From the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership:
The announcement today by Sajid Javid is welcome. Indeed, with 93 MPs and peers in the All Party Parliamentary Group, of which LKP is the secretariat, it at last looks like government is listening.
Leasehold houses are an absolute racket: a means by which developers have managed to turn ordinary people’s homes into long-term investment vehicles for shadowy investors, often based offshore.
Last year, 10,300 leasehold houses were registered on the Land Registry. In 2010 the figure was 3,420.
Unfortunately, they have not just been disadvantaging leasehold house owners.
Thousands of leasehold flats have also been sold with these toxic ground-rent terms.
Altogether as many as 100,000 homes are unsellable as a result of this trickery.
In short, plc housebuilders have been systematically cheating their own customers.
So, now the housebuilders need to get serious at putting right a problem that they in their greed created.
This initiative, approved by the Treasury, comes from politicians and the political staff.
It is disappointing that this issue has had to be raised by a minnow organisation like us – first reported by the Guardian, to its credit – rather than by those on the public payroll.
Sajid Javid, the Communities secretary, is to announce a ban on new-build leasehold houses and restrict ground rents to ‘as low as’ zero today.
The move effectively ends the practice of housebuilders, big and small, cheating their own customers dreaming up leases with punitive ground rent terms and other income streams.
These include the demand for consents for sub-letting, minor home improvements, conservatories, sometimes even the laying of carpets.
Ordinary people think they are buying a home; in fact, they have inadvertently signed up to fund a sophisticated investment asset at their own expense.
The developers subsequently sell on the freeholds to leasehold houses and flats to murky and anonymous investors, often based offshore.
LKP estimates that housebuilders make £300 – £500 million from freehold sales every year.
Many of these bumper profits come courtesy of the taxpayers, who lend 20 per cent mortgages to aid first-times through the Help To Buy scheme.
LKP, and Nationwide, estimate that the housebuilders’ monetising practices have blighted at least 100,000 homes, which are now unsellable.
Lenders are refusing to issue mortgages against leasehold properties with toxic ground rents, and questions are being asked of the dodgier income streams in leasehold.
The government initiative comes with Treasury approval and is the work of the political staff.
The full press release of today is here:
EMBARGOED UNTIL 00:01 TUESDAY 25 JULY
CRACKDOWN ON UNFAIR LEASEHOLD PRACTICES
Radical new proposals to cut out unfair abuses of leasehold have been announced by the Government today in a major move that will deliver a fairer, more transparent system for homebuyers.
Communities Secretary Sajid Javid has set out plans to ban new build houses being sold as leasehold as well as restricting ground rents to as low as zero. This can often expose homebuyers to unreasonable and long-term financial abuse.
Leasehold generally applies to flats with shared spaces, but developers – particularly in the North West – have been increasingly selling houses on these terms.
With 1.2 million leasehold houses currently recorded in England and the number of leasehold sales rapidly growing, the Government is taking crucial action to make future leases fairer.
Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid said:
“It’s clear that far too many new houses are being built and sold as leaseholds, exploiting home buyers with unfair agreements and spiralling ground rents. Enough is enough. These practices are unjust, unnecessary and need to stop.
“Our proposed changes will help make sure leasehold works in the best interests of homebuyers now and in the future.”
Other measures, which are now subject to an 8-week consultation, include:
setting ground rents to zero levels – in recent years these have increased significantly, in some cases doubling every ten years;
closing legal loopholes to protect consumers – such as leaving some leaseholders vulnerable to possession orders;
and changing the rules on Help to Buy Equity loans so that the scheme can only be used to support new build houses on acceptable terms.
The terms of some leases are becoming increasingly onerous to those purchasing leasehold flat or house, who often find they need to pay thousands of pounds to their freeholder to make simple changes to their homes. Recent cases include:
a homeowner being charged £1,500 by the company to make a small alteration to their home;
a family house that is now unsaleable because the ground rent is expected to hit £10,000 a year by 2060;
and a homeowner who was told buying the lease would cost £2,000 but the bill came to £40,000.
Ground rents are charged on all residential leasehold properties, but evidence shows that they are becoming increasingly expensive.
Under government plans they could be reduced so that they relate to real costs incurred, and are fair and transparent to the consumer.
