Sureserve Share Discussion Threads

[diduno] 08/10/2019 16:23

With reference to your final paragraph, the work in question was heating. The reasons for Hackney awarding Lakehouse the contract was because it was the only tender submitted and the works needed to be undertaken quickly in order for Hackney not to lose budget. Furthermore, I recall that none of the subcontractors currently facing charges undertook the work. My guess is that the contract was very closely supervised by Hackney. It is now apparent that Hackney and Lakehouse should have done the same with electrical contracts. Why didn't either do so?

If you read the Mayor's letter again you will see that it states the following:
'During subsequent detailed investigations, Hackney Council discovered that some of the fire safety work was defective, including incorrectly installed alarms and emergency lighting systems. We immediately, and as a matter of priority, ensured that these works were redone to a standard that was fully compliant with regulatory requirements and our specification, and at the contractors� own expense'. It is not therefore correct to say that it was not stated as a matter of fact that the work carried was defective when it clearly was!

Can you state as a matter of fact that police are not currently conducting investigations into Lakehouse? Furthermore, how do you know that it will not be implicated during the current trials, some of which have had reporting restrictions placed upon them?

[diduno] 08/10/2019 16:23

Deleted as posted posted twice in error.

[vfast] 08/10/2019 13:03

This was the letter that was sent to other local authorities and Land Lords and to my knowledge there has been to other complaints or negative reaction from other authorities and note they have not stated as a matter of fact that the work carried out was defective.

However, I do note the content of letter and the police being involved but there is no charge or investigation being carried out against the company after over 2 years of the letter and the police been informed.

Indeed, the company has won contracts from local authorities, Land Lords as well as with Hackney Council since this letter was released.

[diduno] 08/10/2019 10:20

vfast - The reason for putting money aside is, I think, explained in the letter below from Hackney's Mayor to other social landlords. On reflection the issues appear to be more serious than fraud alone. Also note that the council appears to be considering civil action against Lakehouse. I would take an educated guess that it is awaiting the result of the criminal trials before making a decision on that.

Mayor�s Office
Hackney Town Hall
Mare Street
London, E8 1EA
[e-mail]
To All:
Chief Executives
Registered Social Landlords
3 July 2017

In Confidence
Dear Chief Executive,
In the wake of the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, every social landlord will be quite rightly
focusing on the safety of its tenants and leaseholders, and paying particular attention
to its fire safety measures.
In this light, I am writing to inform you of issues we have experienced with certain
contractors, to give you the opportunity to check that fire safety works on your
properties have been carried out to a high standard.
During 2011, Hackney Council�s former ALMO, Hackney Homes, oversaw a
programme of fire safety works, including installation of smoke alarms and fire alarms
across a number of our properties. These works were carried out by Lakehouse PLC,
through their subcontractor, Polyteck Building Services Ltd. During 2014, Hackney
Council�s Audit and Anti-Fraud team received allegations of fraud and overcharging
relating to works carried out by Lakehouse. During subsequent detailed
investigations, Hackney Council discovered that some of the fire safety work was
defective, including incorrectly installed alarms and emergency lighting systems. We
immediately, and as a matter of priority, ensured that these works were redone to a
standard that was fully compliant with regulatory requirements and our specification,
and at the contractors� own expense. Hackney also immediately notified the police,
and there is an ongoing criminal investigation, as well as contemplated civil action. At
all times, throughout this, our focus has been on the safety of our residents.
We have no evidence to suggest that work carried out on contracts to other councils,
by Lakehouse, or its subcontractor Polyteck, was in any way at fault, so we do not
wish to cause undue alarm. However, we believe that as social landlords, after the
Grenfell Tower tragedy we must share any information with each other that could
potentially help to keep our residents safer. It is in this context that we are writing to
you, so that if you have had fire safety works carried out by either of these
contractors, you have a chance to check them carefully.
If you wish to discuss this in any further detail, please do not hesitate to get in touch
with one of our investigating officers at [e-mail] or
[e-mail].
Yours sincerely,

Philip Glanville Kim Wright
Mayor of Hackney Group Director, Neighbourhoods & Housing

This letter can also be viewed on the link below:
-Philip Glanville, Mayor of Hackney

[vfast] 07/10/2019 18:41

Diduno, as far as I’m aware Sureserve have put aside £2.5m but my understanding is it is for Lakehouse Contracts that was sold/given to Mapp’s and the liable they have for contracts after Mapp’s went under.

