Homes and property

If you live in one of the UK's 5 million flats, you may pay a management company an annual fee to maintain the communal areas and the exterior of the building.

But the residents of one block of flats in East London don't think they're getting value for money from their management company. That's because of the black mould growing inside nearly a third of the flats in the building.

Mould keeps growing back
Carrie Murray is one resident who's affected. She bought her flat nearly three years ago, and for the last year she's had severe mould growing on the walls and ceiling inside her bedroom, bathroom and hallway.

She's tried wiping it away and painting over it, but the mould keeps growing back. "I've actually considered moving out but you can't move out. Nobody would rent it, nobody would buy it, you can't sell it," she told us.

Carrie's not alone. Nearly all the flats on the top floor have been affected. Marilena Reina, who set up a residents' committee in the building in December 2007, said that the residents have been asking the management company to fix the problem for about a year. She said residents would be happy to pay more to the management company to have it resolved.

The building is maintained by a company called Residential Management Group Limited, who claims to be one of the biggest names in the business. The flat owners each pay Residential Management Group £1,600 a year to maintain their block.

Leaks in the roof
We sent chartered surveyor Barry Cross to look at the damp, and when inside Carrie's flat he diagnosed the cause of the problem almost immediately. He believes there are leaks coming from the roof of the building, which are making any mould in the flat much worse. And because the dampness keeps coming, it's acting against any efforts made by the owners to get rid of the mould themselves.

Barry went onto the roof to have a look and found that the roof was in disrepair. He said the management company should get the roof renewed immediately before the situation becomes really serious.

Residential Management Group have sent two surveyors in the past 12 months to look at the roof and have made attempts to fix it, but when Barry looked at the work which had been done, he said it was temporary and hadn't fixed the problem.

We sent samples of the mould in Carrie's flat to be tested at a specialist lab in Finland. They found very high levels of different moulds, one of which could exacerbate asthma.

Inhalation can lead to furball-like growths
We spoke to Professor Robert Douglas, who's appalled at the mould growing in the flats. He told us inhalation of moulds over a long period of time could lead to severe problems in the lungs, including wheezing and asthmatic symptoms. In some rare cases, inhalation can lead to the development of furball-like growths in the lung which are very difficult to treat.

The residents could, if they wanted to, take the management company to a tribunal. The Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) is a body in England which rules independently on disputes between residents and management companies. There are separate assessment panels in Scotland and Wales which perform a similar function. In Northern Ireland, the Housing Rights Service suggests flat owners should get in touch with a solicitor.

Response from Residential Management Group
When Watchdog contacted the property management company Residential Management Group Ltd and the part of the company they use to manage the Dennis House flats, Wood Management, they said: "Two reports were received from surveyors during 2008, neither of which called for the immediate replacement of the roof. Given the continued debate and concern surrounding the condition of the roof, Wood Management, acting on the instructions of the freeholder, appointed a further firm of chartered surveyors to provide current advice on the condition of the roof and on any urgent roofing works that may be required at Dennis house.

"The survey was completed on Monday 17 March 2009 with the report being available now. A key finding of the surveyors report is that; "while temporarily repaired, the roof areas appear to be in sufficient order to remain watertight". The report also accepts that while the roof surfaces are reaching the end of their useful life, significant areas remain capable of satisfactory further service which will warrant further enquiry before committing substantial funds to wholesale roof covering renewal works. The decision on the future action to be taken regarding the roof will of course have to be taken in conjunction with the residents of Dennis house who'll have to fund any renewal programme via their service charge contributions. As detailed below, there are significant reserve funds but these are very unlikely to meet the total costs involved.

"We'll of course be happy to share the latest surveyor report with residents. The remedial works recommended in the initial report that Wood Management commissioned in 2008 were carried out during the summer of 2008 by local contractors. The costs for these works were charged to the service charge fund. Further minor repairs to the roof above flat [detail removed] were also completed in November 2008.

It should also be noted that another maintenance contractor attended [the] site in February 2009 as a result of a callout to attend to a suspected roof leak. The contractor inspected the roof and the internal areas of three flats. The advice which the contractor confirmed in writing to Wood Management was that the roof, although patched, was sound. They confirmed that advice was given to tenants on issues of condensation recommending they address their individual issues with the use of dehumidifiers, extractor fans and venting.

