EIVT

MANAGEMENT

WEBSITE

AGM 21 May 2015

AN AWARENESS LEAFLET TO ALL MEMBERS

 

Please show your support by voting for the 9 Candidates supporting ICRI

 

 

 The current board of Trustees wholeheartedly support ICRI to continue to maintain the village for two simple reasons:

 

         The cost for maintaining the village is now approximately £250,000 as opposed to over £350,000 under Amber

         The maintenance is done to a far superior standard

 

It really is that simple!

 

Everything else is irrelevant and merely a mudslinging exercise by the opposing group intended to cause disharmony and disruption and to confuse members and owners as well as to tire the motivation of the current Trustees enough as to force them to resign which is their intended agenda as has been their ploy demonstrated historically.

 

The current board of Trustees who support our current managing agent and are vigorously fighting to keep Amber away are:

 

                     1. Dinesh Varsani - Chairman

                     2. Daniel Campos

                     3. Vladimir Ioannou - (Non Voting Trustee and Director of the Current Managing Agent)

                     4. Sanjay Sanghani                    

                     5. Androulla Kyriacou

                     6. Trevor Gibson

                     7. Nick Nicolaou

 

Other candidates supporting the existing Trustees are:

 

                     8. Steve Miller

                     9. Kasim Yuce

 

The current board of Trustees would like to reiterate that other than supervising the managing agent, for which they are only contributing 2 hours per month, any work in which they engage for the benefit of the village can be assisted by members without the need to be Trustees.  

 

 

 

The Charities Commission

 

We also note that the current Trustees eligibility is being questioned by the opposing group and it is based on the comments by someone we believe to be a junior employee at the Charities Commission, who it would seem has no legal qualification, and to make matters worse he has disregarded the opinion of three senior lawyers and a senior barrister. The Charities Commission also attempted to overturn your democratic vote of 28th April 2014 which was supervised by ERS, an independent elections provider, the elections which supported overwhelmingly the current Trustees.  The board of the Trust is adamant that its legal advisors are correct in their advice and that the Charities Commission assessment is grossly flawed and we will continue working hard to improve on our achievements so far.

 

 

Our Achievements

 

I am sure we all recognise that our property values have increased considerably in the last 12 months since ICRI took over, an event that had not occurred even when property values increased nationwide in UK.  Local estate agents have conveyed to us in writing that the desirability of properties in the village has been as a direct result of reduced charges and overall improvement in the facilities and cleanliness.

 

Out of the 9 block management companies on the village, 3 are now being maintained by ICRI and their maintenance fees have been reduced by between £250 and £420 per annum per flat. The Trustees feel that as members of the Trust all owners should be made aware of the savings that could be achieved if ICRI managed all 9 block management companies and introduced economies of scale throughout the village.

 

As we are also owners of property at the village, like yourselves, the current Trustees are fearful that should ICRI be removed and charges increase back to what they were or beyond, the value of our properties will inevitably fall and the standard of the village will deteriorate back to its previous state.

 

Complacency by not voting could affect the value of your property and the quality of your surroundings along with everyone else’s at the village.

 

We have worked so hard and achieved so much, let’s make sure this continues.

 

 

 

The Truth behind the Opposing Candidates

 

Vincent Green - a member of the group disputing the results of the democratically elected board of Trustees at the EGM of 28th April 2014

 

 In his nomination form he failed to indicate which managing agent he supports.

 

He previously served as a Trustee between 25th April 2012 and 17th October 2013 when he was dismissed for being disruptive and argumentative and accusing Vladimir Ioannou, who at the time was donating his time for free to the Trust, as being a fraudster just because he dared to question Amber.

 

He was instrumental in removing the board of Trustees in 2012 when that board indicated that they wished to remove Amber. Soon after the Trustees removal. He was a Trustee at the time Amber was awarded a ludicrously punitive contract, now subject to a £242,000 claim currently in court issued by Amber against the Trust.  which condemned the village to be at the hands of Amber for an indefinite period, unless the Trust paid them for over 3 years fees as a penalty even if they were no longer required to manage the village.  We are now of course defending this action, and considering counterclaiming against the ex Trustees for negligence, which includes Vincent Green and Karen Wilkie. The current Trustees are baffled as to why anyone would sign such a contract on behalf of all owners and now consider themselves as suitable to serve again as a Trustee. Furthermore, we note that should any of these ex Trustees be elected, how would they avoid any conflicts of interest when pursuing and continuing our defence and counterclaim against Amber?

