You are here: Home / Archives for ARMA

Minister holds roundtable talks on leasehold

February 12, 2013 by

MpriskHousing Minister Mark Prisk (right) is holding an hour-long roundtable discussion on residential leasehold tomorrow.

The meeting is to be attended by trade body representatives such as Michelle Banks, of ARMA – a former civil servant at the Department of Communities and Local Government – RICS, and the Association of Retirement Housing Managers (ARHM). Representatives of the Ministry of Justice will attend, as well as the two civil servants at the DCLG who handle leaseholder issues.

Also attending will be Sir Peter Bottomley, MP for Worthing West, who has an interest in leasehold abuses, and barrister Stephanie Smith, who took on the case at no charge of the “legal torture” pensioners at Oakland Court, Worthing.

LKP / Carlex will be attending as an observer.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , ,

ARMA-Q: a qualified welcome, but it is not a new dawn

September 21, 2012 by

COMMENT

The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership broadly welcomes the draft ARMA-Q initiative, which may help resolve the less poisonous disputes in blocks managed by ARMA members.

It has also made suggestions to improve it: first, to make the disciplinary procedures public, like ours; secondly, to strengthen the requirement to declare ‘conflicts of interest’ to leaseholders.

It cannot be disputed that managing agents should tell leaseholders that their company is owned by the freehold-owning landlord. Or, that a managing agent is employed predominantly by one freeholder. These would be bars to LKP accreditation but, unfortunately, they exist with some of the ARMA membership.

It is also worth emphasising that many property managers have no intention of joining ARMA, which they believe has been collusive in the abuses of leasehold. The most spectacular examples in monetary terms of over-charging have been the handiwork of ARMA members. Nottingham-based Walton and Allen, an LKP member, “resigned from ARMA membership in 2011 as it became evident that its council is controlled by those very managing agents whom leaseholders want removing from their buildings”.

Omertà, the Sicilian vow of silence, has been a part of ARMA’s unwritten code for far too long.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: ARMA, News Tagged With: ,

ARMA-Q: an ethical facelift for a flawed trade body

September 21, 2012 by

Next month the Association of Residential Managing Agents unveils its new ethical facelift ARMA-Q – having never, in its 21-year history, publicly expelled a single member. (See ARMA’s draft announcement pdf at the bottom of this article.)

There is to be a 10-point “consumer charter” to reassure leaseholders and an apparently independent regulatory chairman, assisted by a panel of perhaps 12 industry and lay members, who will accredit the 270 existing ARMA members and vet ones that apply to join.

In addition, the regulator will rule on disciplinary issues, imposing fines and costs and, ultimately, expelling offenders from the organization. It is not clear at this stage whether this process will be public, which would be the only means of making it effective.

At present, complaints about an ARMA member are addressed internally by the company concerned and then go on to whichever Ombudsman scheme the firm has signed up to. These rulings are not made public, and the cash settlements are trifling. They cannot be compared to the redress achievable in the civil courts, or LVTs.

ARMA-Q is stressing the independence of the regulator, who will nonetheless be appointed and paid for by the governing council of the trade body. The appointment will not be from within the sector but a “person of established professional standing preferably, but not essentially, with a strong public profile”. An “overwhelming 200 plus applications were received” after the job was advertised in the Sunday Times in June. [Read more...]

Filed Under: ARMA, News Tagged With: , ,

ARMA-Q must expose managing agents’ ‘financial interests’

September 21, 2012 by

Robert Plumb
, chief executive of managing agents HML Holdings, which is accredited to LKP and is a member ARMA, considers ARMA-Q and the complexity of transparency for residential managing agents

Growing leaseholder empowerment and awareness combined with the immediacy of communications will inevitably mean that managing agents will require a thorough understanding of what it means to be truly transparent.  In leasehold there are many complex permutations of the relationship between landlords, their managing agents and their leaseholders. It is, of course, the leaseholders who actually pay the bills, but often landlords who take the decisions. Given the historically poor level of transparency and the variety and complexity of leasehold structures there is significant scope for misunderstanding. In fact put more harshly there is significant opportunity for a lack of transparency and the use of “smoke and mirrors”.

