LEASE denies seeking bungs to pass ordinary leaseholders on to professional services

LEASE, the Leasehold Advisory Service, is a taxpayer-funded quango, so why on earth is it asking solicitors and others whether they would be prepared to pay referral fees to be put in touch with the distressed ordinary leaseholders who call up for advice?

Referral fees – or ‘bungs’ as they are less politely termed – are rife in the property world, but it is astonishing that a government agency considered accepting them.

LEASE says it does not accept referral fees, nor will it do so in the future.

Had it done so, LEASE would have been handing over leaseholders with serious legal or other problems to solicitors, managing agents, surveyors etc not because these firms have any particular merit, but because they had made a payment to the advisory service.

The evidence that LEASE was considering referral fees comes in the form of an emailed survey following the lavish ‘annual conference’ the quango held at a Mayfair hotel on May 15.

This was, in fact, a very expensive trade fair filled with representatives from RICS, ARMA, large-scale managing agents, landlords, solicitors and barristers.

[Read more...]

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

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...]

Leasehold Advisory Service: ‘Lawyers here won’t even speak to me, because I cannot afford their fees’

An emotional Julian Shersby, who lost £44,000 in an LVT action, tells the Leasehold Advisory Service conference it is failing ordinary leaseholders

In the last ten minutes the Leasehold Advisory Service annual conference burst into life this afternoon when a furious delegate grabbed the microphone and said the quango was failing to represent the interests of ordinary leaseholders.

“I see around me here landlords and managing agents and lots of lawyers who won’t even speak to me because I cannot afford their fees,” Julian Shersby, 49, told the conference.

“The Leasehold Advisory Service is failing to fulfill its parliamentary mandate by excluding leaseholders. It should be even-handed and defending their interests. Instead, it has organized an event purely to the benefit of landlords.

[Read more...]

London Assembly’s report ‘Highly Charged’

London Assembly damns property management racket

A London Assembly report into leasehold service charges published today is a devastating attack on the stealth charges that are rife in leasehold and it urges the property industry to clean up its act.

Referring to “opaque” service charges regimes at numerous London developments, the report can also be read as veiled criticism of Housing Minister Grant Shapps, who has rejected measures that would give leaseholders further protection.

The report acknowledges the role of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership by referring to both the £1 million settlement at St George’s Wharf, where Peverel presided, and the devastating Leasehold Valuation Tribunal ruling at Charter Quay, in Kingston. Both cases are extensively covered on this website, which is quoted.

The LA report estimates that more than 500,000 London leaseholders pay service charges and that these amount to more than half a billion pounds in service charges.

The number of leasehold disputes has increased by more than 50 per cent and with thousands more leasehold properties to be built over the next ten years there is “growing pressure for reform”.

‘Highly charged’ recognises that there is little immediate prospect of further legislative reform, although some feel that this may be necessary in future.

The lack of transparency that pervades the system ranges from leaseholders being unclear on what they’re paying for, to a perception that some charges – particularly for insurance – involve excessive commissions.

The report calls on private landlords and managing agents to make contract procurement and bills more transparent.

It urges the Association of Residential Managing Agents and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to set an example of good practice.

During the inquiry ARMA was criticized for shielding bad practice, which is why many London managing agents decline to join the organisation.

Improved consultation – which is beneficial to both leaseholders and landlords – is recommended, with the private sector urged to learn lessons from public sector landlords, which tend to have more comprehensive consultation processes.

Steve O’Connell AM, who led the investigation, said: “Problems have dogged the service charges regime for many years.  In some ways it’s an archaic and opaque system and many leaseholders are tearing their hair out with frustration.

“Some people would like to see leasehold done away with altogether, but failing that we must make sure that the system we have is as fair as possible.

“With disputes on the rise and many more leasehold properties in the pipeline it’s critical that all the agencies involved, from central Government down to the leasehold tribunal, look at ways of improving the transparency and equity of service charges.”

The investigation showed that when disputes arise, leaseholders can feel disadvantaged by taking on landlords who may have unlimited resources or large legal teams.  To address this, the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal is asked to review their processes to rule out any unfairness associated with leaseholders conducting their own cases.

Further, the report calls on the Government to look at making mediation a compulsory first step of the dispute resolution process to help leaseholders avoid potentially costly court cases altogether.

It also appears from our review that buyers rarely consider the obligations to pay service charges when purchasing their property and need access to far better information if problems are to be minimised.  Here conveyancing solicitors have a role in providing leaseholders with more information up front, the way public sector landlords like local authorities have to.

Notes

  1. Over a hundred organisations and individuals provided written views including 30 landlords in the social rented sector 16 leaseholder organisations and nearly 50 individual leaseholders.  In all, over 700 pages of evidence and views were submitted to the review, and the report draws on much of these facts, opinions and examples.  As well as holding meetings with DCLG, the LVT and Camden Leaseholders Forum, a meeting was held in public where a range of landlords, both public and private, managing agents and the Government advisory service LEASE were asked for their views on what leaseholders had told us through the first stage of evidence gathering.
  2. Service charge disputes in London increased by more than 54 per cent between 2005 and 2010 and the London LVT caseload increased relative to the rest of England.  The London region’s caseload is about 4,000 per annum, of which about 1,500 are service charge related.  The remaining cases will concern issues such as enfranchisement and lease extension.
  3. The Committee welcomes the Government’s intention to keep the issue under constant review and to assess whether there is evidence that reform of leasehold legislation is required.  The Committee recommends that the House of Commons Backbench Business Committee recommends a debate on the need for leasehold reform if any of the current e-Petitions reach the required number of signatures.  See Section 8 of the report for more details.
  4. There have been some recent LVT decisions on high profile cases that illustrate the nature of these concerns.  For example: In September 2011 the LVT awarded St George Wharf (Vauxhall) leaseholders £1 million to recover “management charges stretching back over a decade, as well as the company’s practice of employing its own subsidiaries to provide CCTV and insurance services.” In November 2011 the LVT awarded Charter Quay (Kingston) leaseholders £185,000 and criticised the landlord for entering into contracts with related party companies and taking excessive insurance commissions.  The LVT determined that the landlord must repay 75 per cent of 2009 management fee (and 50 per cent for 2008) and that insurance commissions for the landlord be reduced from over 30 per cent to10 percent.

 

Highly-charged-report-EMBARGOED

LEASE: 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 likes of Vincent Tchenguiz and Peverel? Why is it so difficult to condemn those who hoover up freeholds, appoint themselves as managing agents, CCTV providers, lavatory attendants and the rest, and jack 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 smoldering away. It looks like LEASE is one piece of dead wood that no one would miss being tossed on the pyre.