"There remains no evidence of current water ingress from the roof. In the majority of reported cases, the issue has proven to be that of condensation within the apartments due to lack of ventilation being provided by the residents within their own demise. In some cases original air vents have been removed and replacement windows without ventilation grills have being installed.

"In each case of reported water ingress from the roof, including the contractor who attended site last month, contractors could not locate any serious issue with the roof, and reported the event as condensation arising from within the apartment. Where roof defects were identified they've been repaired.

"There are sufficient monies set aside to pay for day to day repairs and of course issues which pose a Health and Safety risk. This is evidenced by the attendance of contractors to site in summer 2008, September, December and February 2009 in response to reported repairs. The service charge has funds for expenditure for routine repairs, but could not fund and isn't budgeted to fund the costs of wholesale replacement of the roof. Indeed any such scheme would require formal consultation with all leaseholders as required under s20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

"There's currently some £16,000 in the Reserve account, set aside for major works, that has been collected in this and prior years. We're happy to discuss with Residents their priorities for using this fund.

"There has been no expenditure in recent years from the Reserve account. The last works utilising this fund were in 2005 and 2006.

"The full roof repair that some of the lessees are requesting would we believe be in the order of £50-60k and the current reserve could only meet part of this cost. As described above, progressing a roof replacement will require full consultation and then upfront payment by all of the lessees of the sums due before the scheme could proceed.

"[Wood Management] fully accept that it's very distressing for residents when they face problems of mould growth in their homes. However, [Wood Management] believe it's acted on all reports from residents regarding these matters and have advised them on the relatively low cost remedial action that should be taken by them to assist with the problem. The replacement of the roof would not on its own, or in the professional opinion of the surveyors that have been engaged, solve the problems that some lessees are experiencing. Any dwelling without adequate ventilation will potentially suffer from condensation and mould growth problems.

"As managing agents, and on behalf of the freeholder, we're keen to work with all of the residents to address their priorities for expenditure on the fabric of the building and our property manager will shortly be writing to Ms Reina and other residents to arrange a further meeting to discuss the latest surveyors report and how they believe we should proceed. Our property Management Director will accompany the property manager to discuss the options with residents. [Wood Management] can assure you that both the freeholder and Wood management are treating this matter seriously and are keen to find a cost effective and speedy solution to the current problems that's agreed by all of the residents of Dennis House."

Wintrust Residential is a lettings agency which ran two offices in East London. It claimed to provide the "most honest and professional service possible".

But we've heard from a number of landlords who say that, without telling them and without their permission, the business has moved people into their properties - and then changed the locks on the front door. On top of that, Windtrust Residential then didn't pay landlords the rent the business collected from those tenants. 

Devinder Chauhan is owed £1,400 in rent money which his tenants told him they'd paid to Wintrust.

Excuses
He's rented a flat through the agency for the past four years. He was informed that tenants were moving in and received most of his rental payments for nearly four years. But in November 2008 the payments stopped. He has no idea why. When he approached his tenants, they provided proof that they'd paid Wintrust. But when he spoke to the business itself, he was given a variety of excuses.

Watchdog has spoken to several other tenants and landlords who've not received money they're owed by Wintrust. Some of them have even taken the agency to court - and won. But Wintrust hasn't paid up.

Lisa Davis gave keys to a couple of local letting agents in July 2008 when she was thinking about renting out her flat. One of them included Wintrust Residential.

Locks changed
She left her keys with Wintrust and signed a receipt. When a second agency found tenants first, she gave those new tenants keys and waited for them to move in. But the tenants called her and said the keys wouldn't work in the locks. When she went to the flat to help, she found her own keys wouldn't work either. The front door locks had been changed.
 
Lisa managed to force her way into the flat, and found someone else's belongings, which neither she nor the tenants recognised. She also found a phone number in the flat, and phoned it. It belonged to tenants that Wintrust had moved in that afternoon, without Lisa's knowledge.

Lisa was able to move this tenant out but some other landlords weren't as lucky. Keeley Andrews and Darren Sharp gave keys to Wintrust Residential for their flat in Barking. They too found that the business had moved tenants in without their permission.