An understandable and fundamental principle that we should anticipate is that in the minds of leaseholders they should be able to trust the impartiality of their managing agent.  They would like to believe that the agent (whose fees they pay) will act in their best interests when deciding which supplier or contractor to use for their building.  In relying on their managing agent to select the best value for money supplier (and best of course is not always cheapest) they would naturally want the agent not to be compromised by the agents own financial interest in the transaction or in the supplier. One can’t help observing that the downward pressure on property managers’ fees that occurs in difficult economic times, such as we have had recently, has had the effect of keeping base management fees artificially low. This may well have contributed to agents having to look at other ways of making money in order to survive. It is these additional income streams in particular that require additional transparency.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: ARMA, ARMA-Q, News Tagged With: , ,

What is LKP?

August 1, 2012 by

The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership exists to protect ordinary leaseholders from being fleeced by landlords and their agents. They exploit the many opportunities offered by this flawed form of property tenure.

The LKP seeks to identify and accredit property managing agents who sign up to open accounting and straight dealing.

They charge a clear fee for property management – often on behalf of the residents’ own management companies – and do not pocket commissions offered by insurers, energy companies and assorted service providers.

In short, they don’t collude with others to cheat the residents, which is particularly depressing to encounter with the elderly in retirement developments.

To be accredited, LKP managing agents must sign up to a 35-point accreditation process, and residents in the blocks they manage are selected at random to provide references.

LKP also provides an editorial service for leaseholders.

Leasehold is a murky little corner of residential property, but with 1.8 million leaseholders and £3 billion a year spent on service charges there is huge scope to cheat unsuspecting homeowners.

Redress is complicated and expensive and, if you lose, all the freehold landlord’s legal expenses – barristers are now routinely used in LVTs – can be reclaimed in the service charges.

The trade bodies involved in property management – the Association of Residential Managing Agents (ARMA), the Association of Retirement Housing Managers (ARHM) and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) – have been well aware of abuses in leasehold management for years.

They all have codes of practice that are feeble and discretionary, and that have well attested loopholes – even RICS, which is the only serious professional body among them.

Following numerous leasehold scandals – often involving ARMA and ARHM members – they now parrot “transparency” and demand regulation. Previously they were silent, and neither ARMA nor ARHM has ever publicly expelled a member.

LKP is also lobbying for legislative change in leasehold, particularly to regulate managing agents who control vast sums of money without any supervision. We have instigated debates in both the Commons and the Lords on these issues.

Of course, the ideal solution to leasehold is to stop building any more of it, and instead to build commonhold – which is what applies in the rest of the world, outside England and Wales.

There is a mass of information on this site and we hope it is useful.

We welcome inquiries from ordinary leaseholders and have a network of supporters and sympathisers who have dealt with everything from £500,000 LVT bust-ups, to contested Right To Manage applications.

LKP provides no services for which there are charges. It is funded by the accreditation of participating managing agents.

Sebastian O’Kelly

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
sok@leaseholdknowledge.com
07808 328230

 

Filed Under: aaa What is LKP? Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

First task for ARMA’s ethical panel: examine ARMA itself

June 18, 2012 by

The Association of Residential Managing Agents is seeking to brush up its act by appointing a chairman and members for the disciplinary panel of its “new self-regulatory regime”.

It was advertising the posts in yesterday’s Sunday Times.

This is an attempt by the trade body to regain credibility after its long years of silence when numerous LVTs made rulings against its own members.

No managing agent has ever publicly been expelled from the organisation, and it is unclear whether the new system, when it is unveiled, will keep disciplinary hearings confidential.

“The independent regulator would determine disciplinary cases brought before the panel,” says ARMA.

So here is a first complaint – against ARMA itself.

Why is the annual conference of this trade body being sponsored by an outfit called Energy Renewals, which is offering “ongoing admin payments” of up to £250,000 to managing agents?

These payments are rewards for spending other people’s money in the form of energy contracts and can go straight into the pockets of managing agents, or freeholders, without leaseholders knowing a thing about them.

Energy Renewals says that the payments would typically be between £3,000 and £50,000 a year.

Major corporate clients – presumably the largest national managing agents – can do better still with payments of £50,000 to £250,000.