ENDS
Background
The proposed prohibiting of future houses being sold as leasehold will apply to all houses apart from a few exceptional circumstances where leasehold is still needed – such as houses that have shared services or built on land with specific restrictions.
The consultation will last for 8 weeks from Tuesday 25 July 2017.
These proposals relate to England only.
DCLG statistics estimate there were 4 million residential leasehold dwellings in England in the private sector in 2014/15 and of these 1.2 million were leasehold houses.
Related posts:
Gavin Barwell: ‘No excuse for leasehold houses or punitive ground rents and we will stamp them out’
Labour to cap ‘legalised extortion’ of ground rents and end leasehold houses … Opposition and government now compete to reform leasehold
Lords hear how LKP warned government over ground rents and leasehold houses … in 2015
Media storm over leasehold as government declares ban on leasehold houses and rip-off ground rents
MPs tell government consultation: End leasehold houses. Scrap new ground rents. Ignore pleas for self-regulation. Ban Help To Buy on rip-off leaseholds
Englishman’s home isn’t a castle: it’s a revenue stream for an offshore company thanks to national housebuilders, Justin Madders tells the Commons
It’s progress that the govt feels the need to be seen to be doing something, but… what a load of cock.
Why not outlaw leasehold house sales altogether? Ground rents to as low as zero? Translation: ground rents from £0! What a deal!! Until you read the small print no doubt.
The special circumstances are not a persuasive case for leasehold. It’s not required in all the other countries that abolished it.
And what about the millions of people living in leasehold flats being ripped off by crooked freeholders and conniving managing agents? Total silence. The explanation for that is simple enough: those affected haven’t been sufficiently vocal. The social media campaign of those in leasehold houses has clearly had an effect — but we see no mention of redress, just a consultation on ending abuses about which no consultation should be needed.
Reminder: The British govt paid compensation to slave owners when slaves were liberated, not to the slaves.
Nooooo! Surely they have to include flats in reforms?
I have only seen reference to houses and I have learned to expect nothing from the Conservative party which has quite simply been in cahoots with large freeholders.
See a post not so long ago here on £4oo,ooo received before the last election from one, and past reports of multiple six figure donations from the Tchenguiz family, and the smug “nothing to see here” attitude of the oleaginous Grant Shapps, David Cameron’s personal fund raiser. The Tory links and conflicts of interest are numerous and deep. With a few exceptions they are shameless. What are the chances Martin Paine, covered here many times, votes for any other party?
The Conservatives, remember, had 72 MPs who are landlords vote down a Labour amendment to the last housing bill requiring rented accommodation to be fit for human habitation.
Their leader has claimed to want to fight everyday injustices. So far it’s been lip service and slogans. We wouldn’t even have that without the tireless work of LKP and others (kudos and thanks). The pressure needs to be increased not decreased, because doing the absolute minimum is in the Tory DNA. This a great opportunity for them to show they have changed. I will not be convinced by anything other than enacted legislation.
Totally agree with you Paul. Without LKP and latterly the terrific Katie Kendricks campaigning though the NLC, the developers and spivvy Freehold portfolio merchants ( new build) would not have been halted from shafting unsuspecting house buyers.. The pressure must be relentless in ensuring that
(1) New build flats with onerous ground rents are outlawed.
(2) The shafted house leaseholders must be given the opportunity to buy their freeholds at the original cost.
(3) Managing Agents must be strictly regulated and treated like a common criminal when caught in the act of fraud and thievery.
(4) LEASEHOLD MUST BE ABOLISED!!!
We know it makes sense.
Won’t sleep now… like waiting to see Santa.
Well done LKP and APPG. Scholars and ladies and gentlemen all.
Surprised The Times led with this story? I thought they were going to lead with Firstport charging 20% VAT(when it should be 5% for communal electricity!
Well done to everyone involved. the amount of sheer hard work that goes into campaigns such as this cannot be measured. Indeed it has all but broken some of the stalwarts. So a big thank you to all that have taken part. As soon as the issue with leasehold houses raised it’s head it was realised that this was the straw that broke the camels back. and that is why the success of this campaign has such significance right across the leasehold sector. Developers and off shore freeholders were arrogant and got greedy. They will now pay the price and it will be a heavy price. And rather than funds being diverted off shore, the changes that are coming eventually to all leasehold properties will mean more money will be spent in the local community than being sent abroad. this will give a great boost to the UK economy.