I’m not aware that Sureserve have put anything to one side for the outcome of the court case and you know my opinion, I can’t see any reason why they should.

[diduno] 07/10/2019 13:29

newtothis1 - the frauds actually took place in 2013 & 2014. I have this from an impeccable source although I take your point regarding the dates. I agree that it is in the UK's interest for our companies to do well, but at what cost to workers, contractors and clients?

vfast - we can only wait for the outcome when news of these trials can be published, although it would appear that with the reported involvement of Hackney Council there could well be ramifications for Lakehouse. Was the Council ultimately defrauded and was this the reason for Lakehouse putting funds aside in the past? If so, I do not believe that Lakehouse can simply wash its hands of responsibility for its staff. No doubt you will disagree, but that is how I see it.

I think we should all wait to see the outcome of the trials before commenting any further.

[diduno] 07/10/2019 13:29

newtothis1 - the frauds actually took place in 2013 & 2014. I have this from an impeccable source although I take your point regarding the dates. I agree that it is in the UK's interest for our companies to do well, but at what cost to workers, contractors and clients?

vfast - we can only wait for the outcome when news of these trials can be published, although it would appear that with the reported involvement of Hackney Council there could well be ramifications for Lakehouse. Was the Council ultimately defrauded and was this the reason for Lakehouse putting funds aside in the past? If so, I do not believe that Lakehouse can simply wash its hands of responsibility for its staff. No doubt you will disagree, but that is how I see it.

I think we should all wait to see the outcome of the trials before commenting any further.

[vfast] 07/10/2019 12:09

Diduno, Surserve/Lakehouse bear no legal responsibility for individuals within the company committing a criminal act for their benefit. The responsibility falls on the individuals; it is them that have been charged and it is them that are on trial and NOT the company.

Sureserve/Lakehouse can be seen as a victim of other peoples alleged criminal acts rather than the company been seen as a criminal.

I do not believe you are sincere in your posts only wanting to help third parties that you claim have suffered. It is very simple, what good do you do for the third parties you claim you are trying to help by coming on to ADVFN Financial Bulletin Board with your negative comments?

You have had some connection with the company which has not worked out for your benefit and you have a massive chip on your shoulder and think by coming here it will affect the company and I can assure you it will NOT.

[newtothis1] 07/10/2019 09:08

Diduno, Please check your dates. Lakehouse aquired Everwarm (and therefore Michael McMahon) in April 2014. The fraud trial you continually refer to relates to issues in 2012 and 2013. ie BEFORE Michael McMahon was part of the board. So there is no link between him stepping down and the unrelated trial.
You obviously have very noble and altruistic reasons for your negative posts. It is generally in everyone's interests (not just shareholders but actually most of the country) for UK companies to do well. Just look at Thomas Cook and the number of staff whose livelihoods have been seriously affected.

[vfast] 04/10/2019 20:57

diduno, 3.5 years you have been posting on this BB and all your 87 posts telling doom & gloom story's.

What a wast of time & life, give it up man and move on you will feel better for it!

"How about finding a solution for the Backstop"...I like it LOL

[1newtothis] 04/10/2019 17:50

Diduno. You’ve made your view clear on numerous occasions. One would assume that, given your view, you no longer hold Sureserve shares. So why continue? This is not a forum for bad-mouthing a company. You obviously have your own malicious agenda. If I’m wrong then apologies, but you’ve made us all aware of your views, we don’t need to hear it again. Why not go and find another crusade? How about finding a solution to the Backstop?

[vfast] 04/10/2019 16:32

diduno, you've got to stop try to twist what other posters are saying and making presumptions. I did not say "presumably paying no attention to this case?" you said that.

The Council will be getting on with their business running services like maintenance , road cleans, refuge collection, traffic wardens, environmental health, planning and their legal obligations etc, it is just common sense. Even someone as distorted as yourself I thought could work that one out or are you saying they are just sitting on their backsides doing nothing clued to a court case?

Sureserve are getting on running their business as they have proved today in their trading statement.

Everyone knows about the fraud case it is not some dark secret and it will not effect Sureserve or the Council running their businesses.

