01616090630

I have also been in touch with RICS and would urge all other victims to do so. How can an organisation whose title starts 'Royal Institute' allow people like these to be members?
Contacting Watchdog and getting Ann Robinson on the case would probably flush out hundred more victims.

I want these idiots to put as many spam messages on this message board.there is a reason for this.on a more pertinent point look at the link between strattons whose directors were jailed and cvs.its about time the media were aware of this.

The RICS are fully aware of CVS's history.  I've asked them myself the same question - How can this company, who operate in the way they do, with so many complaints made publicly against them, be allowed to be RICS registered?  The reply I got was that because the directors of the business were not convicted fraudsters, unlike their majority share holder Jason Clarke, they had not broken the rules.  The fact that the directors are clearly having their strings pulled from above appears to be of no concern to the RICS.

I also asked how many complaints had been made about CVS to the RICS, and they wouldn't tell me that either.  Makes you wonder what the point of the RICS is, if not to protect the consumer, when they won't even tell members of the public if there have been any, or many, complaints about a firm they might be thinking of instructing.

point taken.however the the firm is rics regulated.therefore they are responsible for everybody connected with the firm.however I do have an ace up my sleeve.finally where are the trolls today?

Stopped just before midnight.       Holy day?

well if that's the case my money is on Dubai.there is a reason for that.and perhaps they have never read the story of David v Goliath.

The law states that you could be a “shadow director”. This is someone in accordance with whose
directions or instructions the directors of the company are accustomed to act. You would need to know if internally within CVS JPC pulls the strings. Some controlling shareholders (over 51%) do not get involved with running the company and are not Shadow Directors. Shadow Directors are in law liable in the same way as registered directors - but it is harder to prove.
ghc7n

Just read the article online in the Sunday telegraph.this was reported by Rebecca burns callender.interesting reading.only confirmed what we all knew.what will the rics do? let's see if they have the resolve to do something as they now have the opportunity to clean this industry up.

Business rates giant CVS slammed by customers for 'unfair' treatment.

Following the Government's decision to freeze rates until 2017, CVS is billing its customers for two more years, prompting a backlash.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysect ... l#disqus_thread

CVS replied, “These complaints reflect only a handful of cases from our 50,000 clients, for whom we have saved £600m since our incorporation. We are fully regulated and our contractual terms are very clear, but we are always willing to discuss any instance in which a client is in some way dissatisfied.”

1)  If you are one of the many who signed a contract with CVS, do you believe their terms are clear?
2)  Did you clearly understand you would be paying 50% of any saving for five years?
3)  After paying for five years, do you feel it is fair they are demanding payment for another two years?
4)  Regarding the above reply from CVS, do you feel CVS are willing to discuss any instance in which a client is dissatisfied, or would you describe their communication approach as harassment?
5)  CVS state they are fully regulated, either, they should not be, or perhaps the regulations are not worth the paper they are written on?

What is your experience, and what is your opinion?
Join the discussion.

What I would suggest is anybody who has a complaint gets in touch with the clients named in the article to form a mass action against cvs.it is a joke that cvs state  that they try to resolve any complaints.no they do not.they just harrass and threaten.top legal opinion confirms that they can only charge up to 2015 if the contract was signed before the govt announced the extension of the rating period.however my main concern is jason Peter Clarke connection with this company.it is not just about strattons and oldfields scam,he was also involved with club riviera.accordding to an ex employee of cvs,although he is not a director he still runs the show.

The business model of CVS and their ilk is that of bulk submission of speculative appeals. Unlike many other rating agents who will only tend to summit an appeal if they're sure of a reasonable chance of success, by offering 'no win no fee' and hard sell cold calling, they can sign up many more clients. An appeal will be submitted with little or no evidence of inaccuracy or the benefit of an initial survey. The effect of this is inevitably their average success rate will be somewhat lower. By taking commission from incidental successes, they are a success story in their own right. And indeed no doubt there will be many customers who have benefitted. Even if it was was by happy accident. So that's okay then. You have nothing to lose... right?

Actually, you might.

Many of the VOA's survey records are very old and out of date. And being as people tend to improve their properties over time rather than make them worse, it is logical to assume that should these surveys be checked and updated, it would result in rates increases. And that's exactly what happens. CVS rocks the boat with a speculative appeal, the VOA checks their survey, finds it insufficient, CVS withdraws their appeal, the VOA increases your rates. And that's fine with CVS because the consequences are not theirs. I think you'd be shocked if you knew how often this happens.

Another downside is you only get one opportunity to appeal on any one grounds within any one rating list. So if CVS withdraw their appeal and you have any suspicion that they've not done a very good job, you have lost your right to appeal again. No second bite of the cherry for you my old son!

This business practice of bulk submission also affects everyone else who have not signed up to CVS too. In submitting so many appeals, of which the vast majority were never destined to come to anything, yet still have to be given full and due consideration, it clogs up the system. Bearing in mind resources are not exactly abundant in government departments nowadays. So you may have a perfectly valid appeal outstanding with the VOA, but it's probably going to be sitting in a queue with thousands of speculative CVS appeals. You're probably going to have a pretty long wait on your hands. And who do you think always gets the blame for that? Clue: Not CVS.

What really irks though is that in any issue relating to business rates, the press always seeks out a quote from CVS. Like they're somehow the reputable, respected champions of hard working downtrodden businesses. Their word taken as gospel, never questioned. Yeah, that really irks!

Have CVS actually taken anyone to court over the extra 2 years as yet? This will be key to everyone else's cases. I guess it will need someone to refuse to pay and challenge in Court.

If you were in cvs shoes,would you take them to court.with the publicity surrounding this company they would be on a very sticky wicket.media attention would follow this case and if they lost,which I believe they would,they would have to pay everybody back where they have charged for the extra two years.

CVS used to publish its standard terms and conditions on its website until very recently. Basically was one A4 sheet with 5000 words in 5pt type. A client sent me a copy of these and you would need to be a lawyer and a rating expert to understand what most of it meant and the most important and onerous clauses were at the end and not the start. Has anyone on this post put those T&C's in front of a lawyer?

ah a new user name for you......

Hi,

We are also having difficulties with CVS. I saw your posting and would be keen to discuss things further if we can - any help or advice would be much appreciated. A long-running saga.

Rob

Manchesterboy, have you read this article - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysect ... -treatment.html

There are contact details on there for the journalist who is compiling a whole load of evidence, she would be very keen to speak to you. Her email address is rebecca.burn-callander@telegraph.co.uk

yes I have seen that article - it is what directed me to this site. Is there a way we can 'direct message' each other on here to discuss things a little further?

I don't think there is a private message function on this website unfortunately.  CVS are clearly also monitoring what is said as well, just so that you are aware.

I seem to remember there was another email address set up for people to get in touch though, have a read through the last few pages, it might be on there.

Ah, here you go - connedbycvs@hotmail.com