Dear Residents and Leaseholders,
This is a further update following our August newsletter, confirming the action now taken on your behalf and what it means for every leaseholder.
1. A fraud report has been filed with Action Fraud
Following the ICAEW’s decision to open a formal investigation into the accountants (ref 082813/MATT), our legal representatives have now submitted a detailed report to Action Fraud, the national fraud and cybercrime reporting centre, on behalf of the 121 leaseholder clients they represent under the supervision of Joseph Chiffers, Barrister. The report sets out the suspected offences by TTMC and its individual directors (Thomas Squires, Andrew Cregan & Tasleem Malleck Amode), as well as Urang Property Management, of fraud by false representation, fraud by abuse of position, and false accounting in relation to our service charge and reserve funds, supported by the full documentary evidence: the accounts, the invoice log, Urang’s written confirmation that no further invoices exist, the admitted £44,435 misstatement, and the ICAEW’s own correspondence.
The ICAEW’s investigation is significant for a further reason. The conduct matter the regulator has accepted is built on the same figures that ground the fraud report — £681,477 of expenditure charged to leaseholders against only £323,154 of supporting invoices. The regulator’s independent scrutiny of those figures stands entirely apart from anything leaseholders say — it is independent corroboration of the very facts at the heart of the suspected fraud.
2. This has happened before — and it led to consequences
Residents should know that this is not the first time the accounts of our estate have led to regulatory action. A previous complaint concerning accounts administered by Urang led to ICAEW disciplinary action against the previous reporting accountants, M E Ball, which resulted in a £6,000 fine, a sanction and ultimately strike off the roll of accountants. GMP is therefore the second successive firm of reporting accountants on Urang-administered accounts to face action by the profession’s regulator. Different accountants, same managing agent, same result. The Association’s conclusion is that the common factor is not the accountants — it is the records they are given by the managing agent. A valid question to ask is why would Urang hire such accountants? Our intimation is that is part of a strategy to unjustly enrich themselves from leaseholder funds.
3. Wider investigations now under way
The Action Fraud report does not stand alone. We are informed by our legal representatives that there is already an ongoing fraud investigation concerning TTMC, and that the City of London Police fraud investigators are building a case in relation to the conduct of TTMC’s directors. Our report and its documentary evidence have been prepared so as to be available to that investigation.
We also note a related development in the local community: the House Mill Trust has removed Andrew Cregan from his position as Governance Trustee, following his inability to answer questions about TTMC’s accounts. When a charitable trust concludes that questions about these accounts cannot be answered by someone connected with them, that speaks to the same fundamental problem leaseholders have faced for years: nobody connected with TTMC can, or will, account for the money.
4. What the missing invoices really mean
Think about what the £358,000 gap tells us. Money was collected from leaseholders for services. For over half of the year’s stated expenditure, no invoice exists — and Urang has confirmed in writing that no further invoices exist. That leaves only two possibilities, and both are damning: either the money was paid out with nothing to show what for, or it was never spent on services at all and remains under TTMC’s control. Either way, leaseholders paid for services that cannot be shown to have been delivered. In the Association’s view, this is not administrative untidiness — it demonstrates that TTMC is not doing its job in relation to service provision, and is incapable of making appropriate decisions about your money.
5. If TTMC says there are no funds — then prioritise properly
TTMC cannot simultaneously fail to account for hundreds of thousands of pounds and plead poverty when essential services are needed. If funds are genuinely short, the Association’s position is that TTMC must prioritise like any responsible manager: non-essential spending — including the site manager (or as they also call him, a concierge) post and its associated staff costs (£50,000 of “staff expenses”, on top of £62,400 in management fees) — should be suspended for now, so that the services which actually matter to residents’ safety and daily lives (fire safety, lifts, cleaning, essential repairs) continue uninterrupted. That TTMC has not done this, and instead continues to demand more money from leaseholders, speaks for itself.
6. Your £1,500 set-off
Our legal representatives have advised that each of the MCRA member leaseholders for whom they act is entitled to assert a set-off of £1,500 against any sums TTMC claims from them, reflecting their share of the unsupported and unaccounted-for expenditure charged through the service charge. If you receive a demand, this set-off should be asserted in response — the Association will provide a template response to any member on request. Members should note that the final determination of sums due is a matter for the tribunal or court in the ongoing proceedings; the set-off protects your position in the meantime.
7. Continue to withhold — now with additional reasons
The Association’s guidance remains unchanged: continue to withhold service charge payments. We hold two court orders confirming that no enforcement action can be taken by Urang or TTMC while proceedings are ongoing. There are now further reasons: a formal fraud report concerning these very funds has been filed with Action Fraud, a police fraud investigation is under way, and the ICAEW’s regulatory investigation into the accounts is ongoing. No leaseholder should be paying further monies into an account whose administration is under this level of scrutiny, until a proper, accurate account of what is genuinely owed has been rendered.
As always: set the withheld sums aside, and forward any demand, threat or purported enforcement step to info@maltingsclose.org rather than responding directly.
Thank you for your continued solidarity. Every step taken — the ICAEW investigation, the fraud report, the set-off — exists because leaseholders acted together.
Yours faithfully,