Despite being angry, they let the tenant stay because they'd been assured by Wintrust that the rental income was secure. But soon afterwards Wintrust stopped passing on the rent to Darren and Keeley. The couple has lost out on five months of rent, totalling around £3,000.

Closed offices
But they haven't been able to get their money back from the company - Wintrust closed both of its offices in November.

However, another agency called Morgan Cromwell opened right next door to one of the Wintrust branches in Stratford, East London in January. It had some of the same staff, the same boss, and some of the same clients as Wintrust Residential.

Morgan Cromwell even sent a letter to some existing Wintrust clients saying they'd taken over Wintrust Residential. It promised them a "seamless transfer" and improved service.

Watchdog researchers went to Morgan Cromwell with another landlord also owed money by Wintrust Residential. They met a man who wasn't the owner, but who did claim he was in charge. He told the researchers that he'd never heard of Wintrust and that Morgan Cromwell had nothing to do with that business, even though Morgan Cromwell had sent out letters to the contrary. 
 
However, when the employee was shown one of these letters, he changed his tune and admitted that Morgan Cromwell had taken on some Wintrust clients. A colleague, who used to run one of Wintrust's offices, claimed that Wintrust Residential had gone bankrupt.

But that's not true. Official records show Wintrust hasn't declared itself bankrupt, and neither has its owner. We wrote to the owner of Wintrust, Mr Ahmir Khan, at his new business, Morgan Cromwell. A few days later that office closed down too, and to date Watchdog has received no response from Mr Khan or his businesses.

On 9 February we featured the plight of two Brits who'd each paid tens of thousands of pounds for holiday homes that were left uninhabitable.

Catch-up on the story by reading the full report.

Chris Dale paid Bulgarian Dreams £56,000 for an apartment in the Windows to Paradise development on Bulgaria's Black Sea Coast. But two years after it was due to be finished, he still can't move in. Tim Winterburn paid a total of £132,000 for two apartments from Bulgarian Dreams and there's no sign of them being finished either.

Robert Jenkin
The man behind Bulgarian Dreams is British; Robert Jenkin. He's told customers that the problems aren't anything to do with him and blames the developers. But he doesn't mention the fact that both he and his wife Mariya Georgieva have had particularly close links with some of those development companies. Especially one called Interlink BG. Robert used to be one of its owners and wife Mariya is still listed as a company director. We tried to track him down to get some answers, but he'd shut up shop in London and was nowhere to be seen at his Bulgarian office.

Since our broadcast we've discovered a lot more about Robert Jenkin and Bulgarian Dreams. He was selling apartments in over 30 developments across Bulgaria, so it's no surprise that we've now heard of hundreds of you who each paid him tens of thousands of pounds for properties that were never finished.

Familiar story
We spoke to Gavin Tweedie who's one of more than a hundred customers who bought apartments in the Cedar Heights development in Pamporovo. But when Gavin visited the apartment he'd been told was ready, he found it wasn't. A familiar story.

Gavin has taken matters into his own hands. He now heads an action group representing the buyers at the Cedar Heights complex against, not just Bulgarian Dreams, but the developers, Interlink BG. They've voted to remove Interlink BG as the development's managers and hire in their own company. Unfortunately, Gavin says that Interlink BG have denied their new management company access to the property. Gavin is incensed: "I don't know why they want to hold onto the complex. What benefit is it to them?" You can get in touch with the group by emailing: cedarheightsowners@googlemail.com.

Darren Hill, who has lost over 50,000 euros to Bulgarian Dreams, has set up www.offplancollective.com for people who have been affected. Watchdog has had several requests for this website. We don't generally publish the details of personal sites, but on this occasion are happy to help people in the same situation share experiences. Please note the BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

It's not clear whether the people involved will ever get any answers, especially from Robert Jenkin. It's a shame he is so reluctant to speak to us and his customers. It's a disappointing twist to a once promising career; a Cambridge degree, a job as an investment banker, a successful entrepreneur. But now he's just a man hiding from an awful lot of people who want to ask him a lot of awkward questions.
Watchdog has repeatedly tried to speak to Robert about the issues raised in the two reports. This is his response:

Statement on behalf of Berkeley Square Trading Limited (T/A Bulgarian Dreams).
"The decision to close the London sales and marketing office of Berkeley Square Trading Limited t/a Bulgarian Dreams doesn't mean that the company isn't committed to providing ongoing customer support services to clients who've purchased developments in Bulgaria where it's able to do so. Clients are aware of the telephone number and email address where ongoing queries can be addressed. Bulgarian Dreams will answer such queries if they're addressed to the Company directly, but it's not prepared to discuss individuals' issues on air."