Thank you, too. And you are right on all points..
Guardian has the news. I am holding onto the sanity that they cannot tackle new houses and flats without protecting existing leaseholders whose homes are just as blighted now, if not more so with shorter leases.
Stop the abuses over buying freeholds, make RTM work properly, protect the rights of all leaseholders including buying statutory extensions and sorting out consents fees etc.
That’s what I read the intention in the white paper to be? Not just new builds.
Otherwise the sharks will just move from buying new build freeholds to buying up existing freeholds and go on as before! Four million of us, innit. Nice little earner.
I think leasehold in all its murkiness is to come under unforgiving scrutiny.
Is ‘LEASE’ Chairman Roger Southam still in post? Given his recorded views on ” Maximisimg found rents” how can this be just.? He must step down or be removed. How on earth can Leaseholders have any faith in this tax funded quango with him at the helm?
So what happens next? Or what should happen next? I have a few suggestions and wondered what people think of them?
Clearly the CMA need to act to declare the onerous ground rent terms an “unfair contract” and therefore unenforceable..
In the meantime all leases should be converted to 999 year terms at a peppercorn rent.
The Taylor Wimpey rescue should be amended so that they buy back the freeholds on behalf of leaseholders to who ever now holds the lease.
Valuations in the short term should be based (and backed by the tribunals) on the price paid for the freeholds. So that, if a freehold was purchased for 7,000 pounds two years ago the value cannot now be 40,000 pounds. To be generous(not deserved!) allow 10% pa which would mean that the sale of the freehold would be 8,470 pounds. All new houses to be sold as freehold (apart from exceptional circumstances where the land is leasehold) Surrounding areas to be sold as part of the sale of the house but possibly as a commonhold arrangement, so that the homeowners have real control over the maintenance and are no longer ripped off with exorbitant charges for work that is often not done. Freeholds should not be held by offshore companies.
Valuations and loans granted to purchase freeholds should be calculated over a maximum of 50 years and should not include hoped for future income.streams. Every block of flats should have a statutory residents association, that have the right to appoint managing agents of their choice without having to pursue a Right To Manage action..
When serving a right To Manage application any objections to the application should be communicated to the RMC and the RMC should have 28 days to amend the application to deal with those objections. If this is happily effected the right to manage proceeds, otherwise it does go to the tribunal. No further objections can be raised at the tribunal that were not mentioned in the original objections. This cuts out smarmy lawyers finding that a comma is in the wrong place on the application!
Now the word that everyone reading this post has been waiting for, FINALLY, Many of these proposals will prove expensive for freeholders and developers. Have no sympathy for them. The offshore freeholders add nothing to this country and its economy, they actually drain funds away from it. The developers have only themselves to blame for their misfortune. whilst it is going to cost them dear , any losses should be put in context with the mega bonuses they paid themselves!
Savid Javid ‘Condems’ house builders actions but falls short of saying that the Givernment will force them to right their wrongs.re the shafted leaseholders. Said he “Hoped they would do the thing”??? (R4 Today prog)?most unconvincing in my view.
The issue now is flats, where there is major abuse of EXISTING legislation by unscrupulous freeholders through the sale of “Ground Rent portfolios” without prior knowledge of qualifying leaseholders.
Besides new build flats and re-sale to freehold investors, there is a separate illegal trade in the sale of freehold residential flat premises constructed during the 1970/80/90s where the majority of individual flats were issued with 99 year leases and the number of years remaining is fast approaching or well under 80 years.. In these cases, the flat owner will require a lease extension – willingly offered by the unscrupulous “new” freeholder provided it is on an “informal” basis containing a newly written doubling Ground Rent clause: {which incidentally is where leasehold house builders originally got the idea from} in blatant breach of the statutory right of the leaseholder to a 90 year extension with Ground Rent reducing to zero.
Under existing provisions of part 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1q87 (as amended by the Housing Act 1996) {“the LTA 1987”} qualifying leaseholders in residential flat premises possess the right of first refusal in the event the existing landlord wishes to sell the freehold tile to the premises in which they reside.. And it is a CRIMINAL offence for a landlord to make a relevant disposal affecting such premises without first serving notice (s5) on the qualifying leaseholders offering them the right of first refusal.