 

In addition Vincent Green and Karen Wilkie were responsible for supervising the Community Centre and the employee Martine Eni, who is now being sued by the Trust for receiving £31,000 more than she was entitled to receive.   This person has recently thanked Martine in an email to all of us for the great job that she did!  

 

Martine’s solicitor has recently requested that the Trust suspends proceedings against her until after the elections. The current Trustees wonder why..............?

 

He is currently being sued by the Trust for defamation and harassment. He untruthfully posted “another block falls to the corrupt” “Vladimir is a pathological liar.”    Is this the kind of loose cannon we wish to have as a Chairman, who’s vindictive, untrue and thoughtless comments could land the Trust in litigation claims for hundreds of thousands of pounds?

 

He also threatened Dinesh Varsani, the current Chairman, and told him that he was “gone”, and insinuating violence, he was assisted by Paul King, one of the other candidates in his group, this was followed up by restricting his and Vladimir Ioannou's exit in the Trust's office with no provocation whatsoever until the police were called and came to escort them off the premises.

 

Whilst a Trustee, he invariably did not turn up at Trustee meetings or take an active role, however he now claims to be a potential saviour of the village.  He also boasts that one of his distinguishing achievements was to vote for the installation of some bollards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Andrew Colledge - a member of the group disputing the results of the democratically elected board of Trustees at the EGM of 28th April 2014

 

 In his nomination form he failed to indicate which managing agent he supports.

 

He previously served as a Trustee between 15th July 2013 and 15th November 2013 when he was dismissed for gross negligence by relinquishing access to the Trust bank accounts against the Trust's policies. He is currently being sued by the Trust for defamation and harassment for setting up a website to provide a platform for slandering the current managing agent.

In September 2013 he offered to rebuild the books of accounts from the records submitted by Amber and after been given the bookkeeping system by the then Chairman he entered only the names and addresses of all the members and then admitted that he did not know how to prepare financial accounts despite the fact he is a Chartered Management Accountant.

 

He now claims that he wants to ensure “that residents’ money is spent wisely and that budgets are set correctly and forecasts are accurate” even though by now he is aware that our current managing agent who is a Chartered Certified Accountant has achieved his budgets, which his group previously referred to as “a budget of fantasy” and reduced our expenditure by over £100,000 as per our forecast.

 

Whilst on the board as a Trustee he tried to encourage the other Trustees to authorise a job for his wife to work in PR on behalf of the Trust for £175 per day, for a position considered not needed. When he was refused he threw a tantrum and refused to do any work whatsoever.

 

 

Karen Wilkie - a member of the group disputing the results of the democratically elected board of Trustees at the EGM of 28th April 2014

 

 In her nomination form she failed to indicate which managing agent she supports.

 

She previously served as a Trustee between 24th April 2012 and the 1st August 2013.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gary Archer - a member of the group disputing the results of the democratically elected board of Trustees at the EGM of 28th April 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mark Turner - a member of the group disputing the results of the democratically elected board of Trustees at the EGM of 28th April 2014

 

 In his nomination form he failed to indicate which managing agent he supports.

 

He attended Trustee meetings being disruptive and later continued to actively harass Trustees. He was verbally abusive and threatening to the managing agent’s partner and suggested impropriety in emails regarding the £1.50 a day costs she charged the Trust for creating and maintaining the website.  

 

 He also threatened one of the Trustees into resigning by making her believe she would lose her home.

 

He is currently being sued by the Trust for harassment.

 

 

Paul King - a member of the group disputing the results of the democratically elected board of Trustees at the EGM of 28th April 2014

 

 In his nomination form he failed to indicate which managing agent he supports.

 

However, as an owner on Phase II, where ICRI took over the management and reduced charges by over £250 per annum, he resorted to violence against Dinesh Varsani and Vladimir Ioannou in an attempt to force them to hand back the management to Amber, who had once again entrapped innocent owners in a punitive penalty clause of £32,000 which seemingly Mr King seems to advocate. This punitive penalty is of course being defended by the directors of his block management company and the recovery of these monies is being claimed back by ICRI.  Knowing that this claim would benefit him personally by £500.00, it beggars belief that he would hand his block back to Amber. This being the case,  what do you believe would his intention be for the Trust......?

 

 

Jegath Paramanathan - a member of the group disputing the results of the democratically elected board of Trustees at the EGM of 28th April 2014.

 

 In his nomination form he failed to indicate which managing agent he supports.

 

However he states that he wishes the Trust to select and appoint a new managing agent. The current Trustees had no communications from him prior to the nominations.

 

 

Ian Campbell - He was previously employed by Amber as the Estate Manager and his contribution is well known by everybody.