Read the original Watchdog report on Bulgarian Dreams.

Buying property in England is difficult enough, but buying abroad can be a real nightmare as dozens of Watchdog viewers have found out. They've contacted us because they've all been taken in by the same company.

Bulgarian Dreams is a property business that promises new homes, in a country where the market has been booming. Each of the people we've spoken to has handed over tens of thousands of pounds and now they're worried they've lost it all.

Bulgarian Dreams has won awards, has glossy brochures and a snazzy website. It also offers the reassurance of a head office in London. Chris Dale was really excited about buying a piece of paradise and he thought he'd found an estate agent he could trust. In June 2006, Chris paid Bulgarian Dreams a £500 deposit for an apartment on a luxury development called Windows to Paradise.

Far from completed
Bulgarian Dreams put together a DVD which showed all the apartments it had on offer. It made it quite clear it'd do all the legwork and all Chris would have to do was move in. However Chris's Bulgarian Dream soon went flat. He paid a total of £56,000 for his apartment including solicitor's and management fees. Now, more than a year after the company wrote to him to tell him the development was completed it's far from it. Chris's apartment has no electricity or water. There are power cables on the ground that could potentially be live and rubbish everywhere.

Bizarrely, Bulgarian Dreams told Chris none of the problems with the apartments were anything to do with them. It was full of promises before the sale, but once it'd been paid it washed its hands of the whole thing and then stopped returning his calls. Bulgarian Dreams had said that Chris's contract was with the developers, a company called Interlink BG. He was told to contact the developer direct about any problems, but they haven't returned his calls or email either.

Same story
So far, more than 80 Bulgarian Dreams customers have contacted us with almost exactly the same story. In December, Bulgarian Dreams suddenly closed its London Office without telling its customers. But the company does have another office in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia. Chris Dale and Watchdog's Paul Heiney travelled out there in search of answers from Bulgarian Dreams and the couple who run it, Robert Jenkin and his Bulgarian wife Mariya Georgieva.

At Bulgarian Dreams' office Chris was told that it no longer had his money; that it had been paid to Interlink BG, the developer. So Chris and Paul crossed the city to Interlinks BG's registered office address but no one was there either. Unfortunately for Chris, Bulgarian Dreams has lied to him. It may claim it has nothing to do with the developers, but that simply isn't true. Records show boss Robert Jenkin is a former owner and director of Interlink BG. And his wife Mariya is still named as a company manager. In fact, after more digging, we've discovered one or both of them might have been acting not just as the estate agent and developer, but also the property management company, the supposedly independent solicitors, and even the furniture supplier.

Only last week, the company took down its website and announced it had ceased trading due to the "extraordinarily difficult economic conditions". It wished it's understanding customers "all the best for the future."

Bad man?
There's an old saying in Bulgaria - bad weather gets better, but a bad man never does. Is Robert Jenkin a bad man? We don't know. But certainly he persuaded a lot of people to part with a lot of money, for something they've never had. We've tried to contact Bulgarian Dreams but it's failed to respond and seems to have disappeared.

The Association of International Property Professionals advices anyone who's encountered difficulty with the purchase of their apartment through Bulgarian Dreams to contact a lawyer. Even if it does not end up going down the legal route, anyone in difficulty will need someone who knows where they stand legally. The AIPP can help people affected to find a lawyer and have suggested a lawyer representing a group would reduce costs. The AIPP are happy to meet concerned parties as a first point of reference before they start paying for a lawyer, and say this service would be free of charge.

If you've had problems with Bulgarian Dreams or require more information about buying property abroad contact the AIPP on +44 (0)20 7409 7061.

Read the top tips on how to buy properties abroad safely.