Leaseholders would not have to be told anything about these payments.

How does this sort of sponsorship tally with ARMA’s enthusiasm “to make a difference to the lives of the thousands of people who live in leasehold flats by raising standards and promoting customer service”, as its advert in yesterday’s Sunday Times puts it?

 

Full story on Energy Renewal offer, Bungs ‘r’ Us, can be read here

Filed Under: ARMA, News Tagged With:

Stop this ‘legal torture’ of pensioners, says MP

June 4, 2012 by

Sir Peter Bottomley denounces LVT stratagems in post on LKP

Sir Peter Bottomley attacks “relentless money-grabbing opponent”

A senior Tory MP has posted on LKP today to express his utter disgust at the delaying tactics used by the freeholder  – whose lawyers included Laceys, who proclaim themselves the “honorary solicitors” of ARMA – at the Oakland Court LVT earlier this month.

Sir Peter Bottomley, MP for Worthing West, claimed that this amounted to “legal torture” and he condemned the entire LVT process, referring to “the series of actions and expensive stratagems faced by elderly frail constituents without the financial resources to play unending tribunal games with a relentless money grabbing opponent”.

The £137,000 action [see below] was won by the 40 pensioners, but two of the original applicants died and three went into care before the LVT was heard.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, News, Oakland Court Tagged With: , , , , ,

How you get scammed on insurance … with tips from LEASE!

June 3, 2012 by

It is a brilliant (not-so-little) earner and one that – astonishingly – isn’t illegal.

Buy up residential freeholds, charge enormous commissions for arranging the insurance and pass the bill on to leaseholders, who – and this is the really brilliant bit – have no legal right whatsoever to find out what the commissions are.

The Sunday Times earlier this week recommended that the wealthy buy up freeholds for the ground rents, adding: “Additional income comes from commissions for arranging building insurance …”

In fact, loading the insurance is the best gig in town.

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Insurance scams, LEASE, News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Oop! No surprise why this word is causing ARMA difficulty

April 30, 2012 by

ARMA now supports transparency, regulation, good governance, ombudsman, open debate, protection of leaseholders’ interests etc etc … having for years benefited from the subscriptions of large companies which have loaded stealth charges, trousered sneaky commissions or awarded their own subsidiaries absurdly generous contracts. All paid for by ordinary leaseholders.

This has been upheld time and again at LVTs, which is why so few in the property industry, Parliament or the civil service are still persuaded by this organisation.

It is a fig-leaf that no longer covers the naughty bits.

FACT: No managing agent has ever publicly been expelled from ARMA.

Filed Under: ARMA, News Tagged With: ,

Baroness Hanham and Rupert Murdoch: spot the difference

April 27, 2012 by
One is parroting the non-policy of Grant Shapps, and the other has never met him or, if he has, asked no favours

 

By ‘Barrack-room Lawyer’

(As ARHM president Baroness Greengross defined OAP complainers in retirement flats with too much time on their hands)

In last Monday’s House of Lords debate, initiated by Baroness Gardner of Parkes following meetings with LKP, a number of important issues faced by the leasehold sector were raised.

They were rebutted by the Government Minister Baroness Hanham, of the Department of Communities and Local Government, who insisted that everything is balanced and that the vast majority of leaseholders are “satisfied”.

She went on to claim that the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal service is now nothing to do with her department, and tells us that it is the leaseholders’ responsibility to ensure that there is nothing onerous in the lease. (And you thought that’s what you employed a solicitor for and why we had laws to protect us!)

For many years, Hanham – and her predecessors -– have been able to rely on leaseholders not fully understanding  the complexities of this form of tenure, which she admits is a complex issue.

As a result, many a Murdoch like statement on leasehold is thrown in the leaseholders direction. The Baroness is able to claim evidence where none exists and, conversely, to claim no knowledge on issues well known to her department.

I would like to correct some of the errors in her statement to the House.

‘Leaseholders are satisfied’

“We believe and understand that most leaseholders are, in fact, satisfied not only with their property but with the way it is managed. “

This is not true. Baroness Hanham and her department have absolutely no data to support this claim in much the same way that Housing Ministers Grant Shapps has absolutely no data to support his claim there is “balance” in the current legislation.

