Sureserve Share Discussion Threads

[winklehoff] 07/5/2019 21:25

I think there's a fair bit of confusion here. LHC have always been a corporate entity in their own right. The parent company has no obligation at all to creditors/debtors for the failure of LHC, other than for parent company guarantees issued on certain contracts undertaken by LHC. This I undestand is what the £2.5m was to cover.

[vfast] 07/5/2019 21:03

Any new contracts signed with LHC after the sale by LH (Sureserve) will have no comeback on Sureserve.

I have been informed that LHC signed new contracts and over £6 million of the subcontractor’s claims will only apply to LHC and not Sureserve.

Hence Sureserve have put £2.5 million to cover the contractors that were committed too within their tenure.

[winklehoff] 07/5/2019 16:16

I am aware of a two/three day period in February when LHC's IT system went down, apart from that everything was operational as far as I could see. I'm not sure if other parts of the business were affected.

[igoe104] 07/5/2019 15:59

diduno why don't you sell your holding ????

All these concerns and you still hold a large holding in the company.....

[sharw] 07/5/2019 15:21

diduno - when you quote things it is helpful to others to provide links, hence-



For me the best bit was the quote from a subcontractor “This just gets murkier and murkier.”

I felt this about ownership (and links including Mears) before Christmas and sold out then. A quick look:

In August last year LAKE (now SUR)sold Lakehouse Contracts and Fosters to Mapps Group owned by Jared Sullivan.

On Oct. 1st Mark Elkington came on board as SHEQ Director (SHEQ = Safety, Health, Environment and Quality). He was and, as far as I can make out, continues to be SHEQ Director at Mears.

On Oct. 29th Jared Sullivan sold control of Mapps Group to Darren Colin Pace, Commercial Director of Mears from which he resigned on 31st. Dec. He did not buy all - Sullivan had 100% but Pace has "More than 50% but less than 75%".

On Dec. 12th Foster Property Maintenance (which had been a subsidiary of Lakehouse Contracts within Mapps Group) was sold to Kamacoco Ltd owned 75% by Stuart Fetti and 25% by Petros Christen.

Stuart Fetti is Construction Director at Polyteck, Lakehouse's subcontractor at Grenfell Tower and Petros Christen is associated with Polyteck:





All other facts from

Meanwhile I tried to look at Foster's website fpm-ltd.co.uk/ but it looks as if the computer problems are still not overcome as I got this:

Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead

Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to fpm-ltd.co.uk. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, emails, or credit card details.

Finally, another one to tickle diduno's tastebuds:

[diduno] 07/5/2019 09:30

Construction Enquirer just reported that Lakehouse Contracts went down owing more than £9m! Sureserve blames the virus attack and ransom demand in January 2019.

I find it difficult to believe that a company the size of Sureserve did not have a back up system just in case such a scenario should occur. After all, what £muti-million company would wish to find itself in this position, all as a consequence of avoiding the relatively small cost of a back up system?

I have serious doubts that Sureserve will pay the debts especially as LHC is now in administration.

[diduno] 05/5/2019 11:55

There have clearly been some sophisticated shenanigans taking place within these companies probably following the receipt of 'legal advice'. It will undoubtedly be extremely difficult to unravel what exactly has taken place and the reasons for it. I hope the administrators are up to the task but note that a number of creditors are demanding a change of administrator. What do they know that we don't?

With reference to the virus attack and ransom demand, did Sureserve pay the demand and how much was it? Unfortunately, nothing would surprise me any more. Not even confirmation that the demand was paid in cash to a third party the identity of whom is unknown. Although I say this mostly in jest, I cease to be surprised by the claims being made.

Re Lakehouse to Lakehouse plc to Sureserve. Lakehouse floated in 2015 and became Lakehouse plc. I am reliably informed that this was despite the FCA being warned about the company and the fact senior members of staff were under investigation for fraud.

Lakehouse plc then renamed itself Sureserve in 2018. It then decided to sell off LHC probably to the lowest bidder by the look of things. I suspect this was an attempt to distance itself from the fraud trial due to commence later this year. I dare say Sureserve will claim that it had nothing to do with Lakehouse at the time of the alleged frauds, 2013 - 2014. Can't you just hear this? But how did Lakehouse systems permit senior staff to perpetrate a fraud?

[inoaboutlh] 04/5/2019 23:49

You are correct that the fraud was under Lakehouse but how did Sureserve come about? Lakehouse to Lakehouse Plc to Sureserve.

I understand that Foster Property Maintenance is very much a going concern - what a pity they were sold by Lakehouse Contracts in December for just £1 when, according to the Administrator, the balance sheet value was £3.6m. The current director of Foster is also a shareholder of Polyteck - perhaps this is just a coincidence? With the Polyteck director's involvement in the fraud case, along with Lakehouse, this does, however, look suspicious (connections with co-conspirators walking away with £3.6m!). What of that value is worth hiding? Who made the decision that Foster should be sold for £1? This is just one area of interest to the Administrators.

