– Sector insiders paying £350 each at LEASE’s ‘annual conference’ are told by housing minister Gavin Barwell that leaseholders are the priority
– It will be given the funds to do its job properly without pandering to the commercial interests in leasehold
– Onerous ground rents wrong, says minister. But chartered surveyor valuers tell audience how to increase them
– And Sir Peter Bottomley delivers bombshell speech naming leasehold game-players (who were in the audience), demanding ethical standards and wide-ranging reform.
– ‘Peter Bottomley should be shot,” was one appalled reaction
– Martin Boyd, of LKP, has to gatecrash to hear others repeat his research
By Sebastian O’Kelly
The leadership of the Leasehold Advisory Service was blasted by its political masters yesterday and told to make leaseholders the priority of all its activities.
It will also be given adequate funding to ensure that it is not dependent on selling its soul to the commercial interests in leasehold.
A powerful speech from Gavin Barwell, the housing minister, readdressed the priorities of the Leasehold Advisory Service, which was preparing to be self-financing by 2020.
The speech was delivered at the £350 a head “annual conference” of the Leasehold Advisory Service, long criticised by LKP as a trade show attracting some of the murkiest figures in the leasehold game.
Mr Barwell also said there was no excuse for leasehold houses, still less those with Taylor Wimpey-style ground rents, and they will be stopped.
Sir Peter Bottomley reminded the quango that presentations advising freeholders on how to cheat leaseholders with huge insurance commissions were not appropriate for a taxpayer-funded organisation supposedly set up to help leaseholders.
This is a reference to this presentation at an earlier “annual conference”: on how to charge 50 per cent insurance commissions and – the best bit! – leaseholders pay and don’t need to be told.
Sir Peter’s speech was met with open-mouthed horror by the audience who had paid £350 a head to attend.
Sir Peter referenced freeholder and managing agent Martin Paine, describing his business practices a disgrace. Sir Peter termed Mr Paine a “crook who has turned sleaze in leases almost into an art form” on December 20.
Mr Paine, who lands unsuspecting leaseholders with ground rents of up to £8,000 a year, was seated in the front row.
Like a headmaster of old – more in sadness than in anger – Sir Peter invited Mr Paine to discuss matters after the meeting. It is unknown whether this took place.
Benjamin Mire was also referenced – again – as was the financial jiggery-pockery of the Tchenguiz interests.
So, too, was barrister Justin Bates, whose has been named in the Commons, and who makes his living tripping up right to manage applications on behalf of some of the least appetising landlords in the game.
Sir Peter suggested that legal professionals serving game-playing freeholders should devote similar energies to the Bar Council pro bono unit: that is, work for free for social good.
Mr Bates spoke at the conference afterwards, giving his analysis of recent court cases.
He did point out that he had two nominations for the attorney general’s pro bono awards, indicating good deeds on behalf of others. He may want to consider doing a little more, now that he is back in the saddle beating up the leaseholders at the poisonous Canary Riverside dispute on behalf of its Monaco-based freeholder.
“It was a disgrace,” said one outraged (and well refreshed) freeholder attending the conference. “Peter Bottomley should be shot.”
The conference represented a complete about-turn for Roger Southam, the chairman of the Leasehold Advisory Service.
The former owner of Chainbow property management, Mr Southam is now employed by Savills to drum up management business.
He has been keen to expand the commercial activities of the Leasehold Advisory Service. It is unknown whether he will be reviewing his position as chairman following the minister’s reversal of policy.
One scandalous aspect of the Leasehold Advisory Service conference was the exclusion of Martin Boyd, trustee of LKP and chairman of the residents at Charter Quay.
Mr Boyd has selflessly given years of his time helping leaseholders, rich and poor, resolve their seemingly intractable leasehold problems. In fact, he attended the free LEASE evening event – the one that is actually for leaseholders – and held one-to-one sessions with leaseholders needing help.
At LKP, Mr Boyd has also coherently argued the case for change in regulation and law, and has presented the evidence why this is necessary.
Officials know more about Australian strata system, the number of leasehold houses, housebuilder profits from freehold sales, remit of Recognised Tenants’ Associations, incoherence of the legal cost regime at tribunals … because of the efforts of Mr Boyd.
It is thanks to Martin Boyd that government is using vaguely sensible figures for the size of the leasehold sector (4.1 million), not repeating rubbish about there being only 2.5 million private leasehold dwellings.
His research and analysis was referenced (without attribution) by different speakers throughout the day: by the minister, by Johnny-come-lately civil servants, trade body officials and lawyers (or, rather, those who want to end up on the right side of all this).
