AgeUK is winding up its small department that looks into retirement leasehold affairs headed by Mark Spall.
It is a bitter blow to retirement leaseholders, 300-350 of whom contacted the department last year seeking advice.
Many leaseholders have been assisted by Spall and his team, and his mediation efforts have won back significant sums of money. One £25,000 case of overpaid VAT resulted in a sizeable donation by grateful leaseholders to AgeUK.
AgeUK has provided input into the new ARHM code of practice, and last year produced an excellent report on leasehold retirement living, which also addressed issues in leasehold.
On the other hand, Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation was queasy that the department received donations from Peverel, and was accommodating towards the ARHM.
Baroness Greengross, then of Age Concern, was the first port of call for John McCarthy, founder of McCarthy and Stone, when he mounted his disastrous campaign to sue the Daily Telegraph in 1991, of which more here.
There is plenty of evidence that Spall, who will lose his job in the move, helped a considerable number of leaseholders.
Many owe him a debt of gratitude and Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation / LKP warmly shares this view and wishes him all the best after he leaves AgeUK.
Related posts:
AgeUK would not get involved, Shelter has quit, Peverel has been expelled and Esther Rantzen is asking questions … the fiasco of the Campaign for Housing in Later Life
Important AgeUK event – exit fees
AgeUK echoes Campaign against Residential Leasehold Exploitation in demanding retirement housing reform
AgeUK removes its logos from the Peverel Retirement website
Heirs of empty retirement leasehold flat now face doubled council taxes … on top of plummeting re-sale value, on-going service charges and an exit fee if it ever does sell
It is sad that Age UK is closing their leasehold arm and Mark is leaving. They have been around a long time and have generally done Stirling service for abused leaseholders. My only criticism was they were far to light weight on Right to Manage and tended to put retired leaseholders off the process “because it is too onerous and you don’t want the responsibility of management” when as we all know retired leaseholders have the most to gain in terms of savings and service.
So that leaves LEASE! Given the postings on this website, enough said!! Thank goodness we can fall back on Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation, LKP and Peverel Action.