On the contrary, her department is fully aware that Which Magazine asserted late last year that more than £700 million is being overcharged each year in service charges, and that only a tiny percentage of that money is ever recovered by leaseholders through the LVT.

The department is also fully aware of the London Assembly report, Highly Charged, adopted by all parties in Assembly, as recently as March 2012, which says there are serious problems with leasehold. The report’s title would surely have given the minister a clue?

“We have a statutory framework in place that aims to balance the different parties’ interests in the same property,” she says. “The goal is to provide leaseholders with the rights and protections they need, while recognising the legitimate interests of landlords. “

Again the Baroness and her department have absolutely no data to support this claim and appears to ignore all the data which suggests a wholly different position applies.

“Service charges are an issue. All sorts of issues have been raised today about the protection of money and service charges, how much they are and what is involved with them.

“Again, I am afraid that that is a matter for the leaseholders to watch carefully.”

Hanham fails to mention that Grant Shapps abandoned legislation that would have protected leaseholders’ funds when he assumed office in 2010.

Leaseholders have few rights to “watch carefully”. Her department is also fully aware that there have been a number of instances where monies have disappeared and that there is little that can be done to recover the losses.

“It is important that what the managing agents do, and the costs that they put forward, are transparent, and that the leaseholders have a number of rights. They can and must ask for a summary of service charges, and those charges should be consulted upon.

“They must be able to see the supporting documentation. They have a right to see insurance documents and the right to have a management audit carried out, albeit at their own expense. So they have some control over the service charges, although I think my noble friend Lady Miller mentioned capital charges and the fact that some people had not understood that they were going to come in.”

‘Good codes of practice’

Hanham fails to point out that her department is fully aware that due to the complexity of the legislation few of these rights can be exercised.

Many sites receive their accounts years after payment and can take no action at all. Many sites also do not qualify for a number of the “rights” she lists.

To obtain a management audit, leaseholders must have 66 per cent of owners signed up to fund the audit. In many large modern developments with a high buy-to-let investor ownership, finding 30-40 per cent of owners can be impossible let alone finding 66 per cent!

Because of the difficulty of finding owners many sites do not have a legally recognised tenants’ association and, perversely, the legal guidance provided by Hanham’s department states that you need more members to become a recognised tenants’ (that is, residents’) association than it takes to obtain a right-to-manage ruling.

Hanham also fails to mention that right-to-manage is not available for many sites because the law was drafted long before many of the modern mixed uses developments, or sites with leasehold houses.

Also omitted from the Baroness’s statement on a number of these “rights” there is little or no sanction if the landlord chooses to ignore the law.

“Although the issue has not been entirely raised today, there have been concerns about the commissions taken on insurance. There are good codes of practice that ought to be adhered to.”

Again Hanham fails to mention that the disclosure of insurance commissions required under the codes of practice of both the Association of Retirement Housing Managers and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors is very carefully worded.

It is only the managing agents’ commissions that are required to be disclosed, not those taken by the freehold-owning landlord! As such, Hanham’s assurances are meaningless.

Under the law, it is the landlord who is entitled to take out the buildings insurance and, therefore, he who takes the insurance commission.

An excellent question Hanham might ask is why do ARHM and RICS choose to word their code as they do?

We finish with what is Hanham’s most disingenuous statement. It is, perhaps, unfair to criticise her for this “Murdoch-ism” as she is obliged to repeat the words of Grant “call me James” Shapps.

“The current legislative framework, if properly dealt with, can deliver the right balance between the parties involved-but provided it is matched by an  increasingly proactive and socially responsible approach by the professionals who are working within the sector.

‘ARHM and ARMA can only help’

“In taking this approach, the Government are, I recognise, presenting a real challenge to those professionals. I am therefore pleased to see this challenge being taken up by various professional bodies such as the Association of Retirement Housing Managers, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross [ARHM president], referred. This can only help leaseholders and others concerned within residential leasehold. “

Of course, ARHM and the Association of Residential Managing Agents (ARMA) are nothing more than trade bodies, whose only interest is in supporting their members interests. Ultimately, it is leaseholders who pay the hefty subscription fees for organisations that don’t serve their interests at all.