Come on tell us what your connection is with Sureserve /Lakehouse and why you have grievance against the company?

You’ve got one very big chip on your shoulder and no one gives a toss. Get over it or seek medical help but stop wasting your life.

Life is too short!

[diduno] 04/10/2019 13:07

vfast - How can you be sure that the council is getting on with its business and presumably paying no attention to this case? Have you contacts within the council?

Furthermore, your statement that the old senior management has now been cleared out is only true of yesterday when Michael McMahon resigned for personal reasons. Prior to that he was the one remaining senior member left at the company and had been there a number of years.

Do you not think it almost unbelievable that serious alleged frauds were being undertaken and Lakehouse had no systems in place to detect them? Do you not think that the company has some responsibility for permitting this to take place, particularly if the case against the accused is proven?

[vfast] 04/10/2019 12:35

Strong trading statement. It will interesting to see the final numbers in Jan and hoping for an increase in the dividend.

The court case is against individuals and not Sureserve and if it is proven that individuals committed fraud for their personal gain it will be them that pay for it and not Sureserve or the Council.

All the old senior management have now been cleared out and new team have a clear path for the business and are highly regarded for their integrity.

I'm sure the Council are getting on with their business as is Sureserve with their business and things are looking positive.

[diduno] 04/10/2019 09:09

Knowhow77 - I can understand why you believe that I am wrong when I say the case is subject to reporting restrictions, but it appears that has been lifted for the case against the Polyteck owners. You are correct to state that the Evening Standard carried an article yesterday on the case against the Polycarpous.

However, should you care to look at yesterdays article in Court News UK on the link below, you will see that whilst it names one of the other defendants, it cannot name another and says as much! Why do you think that is? It is because it is subject to reporting restrictions.

I will say the same to you as I said to vfast, if you don't believe me, CHECK WITH THE COURT! It really is as simple as that. I won't hold my breath waiting for your apology, I realise that you are not the type to admit they are wrong.

I still maintain that it will be a matter of months before the full extent of this fraud can be reported. Early next year in all probability.

hxxp://courtnewsuk.co.uk/brothers-ran-council-slush-fund/

[igoe104] 04/10/2019 08:01

("Sureserve" or the "Group")
Post year end trading update and Board changes

Sureserve, the Compliance and Energy Support Services Group, is pleased to provide the following update on trading for the financial year to 30 September 2019.
The demand for the Group's services continue to be strong, on the back of its reputation for the delivery of quality services and market leading positions in the highly regulated public sector gas maintenance and energy management sectors.
Both operational and financial performances have been strong in the second half of the year and the Board is pleased to confirm that the pre-tax profits for the year just ended will meet management's expectations.
Michael McMahon, the Chief Operating Officer, has advised that he has decided to resign for personal reasons and Bob Holt will fulfil Michael's role during this interim period whilst the Board structure is reviewed. The Board wishes to record its thanks to Michael for his service.

[knowhow77] 04/10/2019 07:23

Funny that diduno “ I fear it could be several months “ apart from the the very small report in the standard yesterday which seems to blow your theory out the window oh well keep the negativity going!!!

[diduno] 02/10/2019 20:22

Unfortunately there isn't and cannot be as strict reporting restrictions have been put in place due to the 'sensitivity' of the case. Hence why there has been no publicity on it. It even includes comments on social media. I fear it will be several months before the media can report on it.

[trustman] 02/10/2019 09:30

Diduno is there any news coming out of the trial?
Many thanks, T

[trustman] 26/9/2019 12:30

I think the stock was Smart Metering Systems, Cerrito.
The stock fell on the results on 17th September, but I think the market is paying more attention now to the commentary on post reporting period trading. Anyway that stock is up 16% in the past 3 days by my reckoning. I think there have been SMETS 2 teething problems and SUR has been careful to largely hold their firepower and concentrate on the new generation products as things settle down.
The deadline extension for installation of smart meters did not help SMS either.

[cerrito] 18/9/2019 10:15

The markets section of yesterday's Evening Standard carried a story of a company in the smart meters business who announced poor results yesterday. Too bad I was so goofy that I left it on the Tube and could not find the story on the web.
Anyone know who it was and have a view of any read across to Sur?
Thanks