FCCPC bars facility firm from forcing services on residents
Written by Jamz 100.1 fm on August 21, 2025
The Federal Competition And Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) has barred Peachville Platinum Facility Management (PPFM) Limited from forcing its services on members of the Peachville Estate Residents Association (PERA), Abuja.
The agency ordered PPFM to “cease and desist from enforcing any clause that compels residents or allottees to subscribe to PPFM’s services as a condition for property ownership or occupancy”.
FCCPC further directed the company to “desist from any acts of coercion or service disconnection arising from residents’ refusal to engage PPFM’s services.
It ordered PPFM to “immediately provide PERA and all affected residents with a clear statement of all service charges levied from August 2024 to date, with an explanation of the basis and justification for each.”
The company is also directed to “acknowledge PERA as the representative body of the Peachville Estate community for all matters of collective interest, consistent with Nigerian law,” and to “take necessary steps to amend its service engagement model to comply with the provisions of the FCCPA, 2018.”
The company and its executive director “shall comply with this order within seven business days of receiving this notice,” FCCPC ordered.
FCCPC acted on a consumer complaint from PERA against PPFM regarding allegations of “coercive and anticompetitive imposition of PPFM as a mandatory facility manager, unjustified service charges, and failure to deliver satisfactory services, including power, water, security, and internet access”.
The agency stated that the complaint was received on August 8, 2024, following which it engaged both parties in mediation and correspondence between August 2024 and February 2025.
FCCPC said: “PPFM gave assurances to address the deficiencies identified by residents but failed to fully resolve the substantive issues, especially those concerning forced service tie-ins, accountability, and residents’ freedom of choice.
“Between March and May 2025, the Commission received repeated complaints from PERA detailing PPFM’s continued enforcement of a service regime alleged to violate competition law principles and consumer rights.
“Furthermore, the Commission found that the continued imposition of nonnegotiable service terms, opaque billing, and lack of performance monitoring amounted to unfair, unreasonable, and unjust contract terms, contrary to Sections 127-129 of the FCCPA 2018.
“PPFM’s attempt to deny PERA’s legal standing was also found to be unsubstantiated.
“The Commission notes that PERA is duly registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission, and in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Famakinwa v. Oloja Estate Residents Association [20161 LPELR-41066 (SC), a residents’ association may lawfully represent all residents in a community, regardless of individual membership.
“By the provisions of Section 155 of the FCCPA 2018, ‘except where otherwise provided for in this Act, any person who contravenes any consumer right commits an offence and in the case of a natural person, liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to payment of fine not exceeding N10,000,000.00 or to both the fine and imprisonment; in the case of a body corporate, is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than N100,000,000.00 or 10 per cent of its turnover in the preceding business year, whichever is higher; and in the case of a body corporate, each director of the body corporate is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to payment of fine not exceeding N10,000,000.00 or to both the fine and imprisonment.”