On the contrary, they have as members those who perpetrate some of the worst abuses in the industry: those very same managing agents roundly criticised in the London Assembly report.

Hanham’s worst “Murdoch-ism” was to claim a lack of knowledge of the issues regarding the LVT, as it is now part of the Ministry of Justice.

The truth is relevant data on LVTs was not collected when under the DCLG – only two years ago – so off-loading the blame onto the Department of Justice sounds a bit feeble.

Her department is also still responsible for enforcing 20 or so leasehold laws. If Hanham were to be a little more candid she would perhaps admit that here that her department holds NO data at all on how the law is working.

It simply does not know whether there is balance, nor does it not have the faintest idea how much leaseholders are being overcharged and what percentage are able to go to the LVT to recover these monies.

The suggestion from Hanham that this is just a London issue is countered by cases such as City Heights in Nottingham, which this week featured on the BBC.

The abuses exposed in the celebrated London disputes involving hundreds of thousands or, in one case, a million pounds, are echoed elswhere at sites managed by the same companies, which never get to the LVT.

If a company is charging excessive insurance commissions on one site, it is highly likely to be doing the same elsewhere. If they are entering into onerous related party transactions with one development they may well be doing the same at all similar developments.

The cases of City Heights in Nottingham (£420,000), Charter Quay in Kingston (£400,000) and St George’s Wharf in Vauxhall (£1 million) all involved companies related to the Peverel Group which were until recently owned by the Tchenguiz family.

If the insurance is loaded on these sites, as has been established, Baroness Hanham may care to ask whether the same has happened at the other 190,000 or so flats managed by this same group, including the many retirement developments.

Hanham should ask herself why so few sites are able to find their way to the LVT. Could it be that the law is not balanced and that leaseholders are not as satisfied as she assured the House of Lords?

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lonely Shapps: the only one who doesn’t think there is a need for leasehold regulation

April 2, 2012 by
Grant Shapps, Housing Minister, does not think the leasehold racket needs cleaning up, in spite of unanimous agreement in the industry – let alone the 1.8 million leaseholders themselves

 

The body representing the most powerful interests in British property fully supports greater regulation of the leasehold sector – leaving Housing Minister Grant Shapps isolated in blocking regulation.

That was the main finding of LKP’s meeting with the British Property Federation’s chief executive Liz Peace and Ian Fletcher, who heads the BPF’s residential division.

The BPF had in fact lobbied in 2010 to stall the introduction of the discretionary sections 152 and 156 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act, which was passed in 2002.

These protections to safeguard leaseholders’ money were abruptly jettisoned by  Shapps as soon as he took office in May 2010.

The BPF’s objections were that the sections were poorly drafted and the time-scale was unreasonable, but the basic principle – that leaseholders’ money should be better protected than it is now – was not disputed.

There is near unanimity on this – in theory – in the leasehold world, including among the trade bodies such as RICS, ARMA and the ARHM, and the BPF’s clarification will be hugely influential.

The London Assembly last month added its weight to the argument in its hard-hitting report on “opaque” service charges.

The only person who appears to believe there is balance in the system is Grant Shapps himself, who again in a recent letter to Zac Goldsmith MP, reiterated his opposition to improving the position of leaseholders.

Extract from Shapps letter to Zac Goldsmith on March 23 2012 saying why he thinks no regulation of the leasehold jungle is necessary – in order not to add costs to leaseholders!

He believes that greater protection will over-burden landlords and has an ideological aversion to regulation.

But the taxpayer-funded Leasehold Valuation Tribunals, which were supposedly low-cost simple tribunals, would benefit from clearer regulation.

At the moment, they are hugely weighted in favour of landlords, who play the system, repeatedly demand appeals and routinely employ counsel at hearings.

Whereas landlords can spend whatever they wish on legal representation – and, if they win, claim these legal fees out of the service charges – leaseholders can only win back £500 of legal costs.

The LVT battles of Charter Quay, St George’s Wharf and Chelsea Bridge Wharf all involved £20,000 to £30,000 of legal costs on the part of the leaseholders, and far more from the landlords.

The current inadequate LVT system does not represent good value for public money.