For the Leasehold Advisory Service there was only one possible response to such provocative and unwelcome activity: snub Mr Boyd, and not invite him to its “annual conference”.
As a result, Mr Boyd had to gate-crash the event, where he was warmly welcomed.
It appears LKP’s “irresponsibility” in criticising LEASE was the cause of this idiotic snubbing by a taxpayer funded entity.
Well, yesterday the quango was told in no uncertain terms by its political paymasters to up its game, stop toadying to the money and concentrate on helping leaseholders.
Further reports of the conference to follow
By Martin Boyd
I doubt anyone would consider me as having a thin skin, so the lack of an invitation to the Leasehold Advisory Service “annual conference” over the years has become a bit of a joke.
It does however, get slightly embarrassing that an MP – Sir Peter Bottomley – feels he needs to escort me into the event just to make sure I get past the door.
More concerning is that there are many other people besides myself who spend their own time, money and effort helping leaseholders – and even helping LEASE – but who are not asked to attend.
The “annual conference” is, and has been for many years, a trade show to promote the interests of landlords and agents, or the businesses of a not unreasonable number of the speakers.
Having attended the evening before event for leaseholders – and giving my time helping individual case studies who attended – the comparison was, frankly, an embarrassment for an organisation supposedly funded by taxpayers to support leaseholders.
For the leaseholder session, there were no detailed notes, no major speakers except for one solicitor with a social conscience who spoke on lease extensions. What the leaseholder attendees got was a notepad with the smiling faces of the LEASE chairman and chief executive telling everyone what a great job LEASE does.
At the main, £350 quid a head event, it was very positive – and a huge relief – to hear a housing minister finally support so many of the issues LKP has campaigned for over such a long period.
That the Minister has concerns over the ground rent issues is going to be welcome news to many leaseholders. That he plans to change the law is fantastic, that he may be considering commonhold again seems an entirely good idea.
We have now gone from a position where LKP almost stood alone in saying things were wrong, and where most in the sector were happy with the status quo, to one where things need to change for the benefit of the whole sector.
However, where things went wrong for me was the minster suggesting that the best thing to do for leaseholders is to offer more money for LEASE.
I would respectfully suggest to the Minister that since LEASE claims “Approx. 75,000 page views per month” that does not equate the LEASE helping 850,000 leaseholders a year.
LKP website get about 40,000 visitors a month, but I would hesitate to claim we reach more than a tiny fraction of leaseholders.
Hopefully, more than one or two attendees will have noticed the irony of the fact the Minister chaperoned into the meting by the chairman of LEASE. That’s the very same chairman who had actively marketed himself in the recent past as helping developers to “maximise” ground rent opportunities that the Minister would tell the audience he now seeks to control.
It is also perhaps disappointing that the Minister and the Department has not noticed that LEASE has been a key part of the problem.
It has never supported the work that we do, and sometimes even opposed us. It has been their choice to help landlords and agents for the last 10 years. This was not an initiative from government; the commercialisation of LEASE was its own decision and its self-funding plan – or privatisation – was only announced last year.
Since 2007 LEASE’s interest in reform might most politely be described as tepid, and on occasions it has made decisions that may even be seen as anti leaseholder.
Over the years we have asked them for help with matters being considered by the SFO and police authorities, it declined.
We asked for its help over the Benjamin Mire case and it even declined our FOA request (only providing a single file many years after the event). It has failed to actively participate in the work on Recognised Tenants Associations, on Commonhold, on RTM, on exit fees, on collusive tendering and almost every other subject we have worked on over the years.
Its role on insurance seemed at best ambivalent. It has, of course, remained utterly silent on the ground rent matter.
Its only key interaction had been to require us to submit a detailed report to the DCLG on what LEASE felt had been our “irresponsible” reporting about its (in)activities. Since the department has gone on to work very closely with LKP we assume it was happy with our explanation.
Let’s hope the Minister did not fail to notice that while he discussed issues such as lease extensions, other chartered surveyor valuers used the rest of the conference a more landlord friendly view on such matters.
So while I am enormously grateful to the Minister for his work and his plans and even welcome his view that LEASE should return to its original mission, I have no confidence based on seven years’ of experience that the LEASE management will do more than pay lip service to this goal.
Should this Minister go, I would expect LEASE not to hesitate for moment and return to helping maintain the leasehold status quo that it has served for so long.
Related posts:
Is this LEASE being ‘unapologetically on the side of leaseholders’, Mr Barwell?
Stop taking money from Benjamin Mire, Bottomley tells Leasehold Advisory Service
We WILL take money from Benjamin Mire, says Leasehold Advisory Service
Just why is Roger Southam bothering with the Leasehold Advisory Service?
