrorist – the future’s bright it’s tangerine
loading...
Hardly a revelation. And from a Labour councillor, you say? This site (and BTNL before it) has always been a thorn in the side of the Conservative group, or at least, particular members of it (I would imagine there may be other members who secretly cheer it on. Who knows?).
What you don’t mention is what is said about this site by councillors in the Labour group. Is it celebrated as a beacon of proletariat opinion shining across the Fylde Coast? Do they positively welcome the scrutiny and criticism of their actions like a breath of fresh air? I would be amused to think that this is the case.
loading...
Kate I dont mind them slagging me off after all they are a little bit pissed off that they lost the election, they blame us for that would you believe. Just shows their weakness if you ask me, until they realise the errors of their ways and act accordingly they will make themseves unelectable for years to come, it is called people power. As far as i am concerned the sooner they distance themselves from the callows and fowlers the better.
loading...
32 Moore Street was one of the properties transferred to Great Places as part of the £3 fee or whatever it was. This property was purchased by the Council in March 2009 for £155,000. Work started by Great Places to convert this property around July 2010 (not long after those in Rawcliffe Street). The Rawcliffe street properties are now completed and have duly been put up for sale.
The Moore Street property seems to have been delayed and is undergoing some very serious structural work in that all the upper floors and back wall (can be seen from Byron Street) have almost been removed completely. It would appear this project ran into some unanticipated problems and has to undergo some serious strengthening work before the conversions can go ahead.
Is this another surveyor cock up? If it is they are keeping very quiet about it.
loading...
The Gasjet reports today that Callow is complaining that the investigation by Blackburn into the property sales has cost the Council i.e taxpayers of Blackpool £60k, if it is the case that the Fowlers were substantially overpaid for their property and knew so, then they should repay the excess.
loading...
I don’t know the circumstances or reasons as to how Keppie Massie came to survey and value your property Kate but if you feel it is wrong would it not be a simple matter to appoint your own surveyor/valuer?
If your suspicions are correct this will give you the ammunition you need to discredit the earlier report.
Valuers and surveyors are well known for using every get out clause in the book (the document they have given you will contain the words ‘on the day’ ‘willing buyer and willing seller’ and other fluff) and I suspect any complaint you make is not going to go very far.
The banks have had their fingers burnt due to the credit and property values boom up to 2007. Surveyors are knowledgeable of this and will go out of their way to avoid being sued by potential buyers for over valuing property by marking down. You may not like it but end of the day if the property is yours then you decide who you sell it to and at what value, in this regard the surveyors report is largely meaningless.
loading...
May I ask why you are instructing so many valuations? Clearly if two of these are in keeping with your own thoughts re valuation and the third is not then simply disregard the third.
Obviously I don’t know the circumstances but did this chap from Aztec/KM have anything to gain (or persons he was working for if other than yourself) in undervaluing?
It may be obvious to everyone else but I can’t see why you are getting so wound up.
loading...
Geezer there are other facts I cant put on the site, that I would be quite happy to share with you, as to why I have a problem with this and a number of surveys that have been done in the town by the same company.
loading...
No need to elaborate further Kate I can understand now why this has wound you up.
Wouldn’t taking out a small mortgage have been much cheaper than a bridging loan? Yes they would have still needed to survey and value but so long as the mortgage came in at less that 80% of the value it surely would have been more attractive?
You could have settled this mortgage whenever you wished and at no cost provided you were out of introductory offer or other period (sometimes 2 years but other deals are available). My experience is bridging loans are a damn expensive way of borrowing particularly when they clearly were going to use your property as collateral anyway which was the reason for valuing it.
Bad luck on the Insurance claim, I only learnt within the last few Month that if you leave a property unoccupied for 30 days or more then cover is withdrawn. Luckily I never experienced much of a loss from it.
As to other surveys by this mob send the details to Phil. He will have a keen eye on what he can or cannot publish.
I have my own problems like the Council for example demanding £3k + for works in the street on what they say was my property. They have sent 3 bills so far going back 12 Months and lastly a letter from legal saying they are bringing me before the County Court to seek judgement.
Shame they never issued a statutory notice to say they were going to do the work.
loading...
Oooh, keep me posted on that one Geezer!
“Bully boy council holds resident to ransom.. “
loading...
Good Luck Geezer, sorry to hear you are having problems too. You could always ask them why yet another hotel has turned the front of their property into a fish and chip take away without planning permission on the prom.
I recently applied for changed of use on my hotel which still trades as one untilthe CQC awards the certificate, but I had to get another set of plans drawn as a couple of rooms on the plan indicated that a partial wall was still in situ when in fact it had been removed, which then cost me another few hundred pounds to get the architect to redraw them correctly.
I was told my application would be refused/denied unless this was done, and yet we have yet another property who has totally ignored any authority and done their own thing has anything been done to correct this NO. I just do not agree with this at all.
loading...