Compared with tenants in assured shorthold tenancies – whose deposit money has to be placed in a tenants’ deposit scheme – the position of leaseholders is astonishingly vulnerable.

Between £1 billion and £2 billion is paid by leaseholders in service charges every year – with £500 million in the capital alone, according to the London Assembly – yet there is hardly any protection for these funds at all.

They are simply held and used by the managing agent until such time as he choses to submit his accounts – and they need not arrive until up to 30 months after the money is spent, according to a recent a decision by the Upper Tribunal.

By that time a leaseholder may well have sold up, moved on or died.

For years the professional bodies have done very little to enforce their window-dressing codes of practice. Indeed, some of them have done their best to shelter the worst rogues in the industry.

Even the worst of these organisations now wants better regulation

 

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

January news archive

January 31, 2012 by

24.01.2012 Why does Anthony Essien, of LEASE the Leasehold Advisory Service, think “mediation” is the way forward in leasehold reform – when his own organisation scrapped its mediation service exactly a year ago? Read news for more …

23.01.2012 Will Boris Johnson support leasehold reform and defy government? Read Sebastian O’Kelly’s report on the Greater London Assembly meeting on leasehold reform on the NEWS page.

21.01.12  Visit our new Leasehold Knowledge Facebook page to view our recently loaded videos - http://www.facebook.com/LeaseholdKnowledge.

20.01.12 NEW APPOINTMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

ARMA – the appointment of the new Chief Executive, Michelle Banks,  (current employment – Deputy Director, Development Management (Planning), equivalent to the previous Grade 6 or 7 civil servant in the DCLG), has been announced. It was recently announced that Peter Hinchliffe would take up the new role of Head of Peverel’s Governance and Regulation Group. He was the former Lead Ombudsman of the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Peter Hinchliffe – new Peverel figleaf?

Ex Peverel Legal Eagle moves to Anchor

We have also just been informed that David Edwards, former Head of Legal Services at Peverel til July 2011, immediately become the Director of Compliance and Company Secretary at Anchor. Readers will remember that the former CEO of Anchor, John Belcher was historically the highest paid CEO in UK Social Housing Associations on a salary of £391K per annum. Jane Ashcroft is the current CEO of Anchor. Anchor is England’s largest not-for-profit housing association, providing housing, care and support to people over 55 years old. Registered as a charity, it is one of the largest in the UK, with a turnover of £286.5 million in 2009/10.

Peter Bottomley MP, joins the CarlEX Campaign

and has been in touch with us about a development in West Sussex who have won their case re overcharging at the LVT, and then won their appeal, and yet Peverel are re-appealing. Some people never learn! Details of this case will hopefully be publicised to a wider audience soon.We are also in touch with DCLG about this case

Job Description for the new Chief Executive’s role at ARMA

This is a very telling excerpt from the job description of the new Chief Executive recently recruited to replace the retiring David Hewett.   We will be looking closely at ARMA’s ability to impose discipline now that a new CE is taking up her post, having left DCLG.  On the basis that there is no legislation in place, and the various codes of practice are  unenforceable, how is this discipline going to be effected and effective?  Firing managing agents for losing many LVT’s damages ARMA’s revenue stream  – are they really going to do that?  We continue to doubt it, but will be looking out for any indication that their processes will become more robust in the future.  With less than 10% of the total number of managing agents signed up to this  organisation, what does this say about the remaining 90%? Why are they not convinced that paying the hefty fee to gain the ARMA logo and an electronic newsletter makes economic and business sense?

“ARMA’s Council is currently working on a five year plan and will expect the appointee to implement this subject to his or her input. The plan has the following stated objectives:

to maintain ARMA as “Fit for Purpose” so that its members may demonstrate Honesty, Competence and Professionalism;

to provide a competent Secretariat at suitable office premises with appropriate succession planning;

to maintain a sound financial base for the organisation;

to maintain a suitable Committee structure to control and promote the activities of ARMA

to provide suitable professional guidance to Members and the Public in the form of Guidance Notes and technical advice;

to ensure the continuance of the Annual Conference;

to maintain appropriate contact with other professional organisations including the IRPM

and to proactively increase membership of ARMA at all levels.