Having your car towed can wreck your week. You have to dig out all your paperwork, find your way to the car pound and then grit your teeth as you stomach the fine. It's hard to swallow - even when you know you've parked somewhere you shouldn't have. But what if your car has been towed away and you're absolutely convinced you haven't done anything wrong? Well, the Watchdog team have received a number of complaints about London-based clampers Citywatch Parking Enforcement Limited, and decided to investigate.

Chi To had been thrilled by the off-street parking which came with the East London flat he bought last June. That was until he came home one day to be told that his car was no longer in the car park. At first, Chi thought his car had been stolen. It hadn't. The police told Chi that his car had been clamped and taken away.

Valid parking permits
Citywatch had been contracted to patrol the area around Chi's flat and they told him that he hadn't displayed a valid parking permit. And if Chi wanted his car released he had to pay £550. Chi had no choice but to pay up, even though he was adamant that his car did have a valid permit on display: "I am 100 per cent sure, I am more than 100 per cent sure. I always had my permit in exactly the same place."

Chi was livid - and the pictures Citywatch sent him to prove that a permit wasn't showing haven't appeased him. To take the pictures at the angles they did, Citywatch clampers would have had to crouch right down. We took similar pictures to those Citywatch sent him, and when taken from a certain angle, it isn't possible to see Chi's permit. But when a photo is taken standing up, Chi's permit is clearly on display.

We'll never know if Chi's permit was there when his car was towed. But because of the way they took their pictures, Citywatch's photographers would certainly have missed it.

All clampers need a licence
Regardless of the truth here, there is something that Citywatch do which is much more black and white. And illegal. All clampers need a licence from the Security Industry Authority (SIA), and by law, they must put their licence number on their paperwork. We showed the receipt Citywatch gave Chi to Jo Abbot from the RAC foundation. She wasn't impressed: "In this case there is a space for the licence details and they haven't been included. The cheek of it is that on the bottom it says 'in accordance with SIA regulations'."

Clampers breaking the law
We've seen more Citywatch receipts without those crucial details. And Citywatch clampers have broken other regulations too. Secret filming by Watchdog researchers showed staff failing to display their licences clearly. The law says clampers should have their licences visible on their persons, but Citywatch clampers are breaking it. When we questioned three of their clampers, only one showed us his licence. The other two refused to provide any identification, and claimed that their licences did not need to be on display.

Jo Abbot took a look at our footage, and said that the Citywatch clampers were operating outside the law: "The clamping operatives that you've showed me in that footage aren't displaying their licences and they seemed to be ever so slightly reluctant to show it. I think if they absolutely refuse to show a licence to you then you should walk away from the scene and call the police because at that point it's quite clear that they aren't operating within the law."

And whether their licence was on display or not, getting your car back from Citywatch can set you back a hefty sum. The British Parking Association recommends a maximum clamping release fee of £125. And Citywatch's charge? A hefty £465. That's clearly a lot of money to pay, even if you've parked somewhere you shouldn't have. But it gets even worse. Once Citywatch has your car, there's no knowing what they might do with it...

Car vanished while owner was on holiday
Jackylene Awora's car disappeared while she was away on holiday, so her family reported it to the police as stolen. In fact, it had been towed by Citywatch who said that it wasn't displaying a valid tax disc. And even though Jackylene could prove that her car WAS taxed, Citywatch refused to let her near her car until she'd paid a £700 fine. Unable to pay a fine increasing by £30 a day, Jackylene heard nothing for four months.

Then she received a phone call from the police. They'd spotted Jackylene's car being driven around by somebody else. It transpired that Citywatch had, outrageously, sold Jackylene's car. Jackylene was devastated, and we spoke to Trading Standards, who are in no doubt that Citywatch had broken the law.

Clear case of theft
Sue McDaid of Enfield Council Trading Standards told us: "They've not received her permission. That is a clear case of theft. It's daylight robbery."

There's always a little bit of you that thinks you've had a raw deal when you're caught by the clampers, wherever you were parked. And if it was Citywatch that did the clamping, you might actually be right.

East Homes
East Homes is the organisation that runs Jackylene Awora's estate. It says it never endorsed or agreed to Citywatch Parking Enforcement Ltd operating on its estates. It says Citywatch acted unlawfully in removing Jackylene's car.

