Brixton property developers Lexadon: Gerry Knight fined £175k under Proceeds of Crime Act

[DaveCinzano]

A multi-millionaire property developer with a substantial Brixton portfolio has been prosecuted under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

Jerry Knight, director of Lexadon Property Group, was ordered to pay out more than £175,000 after renting out a building at 48 Trent Road, Brixton, as four flats without the proper planning permission.

Sentencing at Inner London Crown Court last month, Mr Recorder K King said that Knight “flagrantly pressed ahead and flouted the regulations.”

He ordered Lexadon Ltd to pay £143,134 that they made from renting out the property as flats, as well as a £13,000 fine and Lambeth’s £6,812 costs. Knight was also fined £13,000 [...]​

http://www.brixtonblog.com/brixton-...lats-without-proper-planning-permission/25026

More:

...Knight’s company bought three Rushcroft Road mansion blocks from Lambeth council in January this year for a combined value of £7.5million, after shortlife tenants and squatters were evicted from the buildings...Lexadon acquired the formerly squatted Clifton Mansions, Coldharbour Lane, from Lambeth council.

The firm also owns the Viaduct development and the former Angel pub, Coldharbour Lane, former Clapham Police Station, 435 Coldharbour Lane and many more properties locally. Another recent acquisition is the former Walton Lodge Laundry, next to Brixton Village [...]​

Another wealth creator being penalised by petty bureaucrats

 

[Rushy]

As I commented on The Blog: The utter hypocrisy here is that Lambeth has spent the past five years selling off so many Victorian houses which they had themselves illegally split into flats without planning permission. They had to be sold at knock down prices because lenders would not lend against them as three flats (because of the lack of permission and building regulations sign off) nor as houses (because they were illegaly arranged as flats). This limited the potential buyers to largely cash purchasers who could then step in, regularise the planning (usually fairly easily) and refurbish. Perversely, Lambeth sold some of these to Mr Knight. What jokers!

ETA - properties were sold at open auction so they were purchased openly and fairly. Lambeth simply did not make any effort to sort out their planning breaches so that best prices could be achieved.

 

[Rushy]

It's worth pointing out that planning breaches are not a criminal act. But once an enforcement notice has been served, failing to comply with an enforcement notice is a crime.

 

[editor]

Tsk tsk. And his company stole one of my photos too. Slippery.

 

[el-ahrairah]

corrupt as fuck.

 

[Gingerman]

A multi-millionaire property developer with a substantial Brixton portfolio has been prosecuted under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

Jerry Knight, director of Lexadon Property Group, was ordered to pay out more than £175,000 after renting out a building at 48 Trent Road, Brixton, as four flats without the proper planning permission.

Sentencing at Inner London Crown Court last month, Mr Recorder K King said that Knight “flagrantly pressed ahead and flouted the regulations.”

He ordered Lexadon Ltd to pay £143,134 that they made from renting out the property as flats, as well as a £13,000 fine and Lambeth’s £6,812 costs. Knight was also fined £13,000 [...]​

http://www.brixtonblog.com/brixton-...lats-without-proper-planning-permission/25026

More:

...Knight’s company bought three Rushcroft Road mansion blocks from Lambeth council in January this year for a combined value of £7.5million, after shortlife tenants and squatters were evicted from the buildings...Lexadon acquired the formerly squatted Clifton Mansions, Coldharbour Lane, from Lambeth council.

The firm also owns the Viaduct development and the former Angel pub, Coldharbour Lane, former Clapham Police Station, 435 Coldharbour Lane and many more properties locally. Another recent acquisition is the former Walton Lodge Laundry, next to Brixton Village [...]​

Another wealth creator being penalised by petty bureaucrats

 

[SarfLondoner]

As I commented on The Blog: The utter hypocrisy here is that Lambeth has spent the past five years selling off so many Victorian houses which they had themselves illegally split into flats without planning permission. They had to be sold at knock down prices because lenders would not lend against them as three flats (because of the lack of permission and building regulations sign off) nor as houses (because they were illegaly arranged as flats). This limited the potential buyers to largely cash purchasers who could then step in, regularise the planning (usually fairly easily) and refurbish. Perversely, Lambeth sold some of these to Mr Knight. What jokers!

ETA - properties were sold at open auction so they were purchased openly and fairly. Lambeth simply did not make any effort to sort out their planning breaches so that best prices could be achieved.

It wouldn't surprise me if the people at lambeth did nothing because they are taking back handers to do nothing,Then getting a drink off of the developers who buy the places on the cheap. Easy money when you think about it.

 

[leanderman]

We should just give the whole of Brixton to Knight now - and be done with it.

 

[Rushy]

It wouldn't surprise me if the people at lambeth did nothing because they are taking back handers to do nothing,Then getting a drink off of the developers who buy the places on the cheap. Easy money when you think about it.