The expectation of the appointee can be split into five key elements:

proven capability of running an effective team that delivers to the members;

proven ability to run a business and all the facets thereof; technical knowledge within the residential leasehold sector – albeit supported by technical officers in place or to be appointed;

having extensive IT awareness to maximise the use of technology to further the aims of the organisation; and having the appropriate personal skills and attributes that will include:

- an eye for accuracy, detail and quality and the ability to deliver to timescales and within budgets

- ability to get on with and communicate effectively to people at all levels – well presented and personable – being a competent and confident public speaker

As to other more specific aspects of the role the appointee will have responsibility for, among things:

Business matters:

running an office including insurances, H&S, security, presentation and cost controls; staff management including legislative aspects, discipline, setting/agreeing, roles/tasks, monitoring; performance and team leadership and motivation; accounting including internal controls, bookkeeping, VAT, budgeting, financial, reporting and year-end accounts in conjunction with the auditors; ability to recognise business risks/liabilities and take appropriate action; and setting up / monitoring operational procedures for all relevant activities e.g. membership procedures, event bookings, etc.

Technical issues:

understand the leasehold management sector and all the key aspects thereof and an in-depth understanding of landlord and tenant legislation; have a working understanding of any other relevant legislation with the ability to identify implications for ARMA and the sector; understand and oversee the technical consultants’ activities and become involved where appropriate with various legislative / regulatory issues; and oversee regulatory activities, in particular complaints, ombudsman,and the delivery of training, etc.

Public relations:

be fully aware of ARMA’s reputation and its promotion and protection; have a broad knowledge of all relevant marketing needs and activities and be able to oversee / implement annual and longer-term plans;  ability to write (or oversee the writing of) publications and other communications including booklets, guidance notes, articles, etc; act as editor of publications and other communications including booklets, guidance notes, articles, newsletters, annual report etc; have an understanding of the media, (including TV, radio, press, journals) and how to communicate therewith; be able to build worthwhile relationships with all stakeholders including government and other bodies, groups, and individuals; and know how to represent / communicate ARMA’s views to government.”

We have noted and published DCLG’s view about leasehold reform over the last couple of years – they have stated endlessly that no reform is necessary, they are maintaining a watching brief etc etc. So is the new DCLG incumbent going to turn that around and persuade Mr Shapps that action is required in the next few months?  Only time will tell.  We await an invitation to go and meet her and discuss the reality of the plight of many leaseholders across the UK.

Everything must go: Tchenguiz to sell £3 billion portfolio

Vincent Tchenguiz has put his 250,000 UK freeholds up for sale for £3 billion, and looks like he is struggling for a buyer.

The largest property portfolio which has freeholds across the country, with 15,000 in London, has been offered to sovereign wealth funds.

Now, the bankers Lazard have widened the search for a buyer, opening talks with pension and insurance funds.

The portfolio, 40 per cent based in South East, has been built up by Tchenguiz over two decades and represents freeholds on 1 per cent of the UK’s entire housing stock, and has an average lease length of 60 years.

Tchenguiz has told the FT that the portfolio would give any buyer a safe and long-running exposure to UK house price growth.

He declined to comment on which buyers had been targeted, but said there had been “several expressions of interest in the portfolio”.

Tchenguiz appointed Lazard last year to advise on what to do with the portfolio, which is encumbered by debts of £2bn.

Experts have expressed doubt over the valuation of these assets in the past.

What part of ‘go away!’ don’t you understand, Vincent?

Charter Quay, in Kingston, Surrey, has scored three victories over Vincent Tchenguiz (and Peverel).

January 26 2012: A large raspberry is likely to be blown in the face of Vincent Tchenguiz on February 4 when the peppery residents of Charter Quay in Kingston vote on whether they want him to manage their block again.

This bizarre suggestion follows the re-payment of nearly £400,000 by the Tchenguiz’s group of freehold-owning companies over the past three years – with more possibly to follow.

The three-year management order by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal appointing managing agents HML Andertons in place of the Tchenguiz-owned  Estates and Management is due to end in August.

Estates and Management wants the site to return to its care and has told the tribunal “there is no reason to believe that there will be problems in the future”.