Can the Leasehold Advisory Service monopoly survive devastating questioning by Select Committee?
LKP tells Sunday Times reader not to buy leasehold house (and there is no excuse for them)
I’m sorry Sebastian but this does not fill me with any confidence whatsoever. How long before Gavin Barwell is replaced by another housing minister as we have seen so many times before?!
I would also like to ask why you are supporting yet another conference to be held on March 1st also costing £350 + VAT a head and intended for ‘professionals’ NOT leaseholders, how is this going to be any different from all the rest?
Your concerns about housing ministers moving on is wholly justified.
But at the moment we have two ambitious and talented ministers at DCLG – Sajid Javid and Gavin Barwell.
When they do well, we should acknowledge it. They have responded fast to the leasehold house scandal.
They are infinitely better than the shire Tory lobby-fodder who have occupied these posts in the past.
I suspect Mrs May is going to keep them in situ, because she has to deliver on housing.
Regarding the meeting in March, this is the Leasehold 2017 conference. It is a conference for commercial professionals in leasehold paid for by New on the Block.
That’s how commercial conferences should be organised. Not by a taxpayer funded quango oiling up to the very people it was set up to protect leaseholders against.
Martin Boyd, myself and Sir Peter have been asked to speak. We will speak at any conference with a serious interest in the sector, but we are not remunerated for doing so or have any commercial ties with any of them.
Thankyou for your reply.
I certainly do not wish to criticise LKP but neither do I want to see your precious time wasted or compromised by taking part in yet another closed shop conference for ‘commercial’ bodies who make their living out of leaseholders!!!
I too have received no remuneration for 7 years whilst working very hard as a director of an RTM company to restore the home I live in but do not own back to a condition it should always have been but was failed miserably by our then managing agent.
It now makes my blood boil to see this same managing agent mentioned on NOTB as expanding throughout the country, being gifted 5 housing schemes to manage by Bellway and a prestigious block in London, but worst of all the very man who failed us is listed on the Hot 100!!!
So please when you attend this conference can you ask Philip Rainey what he suggests RTM companies should do who find themselves managing multi blocks when in light of his determination they are not entitled to do so by law?
Also please ask Roger Hardwick of Brethertons solicitors the correct procedure for handover at RTM and why his company sends out threatening letters to leaseholders without first determining the validity of such?
Many thanks
I was at LEASE yesterday.
As an impartial solicitor who has clients on both sides. I thought Sir Peter was an embarrassment and in turn lost all professional credibility.
He was speaking to professionals who have studied Leasehold Reform for many years and was at best patronising and at worst simply insulting, he fails to understand some of his proposals are quite frankly ludicrous and the repercussions are enormous.
He also fails to understand that these institutional investors whom he so vehemently refers to, include various pension funds who hold million’s of pounds of British peoples hard earned pensions and those investors are me, you ,Bob and Sue, i would suggest the implications are far greater than he can conceive.
Gavin Barwell is weak and clearly has no knowledge of leasehold reform. I feel he is being railroaded by Mr Bottomley and in turn making a huge mistake, which could cost him in the long run.
No judge, jury or executioner can take someone as biased as Mr Bottomley seriously, the way he arrogantly ignored questions due to a lack of knowledge, aggressively identified ‘crooks’ and provided no plans for the economical and legal repercussions for his proposals was actually laughable, to be fair his complete and utter failure was the highlight of a rather dull conference.
Well done Sir Peter, any chance of reform has been well and truly panned!
We often get slightly intemperate comments from leaseholders exploited by the system but to get one from what I assume is a professional in the sector seems a little odd.
Do be assured “Shocked and appalled” that things are rather better understood than you imagine.
If “Bob and Sue” have had a pension company artificially inflate the value of a leasehold reversion. or the pension company has been silly enough to by a reversion at an inflated value that is the fault of the valuers.
If you would like to make a formal submission the APPG or even produce an article for this web site please feel free to drop me an email at martin.boyd@leaseholdknowledge.com.
Well done Sir Peter for supporting a fair deal for leaseholders.
Could have been in place years ago had not Grant Shapps kicked reforms into touch.
I suspect that the anonymous Shock and Appalled is a bit of a Paine.
Shocked and appalled. If you are indeed impartial, you would not attack Mr Bottomley. You sound like the solicitors developers force on innocent first time buyers paid to be impartial in their expertise.
Shocked and appalled.
I meant partial to developer’s sales targets
Whilst normally I wholeheartedly support free speech.particularly for comments I fundamentally disagree with (That way I try to learn!) in the case of Shocked and appalled, may I suggest LKP charge a fee for his posts, possibly doubling in amount every 10 words?