However, it is through willful manipulation of sale and purchase agreements, aided and abetted by a seemingly ready supply of muddy and murky legal advisers, that leaseholders are kept ignorant and unaware of these rights. When leaseholders do realise a sale of the freehold flat premises has taken place they are usually isolated and lack the ability to do much about it. Enforcement for breach is presently beyond the remit of the First Tier Tribunal – Property and can only be achieved through the courts: a process both financially punitive and open to further abuse,
This trade in Ground Rent portfolios is a major criminal scandal depriving unwitting qualifying leaseholders of the material interest in their own leasehold flat properties. It is done with ease. The criminal sanctions imposed by the amendments to the Housing Act 1996 are woefully inadequate to deter the villains or to protect leaseholder rights and interests.
The EXISTING legislation must be enforced with increased penalties for CRIMINAL breach.
Known freehold owning companies that have already acquired extensive portfolios through this illegal process must be forced to issue notices (s3A) to the many thousands of qualifying leaseholders already affected, giving them the right to acquire the freehold interest on like terms to the original disposal as provided by the LTA 1987.
In February this year, Gavin Barwell, then MP and Minister of State for Housing and Planning at the DCLG stated in a letter to my own MP:
“Breach of these legal obligations by the landlord is a criminal offence, If the landlord sells without providing the Right of First Refusal, the tenants can serve a notice on the new owner demanding details of the transaction, including the price paid; they can then take action to force the new owner to sell to them at the price he paid.”
“…More generally, the Government has concerns about the transparency (or lack of it) given to the way leasehold property is marketed, whether lease agreements are fair, and whether property owners and agents are acting reasonably. I have asked the Law Commission to look into this area.”..
Whilst it is noteworthy that the issue of the sale of leasehold houses is to be resolved as announced today by Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary, the birth child of this nefarious trade in punitive Ground Rents has been and continues to be the illegal trade in the sale of freehold portfolios of leasehold flats leading to the “informal” lease extension racket with its own original form of the doubling Ground Rent clause.
The “Crackdown on unfair Leasehold Practices” as announced today must be as embracing as the title suggests. And after the consultation period, hopefully we can also hear from the Law Commission so that Parliament can now move rapidly to finally outlaw these criminal practices..
HEAR HEAR!!
Great insight Alec. I can testify that I was offered an informal lease extension for my flat where the ground rent doubled every few years but decided to go the statutory route and commission my own valuer and issue a S.42 Notice thereby fixing the valuation date after feeling very uneasy about the informal offer and after reading some of the warnings in the articles on this website. The whole lease extension racket (whether formal or informal) ought to be brought to an end and ownership of flats transferred to the leaseholders in my view. So, I agree with Alec, and may I congratulate all those who have campaigned for leasehold reform/abolition and may our beloved MPs hear the voice of the people and act decisively and root out the rottenness and greed that underpins the whole leasehold system.
Congratulations to LKP and its supporters and to Katie and her supporters.
So what happens now.
The situation now is that current long suffering leaseholders may have stopped any more falling into the trap. But what will be done for existing leaseholders.
Now that the Government has at last accepted the scam has been a “gravy train”. Will they force the finance company freeholders to put a limit on all existing ground rents and the obnoxious conditions that go with it. If not, then with reform these existing leasehold properties will be even more difficult to sell.
And what about the Developer Builders. Will they all now be forced to compensate all the leaseholders in properties they have sold.
And what about the TW compensation scheme., will they have to expand it to the RPI’s and Resales.. After all, the Government accepts the whole issue has been a scam, not just the Doublers.
And can the Government now move onto helping those in leasehold flats, especially those in Retirement complexes.
Go ‘ere for DCLG consultation paper…
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/tackling-unfair-practices-in-the-leasehold-market
Filled out the survey.
The government will do anything to keep the housing bubble inflated. So my view is one day commonhold will be introduced as it’s pretty much the last roll of the dice before an almighty correction appears.
I hope you are right. Commom hold makes so much sense
What the…
Here’s wot is being consulted… (I don’t beleeeeve it)
“This consultation particularly seeks views on:
i) prohibiting the sale of new build leasehold houses
where the developer is not obliged to sell a house on
a leasehold basis;
ii) restricting ground rents on new leases to a
‘peppercorn’;
iii) how to tackle existing onerous ground rents;
iv) possible changes to the Help to Buy scheme in
relation to leasehold houses;
v) providing freeholders on private estates with
equivalent rights to leaseholders to challenge
unreasonable service charges for the upkeep of
communal areas and facilities via the First-tier
Tribunal (Property Chamber). ”
Does (v) actually say providing freeholders with equivalent rights to leaseholders? I thinks it do!