I don't think that kind of thing goes on anymore - I've certainly never come across it myself. I can't see how it would work on the auctions. Maybe on the bigger stuff which is tendered? I just think they don't know what they are doing a lot of the time and don't give that much of a shit. If you can get 75% of the cash for no effort - why bother working for the other 25%.

 

[editor]

We should just give the whole of Brixton to Knight now - and be done with it.

Has he ever given anything back to Brixton? He's trousered tens of millions out of the place but I've never seen his name connected with any kind of community/charitable donations.

He could, course, be donating like a champion in private, but I've never heard anyone I know working in various local charity/community ventures mention him in any kind of positive way. Word usually gets out about things like that, even in private.

 

[DaveCinzano]

It wouldn't surprise me if the people at lambeth did nothing because they are taking back handers to do nothing,Then getting a drink off of the developers who buy the places on the cheap. Easy money when you think about it.

Surely not!

 

[leanderman]

Has he ever given anything back to Brixton? He's trousered tens of millions out of the place but I've never seen his name connected with any kind of community/charitable donations.

He could, course, be donating like a champion in private, but I've never heard anyone I know working in various local charity/community ventures mention him in any kind of positive way. Word usually gets out about things like that, even in private.

Interesting point.

I know that the family that has the freehold to much of the markets area gives money to Jewish charities, and probably other stuff.

 

[CH1]

Interesting point.
I know that the family that has the freehold to much of the markets area gives money to Jewish charities, and probably other stuff.

Same used to apply to Freshwater Group (Daejan Holdings) owners of Effra Court on Brixton Hill and The High in Streatham - or they were in the 80s.

Have the Knights got form on charitable works?

BTW Primark in the form of Garfield Weston Foundation have given £50 million + to Kings College Hospital, so next time people moan about Primark Bangladeshi slave labour, think about their hospital treatment.

 

[leanderman]

Same used to apply to Freshwater Group (Daejan Holdings) owners of Effra Court on Brixton Hill and The High in Streatham - or they were in the 80s.

Have the Knights got form on charitable works?

BTW Primark in the form of Garfield Weston Foundation have given £50 million + to Kings College Hospital, so next time people moan about Primark Bangladeshi slave labour, think about their hospital treatment.

I suppose any donations might be in the filed accounts.

 

[CH1]

I suppose any donations might be in the filed accounts.

My recollection was that in common with many other property companies there are quite a few interlinked entries for Lexadon companies on the Companies House website.

It is possible to obtain free print-outs of who the directors are and when they were appointed, but to get accounts you have to pay.

Another issue is that since Gordon Brown introduce "light-touch" regulation, shortly before the so-called crash of 2007, accounts are not needed for companies less than 2 years old, lower than £x turnover etc.

If I was a stalker of property magnates I might feel inclined to invest in a load of reports - but as it is I am awaiting another enthusiast to oblige.

 

[leanderman]

True - they seem to set up companies for their separate developments

Their net worth seems to have doubled from £30m to £58m in just three years (2010-13). And basically no debt (£3m)

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/01474635/LEXADON-LIMITED/financial-accounts

 

[DaveCinzano]

My recollection was that in common with many other property companies there are quite a few interlinked entries for Lexadon companies on the Companies House website.

It is possible to obtain free print-outs of who the directors are and when they were appointed, but to get accounts you have to pay.

There are free services which interrogate Companies House data, eg:

http://companycheck.co.uk/
https://www.duedil.com/

 

[Rushy]

I suppose any donations might be in the filed accounts.

I'm always pretty suspicious about the motivations of anyone who feels the need to tell everyone about what they've done for charity. I certainly wouldn't expect that not knowing about it was cause for concern in itself.

 

[Rushy]

True - they seem to set up companies for their separate developments

Pretty normal. Banks and investors usually require it because they're protected from other projects over which they have no control going bust. They would normally still have a personal guarantee of some sort from a director which might be small compared to the loan but which makes it unattractive to walk away.

 

[leanderman]

I'm always pretty suspicious about the motivations of anyone who feels the need to tell everyone about what they've done and what they are going to do for charity. I certainly wouldn't expect that not knowing about it was cause for concern.

There's probably research into the economics of anonymous giving.

 

[editor]

I'm always pretty suspicious about the motivations of anyone who feels the need to tell everyone about what they've done for charity.

Jerry Knight didn't seem to have any problem putting his name to the only charitable donation I can find of his online.

Personally, I think if you make tens of millions out of your neighbourhood, giving a bit back would be a good thing, and it wouldn't hurt to let a few people know about it either, given the general reputation of landlords and their impact in this particular community. And even more so when you've just been slapped down with a massive fine under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

But it's OK. I don't expect you to agree.

 

[snowy_again]

Who?

 

[Rushy]

Jerry Knight didn't seem to have any problem putting his name to the only charitable donation I can find of his online.