This a breathtaking statement, given that the Tchenguiz management was branded a “disgrace” in November last year for doling out CCTV and insurance brokering deals to his own companies.

The Tchenguiz modus operandi of buying freeholds or head leases for perhaps 1.5% of the capital all the leaseholders have paid at a development, then appointing a managing agent he owns and creating a lucrative supply of services, is well established.

It resulted in a most strongly worded LVT ruling in November last year and a £180,000 re-payment.

Residents at Charter Quay are veterans at fighting their  landlord and the assorted managing agents he owns.

Their current court-appointed managing agent HML Andertons is fighting a court action to recover rental charges for the common areas.

The case has huge significance for retirement leaseholders where rentals for house manager flats can cause the same problem.

Both can be challenged if they are outside the terms of the lease.

The case of Warwickshire Hamlets v Gedden is a good example on this issue which went to appeal to the Lands Tribunal where the tenants case was upheld. Appeal cases are important as they set precedent for the lower LVTs to follow.

In the case at Charter Quay the landlord has charged a £93,000 for “notional rentals of the common areas” in the years 2005-2009.

All five years of this “rental” were taken from the Charter Quay service charge account in 2009 just before Tchenguiz’s managing agent left the site.

Now the issue is heading to court.

If you are being wrongly charged for rentals of the common parts, the Warwickshire Hamlets case can be found here:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/LC/2010/LRX_156_2008.html

Note: The residents did decline to be managed by Estates and Management.

Find some backbone, or face the chop!

Anthony Essien (left), of LEASE … the Leasehold Advisory Service, at the London Assembly on January 23rd with large-scale managing agents Matthew Saye, of Home Ownership Services and Randall Bevis, of City West Homes. Martin Green (right), of Southwark Borough Council’s home ownership and tenant management initiatives.

 

January 24 2012: The weakest performance of all at yesterday’s Greater London Assembly meeting on the miseries facing leaseholders was from Anthony Essien, the chief executive of LEASE, the Leasehold Advisory Service.

Asked by London Assembly members how leaseholders can be defended from rapacious managing agents and landlords jacking up service charges, Essien placed his faith in mediation.

This was far preferable to the courts or the Leasehold Valuation Tribunals, which are too complex and expensive for many leaseholders to contemplate.

But LEASE’s own mediation service was hardly a resounding success, before being wound up in January last year.

“Despite a lot of effort and publicity, demand for this service has not justified the cost and attention the organisation has given it,” said the annual report.

In its last year, there were 78 applications for the service, with 25 sessions held and 20 settlements.

LEASE’s board decided, after careful consideration, that “resources should be concentrated on those services, such as our website, email advice, telephone advice and advice surgeries away from the office, that vulnerable customers clearly value”.

One issue the London Assembly is considering is whether LEASE should not be an advocate for leaseholders’ rights rather than be best friends with all, but that would be a marked change of gear for an organisation that puts most of its efforts into sitting on the fence.

Or, to use its own words, “LEASE is committed to working with leaseholders, professional organisations and others to empower leaseholders to have more control over their property, help our customers resolve their problems and to
improve the standard of management in the sector respectively”.

How does that translate in practice when dealing with the tough commercially minded landlords determined to monetise their assets? Why is it so difficult to condemn those who hoover up freeholds, appointing themselves as managing agents, CCTV providers, lavatory attendants and the rest, and jacking up the service charges?

These have been the subject of LVT rulings again and again.

For some time the government’s “bonfire of the quangos” has been smouldering away. It looks like LEASE may be one piece of dead wood that no one would miss being tossed on the pyre.

 

Filed Under: News Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ombudsman for Peverel

January 20, 2012 by

20.01.12 NEW APPOINTMENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

ARMA – the appointment of the new Chief Executive, Michelle Banks,  (current employment – Deputy Director, Development Management (Planning), equivalent to the previous Grade 6 or 7 civil servant in the DCLG), has been announced. It was recently announced that Peter Hinchliffe would take up the new role of Head of Peverel’s Governance and Regulation Group. He was the former Lead Ombudsman of the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Peter Hinchliffe – new Peverel figleaf?

Filed Under: ARMA, News, Peverel Tagged With: , , , ,