And where, pray, can I offer twenty years’ experience of leasehold flat living, tribunals, et al?
It does say “particularly” but you have to identify the question you are responding to!
Okay, buried on page 7, not at the start, there is a (vi)…
vi) Areas for future leasehold reform.
But why on earth want to give freeholders the SAME rights to challenge unreasonable service charges! Does the DCLG not know that the freeholder is the landlord who employs the agent who decides the flippin’ service charge level in the first place?
Off for a lie down now…
Paddy, my understanding of this is:
Freehold house but on private estate can be as bad as being Leasehold due to the service charge and apparently they cannot challenge this unlike if it was Leasehold. They want to protect Freehold homes on private estate.
Now I understand!
And dare I say according to LEASE, seems to depend whether said house is part of an Estate Management Scheme (EMS) under S19 Leasehold Reform Act 1967, or under Chapter 4 or S93 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
EMS – yes can use tribunal
Not EMS – no tribunal
The transfer doc apparently sets out clauses obliging a share of costs to manage/maintain communal areas. Hopefully not a boating lake and large park.
I knew this not. I learn something new every day. As a famous someone once said, it’s what you don’t know you don’t know…
Well written article and great success from LKP
“Ordinary people think they are buying a home; in fact, they have inadvertently signed up to fund a sophisticated investment asset at their own expense.”
Someone had to say it, and it is time to abolish the entire racket. There should be hefty compensation for those home owners, (or tenants if we are at a tribunal) who have to suffer with the worry of the ‘onerous leases’ . No amount of money can really make up for the worry and stress factor, but it can be seen as a penalty and deterant for the shady freeholders.
The DCLG consultation paper: “Crackdown on unfair Leasehold Practices” sets out on page 24, Clause 7. Future Issues
7.1 We set out in our White Paper “Fixing the Broken Housing Market” that we would “take action to promote transparency and fairness for the growing number of leaseholders” and the proposals in this consultation document are the first steps in achieving this. We will be looking ahead to further steps needed to ensure transparency and fairness, and considering the outcome of the Law Commission’s consultation on its 13th programme of law reform over the coming months which included residential leasehold. Our intention is for a wide ranging project. This will look at:
# improving commonhold
# how managing agents operate
# leasehold terms and enfranchisement
Q21: The Housing White Paper highlights that the Government will consult on a range of measures to tackle abuse of leasehold. What further areas of leasehold reform should be prioritised and why?
The Law Commission 13th programme of law reform, which includes residential leasehold, was due to report in July on a final list of leasehold matters selected for consideration. This was delayed by the General Election and the Law Commission is now expected to do so after the summer recess.
As Gavin Barwell, the then Housing Minister (and now CoS for Theresa May) confirmed in February, he asked the Law Commission to look into this area, and the consultation paper now leads us to conclude that “…over the coming months” , we can expect results.
Yes we do..
https://www.homegroundonline.com/media/12826/website-faqs.pdf
Homegoround trying to deflect some of the unwanted attention it’s been recieving.
Jeffrey, Thanks for that, it is very interesting. Particularly the part about covering the Landlord’s costs.
When a cost is incurred for granting of a permission or a registration etc the Landlord is entitled under the term of the lease to recover those costs. and that to my mind is perfectly fair.
The Landlord can undertake the work themselves and charge directly or as is most common appoint a company to handle such administrative issues, which is where Homeground and Estates & Management come in to the equation.
So to take one item as an example, Homeground charge an 108 pounds for every resident asking them a question. It is debatable if 108 pounds would stand the “reasonable” test in a tribunal, but for the sake of argument it is. Remember, it is the Landlord that is entitled to recover their costs. the landlord is not allowed to profit from administration. Therefore, I humbly suggest that for a 108 pound charge to be lawful under the terms of the lease, Homeground should be charging the Landlord 108 pounds, unless a contract to administer all the landlord’s portfolio is in place which would mean the cost to the landlord for an inquiry may only be 25 pounds.
So any tribunal should be made aware of the actual cost paid by the landlord. In my opinion (for what it is worth) that would be the figure that would be recoverable.