"On 18 June, East Homes was informed by some of our residents that [parking enforcement company] ISTM was no longer providing these parking services, and that [ISTM] had been taken over by Citywatch. We were informed that parking signs on the estate had been changed to Citywatch signs. The next day a member of staff visited the estate to verify this. We tried to contact ISTM by phone but were unable to get through. We checked on the Companies House website and found that ISTM had ceased trading in May 2008.

"We had received no formal notification that Citywatch had taken over the contract, so we immediately wrote to ISTM (on 19 June) informing them that they must cease all activity on our estates. In response to this we received an email from Dawn Wallis, managing director of Citywatch, on 23 June, saying that Citywatch had purchased ISTM's client database in February 2008 and had been serving the contract since then."

"We then had two meetings with Citywatch to clarify the relationship between them and ISTM. We met with the owner of Citywatch, Ray Linard, on 20 June and also met with Paul McArthur, director of Citywatch, on 15 July. Following these meetings we decided to end all association with Citywatch and asked them to remove all signage from our estates."

"East Homes denies authorising anyone other than ISTM to remove Jackylene Awora's vehicle or dispose of it at auction. If, as appears to be the case, the vehicle was removed by anyone other than an authorised contractor, then it was unlawfully removed."

"Any correspondence by East Homes with Citywatch was in support of Jackylene and an attempt to establish what had happened. It did not constitute an endorsement of Citywatch operating on our estates.

"It appears to East Homes from the evidence collected, including that from Jackylene Awora, that Citywatch removed Jackylene's vehicle without lawful authority. East Homes has done nothing wrong and therefore it would be inappropriate for us to compensate Jackylene.

"However, we are not happy with the outcome of this case and for this reason we have offered financial support to Jackylene to assist her in pursuing legal proceedings against Citywatch should she wish to do so."

Response from Citywatch Parking Enforcement Ltd:
Citywatch Parking Enforcement Ltd confirmed that on 5 November 2008 it became members and Approved Operators of the BPA.

The company says: "All of our employees are licensed through the SIA, and carry out their duties in accordance with SIA guidelines. We are aware that our employees must display their licences at all times. However, in the past, the SIA have provided the licences to us on lanyards so that the licences may be worn around the neck. This has proven impractical and many of our employees view them as a hazard and would resist wearing them. Once we became aware of this problem, we recently purchased armband badge holders so that all of our employees can wear their licences clearly displayed in the armband without practical problems as our employees perform their duties."

On the case of Chi To:
"Please see the attached photographs [photos were sent to BBC Watchdog] of Mr To's car which clearly show that no permit was not displayed on his dashboard. As a matter of course of employment and professional obligation, we require our employees to do all they reasonably can to determine if a valid permit is displayed or not. If an employee reasonably cannot see a permit clearly displayed when patrolling, as was the case here, then we feel the employee is within his rights as a reasonable onlooker. We require that customers not only display the permit but display it in such a way that it can be seen. This seems logical and fair and far-fetched to suggest that the camera angle viewing this vehicle from where the employee is standing is somehow to blame."

"All operatives are trained through their vehicle immobilisation course and under the guidelines of the BPA how to take the correct photographs to ensure that we have the correct evidence."

"Our release fee is agreed with the customer that contracts with us. Our clamp fee is £100 and less than the BPA guidelines. Therefore, Mr To would have had 24 hours to make the payment of £100 pounds for the release of his vehicle's clamp. Mr To's charges comprised the standard and commercially competitive prices of £100 for the clamp plus £365 removal fee and £30 per day storage charge."

On Jackylene Awora:
"Ms Awora's vehicle was clamped on 7 April 2008 by Citywatch Parking Enforcement Ltd for parking on private property without a valid permit. Please see attached photographs [photos were sent to BBC Watchdog] that were taken at the time of the incident and clearly show that Miss Awora's vehicle did not display a valid tax disc. We wrote to Ms Aurora [sic.] on 11 April advising that her car was in our possession and giving reasons for why her car was removed. We also clearly stated the consequences, if the vehicle was not collected. I can confirm that the vehicle was sold at auction as stated in our letters sent to Miss Awora."