It is also interesting to see that Foster is the largest listed creditor! Sold for £1 with assets of £3.6m yet still owed £700k by your previous parent company. I would just like to know how that works.

I also understand that the current director of Contracts used to be a director of one of the companies under the Mears Group banner, with whom, of course, Bob Holt was intimately connected (until early this year).

It seems that at the time of sale Contracts did not have any cash. After the sale MAPPS claims to have found out that Contracts had various unpaid and long overdue liabilities that did not come to light during due diligence! Did Bob Holt know of these when he made the statement that he "expected LHC to do well"? As a director he should know the business intimately - but why didn't this position come to light during due diligence? It is clear that Lakehouse Plc (now Sureserve) sold a pup. I believe Bob Holt may also have said that Contracts was being sold to a "newly formed entity backed by a team of sector specialists" - which also proved to be short on facts. Some six months later the "pup" became a dead duck.

Negotiations are also underway with Sureserve to agree "the quantum of the negative working capital" with the owed sum indicated to be in excess of £5m - how does this sit with the £2.5m set aside by Sureserve for the parent company guarantees? Has Sureserve declared this potential claim?

You have a very good point concerning the virus attack - it would appear that someone is not being wholly truthful.

[winklehoff] 04/5/2019 19:00

Anybody know where I can obtain a copy of the administrators report? What I find odd is the statement from Bob Holt when LHC was sold, saying that he "expected LHC to do well". LHC must surely have been on its knees at the point of sale.

[diduno] 04/5/2019 18:28

inoabouth - You have clearly got a handle on what has taken place and I have no doubt you are 99% correct. The only thing I would correct you on is that the fraud was operated under Lakehouse (renamed Sureserve in 2018) in 2013 - 2014. I know this 100%. I am informed that it was a sophisticated fraud hence the reason it has taken so long to investigate and reach court.

Although I have said it before, you do hopefully realise that two of those accused of bribery are also directors or are related to directors of Polyteck & Mapps FM, part of the Mapps Group that was handed LHC, including Fosters. I am told that Fosters is still a going concern. Presumably if it were sold off it would generate enough cash to pay the debts of LHC? It should also be noted that Fosters now shares an address with Polyteck and is headed by a former employee of Polyteck.

I have a feeling this affair could run and run. I share your concern that the administrators may have been led astray regarding the virus attack and ransom demand. Surely this would have been reported to police in January 2019? If not, why not?

[inoaboutlh] 04/5/2019 12:40

As an ex-subsidiary of Sureserve (or Lakehouse Plc) the administrators report on Lakehouse Contracts (in administration) (Contracts) has just been released. One of the claims made by the administrator is as follows:
"The Company [Contracts] shared the same IT network as Sureserve Holdings Ltd........in early January 2019 Sureserve Holdings' IT system suffered a virus attack with a ransom demand from a third party. The effect of the attack was the total loss of the Company's [Contracts] accounting system and all other support service systems throughout January 2019."
I just wondered whether Sureserve had disclosed the virus attack and ransom demand in any of its reporting procedures? If anyone could let me know it would be appreciated.
If this "attack" has not been disclosed could anyone confirm that it had actually taken place? Were Sureserve's accounts (presumably on the same servers) affected? I am concerned that the Contracts' administrators may have been led astray in this very convenient assertion suggesting a complete loss of all accounting information!
There would appear to be some questions that need to be answered by Sureserve management over the sale of Contracts - not least the assertion by solicitors (ironically now also a creditor)in writing that Contracts was solvent at the time of the sale which is now called into question by the Administrators report.
The intertwined web of owners of Contracts since the sale will also need to be questioned along with the "personal guarantees" for Contracts mentioned in MAPPS (to whom Contracts was originally sold) emails.
It is clear that Sureserve had a hand in the unjustified repudiation of ongoing contracts to third parties (Contracts' staff apologised for doing so) and then handed those contracts to the subsidiary (Fosters) whilst also taking on sub-contractor's staff who had been working on those contracts.
The suggestion is that Sureserve wanted to be "clever" in dumping Contracts but the difficult questions have not even started. There are fingers in pies all over the place here from the Fraud case due to be heard in a few months (which all took place under the watch of Sureserve) to the "sale" of Foster Maintenance for a pittance after it had taken on repudiated contracts. The ownership changes are fascinating!
If you think where we are now "stinks" then keep a close eye on what happens over the coming months.

[diduno] 01/5/2019 09:44

vfast - It appears from the Construction Enquirer article that those owed money by Lakehouse, e.g. Target Structural, will not automatically be paid by Sureserve even upon the ruling of an adjudicator. The fact that Sureserve has set aside £2.5m for money owed by LHC is not therefore 'the end of the matter' as you suggest. Whilst it is one thing to prove a case against LHC, it is quite another to receive payment.