I want to trust Javid and the silent Alok Sharma but so far no action to protect the consumer..
Just spoke to Aldwyck Help to Buy agency who say they ‘are not interested in ground rent because the contract is between the developer and purchaser’. In fact their adviser had not heard of any problems with ground rent !
This level of ignorance is repeated with enquiries at point of sale with the developers. Point of sale literature at Countryside Properties said ‘Ground rent is reviewed every 15 years.’ After reservation costs you see the lease which says ‘double every 15 years in an upwards only direction’. Persimmon got away with the lie that ‘ leasehold is practically the same as freehold’ which again misleads the purchaser.
Javid just says the purchaser can rely on the ‘code of conduct’ and should seek legal redress. What a load of cohones. Millions of leaseholders have millions of votes and unless fairness to all is legally actioned the Tories will lose and I am/was one of them.
A leasehold Review like the endowment review on a case by case basis is long overdue as called for in the Guardian article.
Paddy, As a house owner in an estate managed by Firstport, I successfully applied to have my case heard at the tribunal but the judge was bullied by the their lawyer that as a house owner not a leaseholder, my case could not be heard there.
So I assisted few of my fellow leaseholders to go to the same court and we won some compensation for them not me.
I was just glad to see small victory.
This news is long overdue.
WELL DONE LKP
Congratulations to all who have worked so far to combat this abuse. House leaseholders need a Right to Buy the freehold at a reasonable price. Flat leaseholders need the Right to acquire the common hold if a majority want it. Ireland and Scotland have reformed. England and Wales need to throw off our feudal past.
Not just Scotland and Ireland. Leasehold has been abolished everywhere it was inherited from English Common Law — that’s Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong etc. (all of the countries of the British Empire) — except England and Wales.
The French, Americans, Germans etc. all manage perfectly fine without leasehold. It is a feudal anachronism long overdue for consignment to the scrapheap of history.
For those interested in understanding why there is a huge alternative market in ground rent investments, have a read of Savills research report ‘Alternative Residential Investments’ from 2014. They say on page 3 that ‘The key attraction of investing in the ground rent market is security of income and the relatively attractive return from low risk, long term and inflationary linked income streams.’ They surveyed a number of investors with assets of £4billion in property and found that 50% was allocated to ground investments’. The report is an useful insight into investor thinking and is well worth a read, even if it is all a bit annoying for a leaseholder:
http://pdf.euro.savills.co.uk/residential—other/spotlight-alt.pdf
There is also an article by Tanya Powley entitled ‘Ground Rent Prices Rise As Investors Chase Yield’ available online published via the Financial Times on November 8, 2013. It is essential reading for all those concerned with the problem of leasehold properties and want to get to grips with the ground rent issue.
Finally, the half-year report of ‘Ground Rents Income Fund Plc’ was recently released into the public domain and it reveals that they expect to generate income of about £5million from ground rent investments by the end of September 2017 and as at the end of March 2017 they were sitting on investment property assets (with ground rents) of £143million. And note 5 to the unaudited accounts reveals that low interest rates have been the driving force behind the investments in ground rents.
Let me quote their comments: ‘While interest rates remain low, ground rents are an attractive investment due to their secure, pre-determined income streams.’ And ‘The most valuable ground rent assets are those which are RPI linked with reviews every 10 years or less …. And the lease attractive ground rents are those which are flat with no future rental increases …’ Tanya Powley also reveals in her article that there is an opportunity for investors to make more money when the leaseholder is faced with the need to extend the lease. Other sources, reveal money can be made by the more aggressive investor by ‘sweating the assets’ and milking every opportunity to make a few quid.
MPs please take note. Leaseholders look to you to liberate them from all forms of leasehold enslavement, including the mentality that sees them as cash cows and second class citizens whose homes can be traded on an investment market without their knowledge or agreement.
And who was a director of Savilles at the time?
Step forward Roger Southam,, he of Leasehold Advisory Service fame!
I want to know if the latest Housing Minister has responded to the NLC’s letter requesting that Southam is ousted as Chair of Lease?? I mean , is it honestly beyond the wit of man/ woman to realise that his appointment was / Is totally inappropriate?? Talk about taking the …………. The man must go and go Now!
Hi All,
Please comment on my postings under thread headed “Adriatic Land” ?