Personally, I think if you make tens of millions out of your neighbourhood, giving a bit back would be a good thing, and it wouldn't hurt to let a few people know about it either, given the general reputation of landlords and their impact in this particular community. And even more so when you've just been slapped down with a massive fine under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

But it's OK. I don't expect you to agree.

I have no idea what the guy does or does not give to charity - and can't really see its relevance to the fine for not complying with enforcement action - but, trawling Just Giving donations and posting links to them? A bit creepy, no?

 

[editor]

I have no idea what the guy does or does not give to charity - and can't really see its relevance to the fine for not complying with enforcement action - but, trawling Just Giving donations and posting links to them? A bit creepy, no?

I didn't "trawl" anything. I just did a quick search to see if there's any evidence of this multi millionaire giving anything back to the community he's made so much money from.

He's your pal, isn't he?

 

[snowy_again]

Oof! Nice dig there.

Our of interest, how would a google search necessarily find donations from an individual? They can give in various ways, through various bodies which may or may not include their name, and can try to define the level of public awareness of their donation. Corporate donations are obviously slight more regulated.

Besides there's a variety of opinions on the nature of 'charity' on here; ranging from 'it's a Victorian concept to keep the poor down and all it provides should be met by the State' to 'it's a necessary sector holding the state to account and reacting to need that the State can't yet do'.

The Knight's situation is not exactly a greenwashing approach.

 

[cuppa tee]

Our of interest, how would a google search necessarily find donations from an individual? They can give in various ways, through various bodies which may or may not include their name, and can try to define the level of public awareness of their donation. Corporate donations are obviously slight more regulated.

Besides there's a variety of opinions on the nature of 'charity' on here; ranging from 'it's a Victorian concept to keep the poor down and all it provides should be met by the State' to 'it's a necessary sector holding the state to account and reacting to need that the State can't yet do'.

The Knight's situation is not exactly a greenwashing approach.

If you search Jerry Knight Lexadon on google his donation to just giving comes on page 2 of results
Incidentally here is Lambeths own version of events
http://lambethnews.wordpress.com/20...crime-act-powers-to-go-after-planning-cheats/
which reveals that...............
" Lexadon Ltd had applied three times to turn 48 Trent Road in Brixton into flats but failed to come to agreement with Lambeth planners. Despite having no planning permission, the property was rented as four flats"
the database suggests this to be true
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...9A2DEE20D7A774332A02E8EEF9B4?action=firstPage
but I can't see any mention of the five flat conversion that JK spoke of in the Brixton blog piece

 

[Rushy]

I didn't "trawl" anything. I just did a quick search to see if there's any evidence of this multi millionaire giving anything back to the community he's made so much money from.

He's your pal, isn't he?

I had a coffee with him once and nodded hello four or five times over the past 15 years. In fact, I've spent more time chatting face to face with you. But I suppose when all else fails, resort to same old desperate innuendo...

 

[Rushy]

If you search Jerry Knight Lexadon on google his donation to just giving comes on page 2 of results
Incidentally here is Lambeths own version of events
http://lambethnews.wordpress.com/20...crime-act-powers-to-go-after-planning-cheats/
which reveals that...............
" Lexadon Ltd had applied three times to turn 48 Trent Road in Brixton into flats but failed to come to agreement with Lambeth planners. Despite having no planning permission, the property was rented as four flats"
the database suggests this to be true
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...9A2DEE20D7A774332A02E8EEF9B4?action=firstPage
but I can't see any mention of the five flat conversion that JK spoke of in the Brixton blog piece

Yep - I couldn't the five flat permission either. Doesn't mean it is not there - the database quite often has omissions - but it makes it less likely.

I was tickled by the title of this application at the site:
"Conversion of property into three self contained flats comprising three 2-bed and one 1-bed units "

 

[snowy_again]

If you search Jerry Knight Lexadon on google his donation to just giving comes on page 2 of results
Incidentally here is Lambeths own version of events
http://lambethnews.wordpress.com/20...crime-act-powers-to-go-after-planning-cheats/
which reveals that...............
" Lexadon Ltd had applied three times to turn 48 Trent Road in Brixton into flats but failed to come to agreement with Lambeth planners. Despite having no planning permission, the property was rented as four flats"
the database suggests this to be true
http://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/onli...9A2DEE20D7A774332A02E8EEF9B4?action=firstPage
but I can't see any mention of the five flat conversion that JK spoke of in the Brixton blog piece

He's married so his wife or dependents could make donations too (if they're giving from individual wealth). I'm not spending cash to look at their accounts to find out.

[And caveat; I'm not supporting the shonky actions of Lexadon]

 

[leanderman]

Yep - I couldn't the five flat permission either. Doesn't mean it is not there - the database quite often has omissions - but it makes it less likely.

I was tickled by the title of this application at the site:
"Conversion of property into three self contained flats comprising three 2-bed and one 1-bed units "

So Knight was one of the people who trashed our streets by sub-dividing homes.

(I know this tactic was encouraged by officialdom)