Clearly, LHC will not pay as it is now in administration. I have little doubt that Sureserve will legitimately make the same claim as a reason for not releasing money from the £2.5m it set aside for this. The timing of this absolutely stinks. Was the Sureserve guarantee ever actually worth anything?

The fact that Target states it will be pursuing the directors of Lakehouse and Sureserve suggests to me that those responsible acted not only with dubious intent, but possibly illegally.

[vfast] 30/4/2019 19:46

First of all I do not believe that subcontractors should suffer.

There is no doubt Sureserve wanted to off load the none profitable parts of the business and for want of other words parts of the business which was "struggling".

There is also no doubt that the subcontractors owed money by LHC will have a claim on Sureserve which they have put £2.5m to one side for that reason.

The subcontractors claims have been recognised financially by Sureserve in their 2018 accounts and that should be the end of the matter.

With that said Sureserve will move forward with the profitable business and that is the main point for investors to consider.

[winklehoff] 30/4/2019 12:59

So lets consider the facts. Lakehouse PLC sold Lakehouse Contracts Ltd. They probably did so as they could see trouble on the horizon. That in itself is not illegal, although possibly immoral depending upon your view of the world, knowing that LHC would fail and subbies would be left with nothing. If directors acted illegally in any process, then they would remain liable, company sale or not. That is presumably the question. The second matter is what parent company guarantees Sureserve (formerly LH) issued to the clients of LHC. There remains exposure for Sureserve.

[diduno] 30/4/2019 12:33

1newtothis - My views are not an attempt to manipulate the market. They are are based on widely reported facts. Just because you do not recognise the facts, does not make them biased.

With reference to your comment regarding the rights and wrongs of subcontractors, do you believe it perfectly acceptable and wholly right for Sureserve/Lakehouse to manipulate the sale and administration of sections of its business that result in many subcontractors probably losing their livelihoods through no fault of their own?

[1newtothis] 30/4/2019 11:28

Diduno. This is not the forum for lecturing on the rights or wrongs of subcontractors. Your very biased posts suggest that you are attempting to manipulate the market. Many people may be affected by debt if they invest in a market which is not moving fairly.
Please, take your grievances elsewhere.

[diduno] 30/4/2019 11:15

How can anyone condone or ignore the reported business dealings of this company which leaves it owing subcontractors £m's? It would appear that the sale of Lakehouse Contracts by Sureserve was a sale of convenience prior to entering administration as a means of avoiding paying the company's debts. Why otherwise does Sureserve, which after all is said and done is Lakehouse by another name, not underwrite this debt?

The hardships that subcontractors face when confronted with such debts should not be ignored. It will undoubtedly force many into bankruptcy through absolutely no fault of their own.

KNOWHOW77 - You appear to pay no mind to the fact that a jury decides upon the guilt or innocence of the accused, not a judge.

[knowhow77] 29/4/2019 17:56

I agree with the previous comment move on diduno let’s hope your not the judge at the “upcoming criminal trial” you’ve already sentenced them I feel

[1newtothis] 29/4/2019 15:35

Why are you always so negative diduno? Just sell your shares and move on

[diduno] 29/4/2019 14:44

The below article should be concerning for shareholders. A subcontractor of Lakehouse, Target Structural, won an adjudication against Lake which was ordered to pay £376,000 but it appears it will not pay as it has entered into administration. Why didn't Lake pay Target what it was owed from the £2.5m Sureserve set aside prior to Lake entering administration? The timing could not have been more unfortunate for Target but possibly convenient for Lake & Sureserve.

Unsurprisingly, Target are now looking to pursue directors of Lakehouse and Sureserve. That should be interesting as should the upcoming criminal trial at Southwark Crown Court.

hxxps://www.constructionenquirer.com/2019/04/17/lakehouse-subbie-goes-after-sureserve-for-cash/

[igoe104] 18/4/2019 19:01

Encouraging to see Stephen English, gives a quick mention of sureserve as a good value recovery stock.

he certainly knows his stuff.

hxxps://www.piworld.co.uk/2019/04/17/navigating-the-markets-with-stephen-english-part-2-of-2/

[whoneedslottery2] 19/3/2019 14:54

Any feedback from the AGM chaps.

[diduno] 15/3/2019 10:53

WhoNeedsLottery2 - Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I am not in the least surprised. My only surprise is that it has taken so long or could it possibly be related as much to the criminal trial scheduled to commence in September 2019 at Southwark Crown Court, as it is to its current financial position?

I was informed sometime ago that the FCA was notified of concerns relating to Lakehouse prior to its floating in 2015 but it chose to take no action.

Whatever happens in the short term, I am advised that this is merely the tip of the iceberg. If my information is correct, and I have absolutely no reason to believe otherwise, once in the public domain the revelations will have serious implications for the company and many of those with close links to it.

[whoneedslottery2] 15/3/2019 07:21

Diduno - please see below update.

[diduno] 12/3/2019 19:54

sharw - I stand corrected. I should have said Lakehouse Contracts and not Lakehouse Construction.