The HOUSING CORPORATION is a very powerful quango that allows some memebers
with not the best reputation to operate in a very dubious way, this was the
case of Crystal Palace Housing Association in 1991 which went about
mis-representing leases to the public in the media and by any means it saw
fit.

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


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


*The leases were misrepresented at the time of sale targetting people
without experience, while the "professionals" who drafted the leases and
sales contract appear to have catered for this process of supplying people
without experience illegal information behind their legal advisors back,
because the lease / sales contract combine to disown anything guranteed
during the process of sale, leaving the public exposed to that dishonesty:

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

And ten years later the dishonest sellers (CPHA now AmicusHorizon Group)
wrote the following words to us: (from their letter 16-03-99)

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

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

So here is what they were advising us now:

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

The sales contract dis-owns any mis-representations the dishonest landlord
made to us, even publicly and in the press!. Was this premeditated? Did they
read the lease and the sales contract? What advice did their solicitors give
them? The Housing Corporation says this is not against their regulations!

All this I have documented.

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

And crucially: "Did "THEY" read the lease?" In the falling market with their
out-dated prices (as these were falling still further towards the end of
1991).. was this premeditated?

Was all this in deed a deliberate plan as it appears to be? I understand
that the then CPHA now AmicusHorizon Group actually was responsible for
chosing this type of lease! for this 4 million pound plus operation!

The Housing Corporation doesn't want to look in to this ! and it also told
me that I should have gone with a guy put by CPHA and who was peddling
pension endowment mortgages, possibly an ex employee of CPHA.. it was all
not very clear if he wanted to give legal or financial advice or both on
CPHA premises during their "Sales Seminar". They also say that my landlord
...didn't breach any Corporation procedural guidelines.. wow!.. what a
regulator! and what guidelines!

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

Should public bodies be allowed to compete with the private sector in this
unfair way protected even from Parliament by a Quango?

So much for the integrity of operations with public funds through the
Housing Corporation.
Misrepresenting leases in the process of sale should be a crime just like
any other way of deceiving the public.

Even worse this is coning the public with public money. That is our taxes
being used without integrity through a Quango to deceive the public. This is
why the Regulator is not doing what it is supposed to.

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

Kind regards
David A. Foot

David Foot wrote:

The HOUSING CORPORATION is a very powerful quango that allows some
memebers with not the best reputation to operate in a very dubious
way, this was the case of Crystal Palace Housing Association in 1991
which went about mis-representing leases to the public in the media
and by any means it saw fit.

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


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


*The leases were misrepresented at the time of sale targetting people
without experience, while the "professionals" who drafted the leases
and sales contract appear to have catered for this process of
supplying people without experience illegal information behind their
legal advisors back, because the lease / sales contract combine to
disown anything guranteed during the process of sale, leaving the
public exposed to that dishonesty:

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

And ten years later the dishonest sellers (CPHA now AmicusHorizon
Group) wrote the following words to us: (from their letter 16-03-99)

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

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

So here is what they were advising us now:

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

The sales contract dis-owns any mis-representations the dishonest
landlord made to us, even publicly and in the press!. Was this
premeditated? Did they read the lease and the sales contract? What
advice did their solicitors give them? The Housing Corporation says
this is not against their regulations!

All this I have documented.

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

And crucially: "Did "THEY" read the lease?" In the falling market
with their out-dated prices (as these were falling still further
towards the end of 1991).. was this premeditated?

Was all this in deed a deliberate plan as it appears to be? I
understand that the then CPHA now AmicusHorizon Group actually was
responsible for chosing this type of lease! for this 4 million pound
plus operation!

The Housing Corporation doesn't want to look in to this ! and it also
told me that I should have gone with a guy put by CPHA and who was
peddling pension endowment mortgages, possibly an ex employee of
CPHA.. it was all not very clear if he wanted to give legal or
financial advice or both on CPHA premises during their "Sales
Seminar". They also say that my landlord ..didn't breach any
Corporation procedural guidelines.. wow!.. what a regulator! and what
guidelines!

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

Should public bodies be allowed to compete with the private sector in
this unfair way protected even from Parliament by a Quango?

So much for the integrity of operations with public funds through the
Housing Corporation.
Misrepresenting leases in the process of sale should be a crime just
like any other way of deceiving the public.

Even worse this is coning the public with public money. That is our
taxes being used without integrity through a Quango to deceive the
public. This is why the Regulator is not doing what it is supposed to.

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

Kind regards
David A. Foot

please ignore - test

--