 

 In his nomination form he failed to indicate which managing agent he supports,

 

However he has indicated on his nomination form that the “suitability over who should manage the Island can only be determined from knowledge gained being a Trustee.” This is complete nonsense as Trustees are not responsible for maintaining the island. However, his previous role with Amber should in fact best place him to evaluate which managing agent is doing a better job!

 

It is for you the voters to decide if the village was cleaner during the time Amber managed the village or now whilst being managed by ICRI, and decide for yourselves whether the charges were lower then or now.

 

He is also being sued for defamation in respect to false information published on his website regarding the state of the canal and attributing this to our current managing agent when in fact he had not maintained it for the past ten years and allowed duck weed to accumulate to such an extent that the water became stagnant. The canal has since been cleaned up with two skip loads of duck weed being removed. This was a culmination of his neglect and his employer Amber who failed to maintain it for many years.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Note to summarise

 

It is astonishing that none of the opposing group recognises any of the improvements at the village and clearly refuse to attribute any of this to the current Trustees and the current managing agent. For these reasons the current Trustees are coherent in their view that it would be impossible to work alongside any of the candidates from the opposing group given past events and ongoing litigation against most of them, in addition to the obvious personal vendetta demonstrated against the current managing agent and anyone who supports them.  The question you should all ask is:

 

 Why would anyone want to replace the person who reduced our fees for three years running by 34% and maintained the village to such a high standard?

 

 What would you prefer to pay to maintaining the village - £250,000 or £350,000?

 

IT IS THAT SIMPLE!

charity-commission amber-contract

A Snapshot of our "never-ending" contract with Amber approved by V Green and K Wilkie

Illegal-invoices-Karen-Wilk

She is a director of the block management company at Webley Court where the Trust owns a property and she flatly refuses to allow the Trust to become a director in order for the Trust to utilise economies of scales with a view to reducing the service charges for owners at that block. The current managing agent for that block is Amber and she has indicated her unwillingness to change managing agents even though the benefits have been repeatedly explained to her. She also refused to allow the Trust to place signs on the bin houses warning against fly tipping even though the Trust offered to do this free of charge.

 

Whilst she was a Trustee, she co-ordinated cookery classes as a charitable activity with Martine Eni, the Community Centre worker, allegedly for the benefit of the community, however she was charging the Trust £15 per hour for her services. It is strictly prohibited in the Trusts Governing Document to remunerate Trustees for charitable activities.  

 

Along with Vincent Green, Karen Wilkie was responsible for supervising the Community Centre and the employee Martine Eni, who is now being sued by the Trust for illegally receiving £31,000 more than she was entitled to. She has demonstrated her support for Martine Eni by accompanying her at her employment tribunal which was, incidentally, unsuccessful for Martine Eni.

 

We reiterate Martine’s solicitor has recently requested that the Trust suspends proceedings against her until after the elections.

 In his nomination form he failed to indicate which managing agent he supports, however he states that “we should review the whole managing agent contract.”

 

He previously served as a Trustee between 1997 and 2000, during this time contributed nothing towards the wellbeing of the village.

 

He is currently being sued by the Trust for defamation and harassment.

 

He wanted to retain the services of Platinum for gardening at the cost of £87,000 as opposed to the current gardener who does it to a better standard for only £24,000.  Our current gardener is working tirelessly 6 and sometimes 7 days a week whereas Platinum was scarcely seen working at the village during their engagement.  When at that time Vladimir asked Platinum to show him their scope work and the areas covered so that he could supervise them Platinum refused to show him, yet expected to be paid without questioning.

 

He opposed the replacement of protective fencing around the ecology area which has been earmarked for development into allotments. In addition he complained to the council to stop us setting up these allotments for the benefit of the residents.  He camped in the ecology area when the fence was erected to stop the workmen from finishing the job but claims he has no knowledge as to who vandalised the new fence by cutting the gate from its hinges and discarding it in the overgrowth. The replacement gate cost the Trust circa £1000. When the gate was replaced and soon after its instalment it too was cut off and discarded in the overgrowth, costing us another £1000 to replace it.

 

 He falsely and maliciously reported misappropriation of the Trusts funds to the local MP, Enfield Advertiser newspaper and the Charities Commission with no evidence whatsoever.

 

 He harassed with menace our previous independent examiner into resigning, leaving the Trust with having to find a replacement to examine the accounts.

 

The previously neglected canal now rectified by ICRI (removal of duck weed)

will be held at

The Community Centre

40 - 42 Islnd Centre Way

Enfield EN3 6HS

7pm