A Postcard
I love getting postcards, usually.
Here's a postcard that Pier Managment sent to a property that I own:
Sounds pretty serious, right?
Sounds like you should act, and act now, otherwise bad things could happen?
Nobody wants to be uninsured/underinsured!
Nobody wants to be liable for financial risk in the event of a claim!
After all, the postcard - very official looking - does say that it is ESSENTIAL that you assist in verifying your status as the occupier of the property, for insurance validation purposes.
The problem here? It's not true.
When Pier Management printed this postcard and addressed it to my property, they knew right there & then that they were "saying or writing (something) that they knew not to be true".
It was simply designed to provoke a response from whomever received it. In other words, at some level, to scare you, and while scared, make you complete the postcard and send it back (freepost).
I would suggest it is simply a technique for attempting to collect on the hard money. I would suggest that it is simply a technique for getting that oh-so-critical response.
Pier Management admitted they do not have anything to do with the insurance for my property:
Seriously we should talk about that signature sometime! Ordinarily I'd blank it out but it's not obvious what it is meant to be, nor who scrawled it (they forgot to add their name - did I mention that forgetting to add your name is quite common in these sort of correspondences? more on that later).
You see the legal argument for "legal executive lawyers" here will revolve around how likely an explanation 'a generic postcard' actually is (which is what the last sentence in the letter is alluding to).
In other words "oh sorry we sent that completely misleading postcard where the majority of the words, sentences and statements were inaccurate, that might have caused you to worry, it's just we say all those things for the other properties we manage where the statements are actually true, sorry". Mr Bland that was my pretend voice - clear satire, for when we discuss this further.
Pier Management maintain that the postcard stated:
"NOTE: Failure to accurately complete and comply with this validation update will affect your property insurance and a liability to financial risk in the event of a claim"
and further
"it is essential your status as the occupier of the property shown opposite is verified for our insurance validation records"
because for some freeholds they manage those statements are accurate i.e. they do maintain the insurance and do require the details and there is a financial risk if the information is not immediately sent back to them by reply (using the freepost return, no less).
The statements are not accurate, not in the slightest, for the property they sent the postcard to.
The inaccurate statements make up the majority of the words on the postcard.
The inaccurate statements have the potential to cause worry, stress, distress and concern. I know because those are the feelings I had when I read the postcard.
They sent the postcard regardless of the majority of the words being inaccurate, because they presumably, at least based on that last sentence, would claim they only have one type of postcard (!?), to send to all properties they manage (whether or not they manage insurance for that property).
Was it outside the realm of reasonability/practicality (hint: legal litmus test for the "legal executive lawyers") for Pier Management to maintain a list (database) of properties where they did have these responsibilities and therefore such a postcard was accurate, and a list where they didn't, and so a different (or no) postcard could be sent?
Since they already maintain such data for, you know, the purposes of collecting money each year.
Pier Management have nothing to do with the insurance of the property in question, or the block it is contained within ('nothing' from the perspective of the leaseholder, technically).
But..
Now we understand the business model for the average freehold/leasehold management company..
..and now we understand how absolutely critical a response, of any kind, from anyone is to the odds of collecting on the hard money..
..we can understand why the average company does what they do, and behaves the way they behave.
Which, generally speaking, is typically something like:
[I'm describing here a hypothetical interaction between a freehold management company, and a leaseholder beholden to the terms of a particular lease, in case that wasn't clear]:
1. send you a passive aggressive letter or postcard demanding information, or alternatively just demanding that you pay some money because <reasons>, whether they know the claim for those charges is accurate or not (a guess, in other words)
2. send another letter, adding on administrative charges or legal fees to the first, because perhaps you didn't (or did!) respond to the first
3. add on more fees, send more letters
4. keep repeating these steps, forever, since all it is arguably costing them (seriously, the "legal executive lawyers" will argue at tribunal about what this behaviour is actually costing them) is an envelope and a stamp
5. keep contacting you (some people, myself included, would describe this behaviour as harassment/intimidation.. hey do we know anyone who has been accused of harassment?) until you pay, or respond
6. keep going, keep trying, all the while desperate for some sort of response or engagement
Now look, the language they use, and the charges they allege (remember, they typically add on an 'administration' or 'legal' charge each time they send a fresh letter to you) can make the issue sound really serious.
They really, really, want you to reply to them.
The more scary the language, the more likely you will engage/respond - that's the game, see?
It really is that simple.
Don't respond. Ever.
Unless your lease obligates you to. Which, if it is like mine, and all the leases I have seen, it doesn't.
Do make sure to pay your ground rent though, when it is correctly invoiced. That is important.
Often there will be lots of words and jargon thrown in for good measure (a common tactic when doing this is to use big legal words, or big font, or red letters, to really make the recipient of the letter worry. By worrying, the person will often be scared into replying. If you want to understand this better, think of the tactics private parking enforcement companies use to get you to engage with them - they can be oddly similar).
It's all about trying to collect on that hard money.
So don't respond. Ever. It's that simple.