OH! And don’t forget to backdate it!
I hope that is IMPARTIAL enough for you, Shocked and appalled?
How many of the commentators on this article are actually trained Leasehold Reform professionals?
Give Shocked and Appalled a break, we are all entitled to an opinion.
While Bottomley should be praised for his perseverance as should LKP, we need people at the forefront who don’t display a clear and aggressive bias, a vendetta doesn’t get you anywhere!
Debs,Who do you suggest? Vincent Tchenguiz? Or perhaps Deep Sagar, who I believe once threatened LKP for daring to suggest that Lease needed reform?
In what way can a group trying to end the gross exploration of leaseholders be described as a vendetta?
What part of the current operation of leasehold do you think is currently justified?
Debs,
If you want to argue that Shocked and Appalled should be given a break and that we should have people who “don’t display a clear and aggressive bias” then the only person who has done this is the very person you seek to defend.
He chose to say “Gavin Barwell is weak and clearly has no knowledge of leasehold reform. I feel he is being railroaded by Mr Bottomley and in turn making a huge mistake, which could cost him in the long run”
Had Shocked and Appalled have though about things for a while maybe he is the one who should not be so arrogant to assume that government has not considered the potential economic impacts of what is being considered. He also hardly makes clear what question is was that he feels was not answered or what it is the Minister supposedly does not understand.
.
.
With the tragic murder of MP Jo Cox still so much at the forefront of our thoughts,I trust the person calling for the elected member of parliament Peter Bottomley to be shot has been reported to the police.?
I totally agree with the comments from ME that the person calling for Sir Peter B to be shot should be reported, and investigated by the police.
Is there any reason why the person in question cannot be named.
Many thanks to Sir Peter, Sebastian, Martin, LKP and so many others for the excellent work you do
Dear Trevor,
The fellow who made this statement was three sheets to the wind and of most unthreatening aspect.
I believe he was using illustrative language, rather than threatening to assassinate LKP’s distinguished patron and parliamentarian. I am sure Sir Peter took it as a compliment.
I am afraid I do not know his name. But coming up: my encounter with Martin Paine …. a LEASE event regular.
Kind regards, Sebastian
Thank you for the clarification Sebastian..
Sir Peters speech was an inspiration. Absolutely spot on.
I am sure the phrase “And if I fail to offend you, remind me and I’ll do it next time.” will be used a million times in various places of the workplace over the next few months.
A brilliant comment never to be forgotten.
The best man at a wedding could even use it to commence his speech!!
A reading of Gavin Barwell’s speech to the Conference does provide evidence that representation by LKP is beginning to get through to where it matters most – Government.
And this is far more productive than presentation on any popular TV programme, Whilst in the present climate such attention may be welcome, past appearances have been “five minute” affairs, short-lived, and quickly forgotten, leaving the Rachmanist villains involved to emerge from the “publicity” undisturbed and regarding the attention provided as akin to a “badge of honour”. .
I hope that LKP now lobbies to ensure that the Law Commission follows up with a meaningful and comprehensive review.
Sebastian: Can you publish the speech from Sir Peter to the conference? He certainly seems to have got under the skin of one questionable solicitor.
I am very glad that Sir Peter speak up for us the poor leaseholders who like me just retired, just about to pay off my mortgage & now have to find a huge amount to extend my lease under 60 years. If I don’t extend it will be difficult to sell or get a very poor price for it. I need to sell in order to buy a property where the service charge is lower than my present £3500 p.a. for a 1 bed flat without concierge or any other gym etc facilities. I can’t downsize any further but move to a cheaper location.
Not many leaseholders would have the time or knowledge to organise buying the freehold. It is too much of a hassle. Many in my block/building prefer to extend their lease. Leasehold reform 2002 has not not help us the leaseholders who most of us spend a life time saving & paying off our mortgage. After paying the bank, we have to pay our freeholder.
I have looked at new build flats for the past 2 years. If I want to buy a new build, the ground rent is £300 -£500 upwards p.a. for 1 bed flat. The ground rent increase every 10 years to what amount? So maybe I may have to sell again if I can’t afford the increase? When I finally can’t afford my own accommodation in my advance age, the council will have to house me!!! All because these greedy developers who sell off the freeholds once the developments are completed can make more money out of us.
The 2002 Leasehold reform for new build should be commonhold. Yet this was not implemented. We have no choice if we wish to buy any new build as I have not come across one single developer offering commonhold until maybe 2020 if they are forced to offer commonhold.
Homes in London are so unaffordable, first time buyers are therefore not bothered or ignorant about leasehold issues. They just want to get on the property ladder.
Thank you to LKP for all your work.