Platinum Skies received more than £15m from taxpayer subsidies for its schemes
Meanwhile, investor punters have paid it at least £39m to buy the rental income of shared ownership homes
Platinum Skies a private shared ownership retirement developer that received more than £15 million in taxpayer subsidies from Homes England to build its schemes has been fined £236,000.
The company’s aggressive leases meant shared owners were hit with impossible admin fees making it impossible to staircase up to greater or full ownership.
In other words, taxpayer funds were spent to create an inflation-linked investment asset in the form of the unowned rental element – which LKP likens to a new ground rent – that was then hoovered up by property punters who paid at least £39 million.
Astonishingly, the £236,000 fine was kept secret by Homes England but was revealed by The Times looking into the company accounts of Platinum Skies’s holding company, the Affordable Housing and Healthcare Group.
Tory-linked developer fined £236k over unfair leases on flats
Platinum Skies received at least £15 million in subsidies to help build shared-ownership retirement flats
“The Times understands that at least 180 leases have now been redrawn and that the company has legally committed not to impose the administration fees on the other,” the newspaper reports today.
Platinum Skies is chaired by Lord Fink, a former Conservative treasurer, employed as a consultant (for £12,500) former Tory MP Sir Conor Burns and its parent company paid John Beesley, Conservative leader of Bournemouth council, for planning advice.
The Affordable Housing and Healthcare Group told The Times: “The matter has been concluded. We have taken all necessary steps to prevent any reoccurrence of similar errors in the future. We care deeply about our customers. We continue to work tirelessly to build cherished homes our customers can afford, in supportive communities in which they can thrive.”
Homes England told The Times: “As soon as the issue was brought to our attention, we worked with the company to establish the full extent of the breach and ensure it was remedied as urgently as possible. We are now comfortable that this has been resolved, and have imposed appropriate sanctions.”
Related posts:
Retirement housebuilder Platinum Skies breached shared ownership rules with onerous ‘staircasing’ charges in the lease
Platinum Skies: £63,000 loss on £130,000 shared ownership retirement flat after new owner died 25 days after moving in
Call for evidence on shared ownership, from the robust Communities Select Committee
Nothing to do with us, says Poltair Homes CEO, over 80 blighted shared ownership houses in Cornwall
APPG on shared ownership: L&Q wrong to hard sell ‘Black Friday’ knock-off flats to buyers. Urgent need for shared ownership re-sale data to be on Land Registry
NLC recommissions leaseholders’ mental health survey
You forgot to mention that Firstport is the management company.
Really, the leaseholders and/or their conveyancing lawyers should have been on a heightened sense of alert when it emerged FirstPort were the management company.
I wonder what the lenders make of all this?
You really could not make this up. The shared ownership leaseholder pays a service charge, rent and possibly a mortgage and have fewer rights than a medieval serf in my opinion.
I find it shocking that the Great British Public are indirectly subsidising this kind of alleged home ownership.
I would like to wish all at LKP and all contributors (especially those with opposing views) a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year.
… and what are this so called government doing about this despite all of the promises of reform? There seems to be no real sense of urgency in the matter.
The Leasehold Sector, the Landlord & Tenant legislation requires monumental and urgent review and revision! The lightweight newly formed Government has no interest or genuine appetite for opening up what is a veritable can of worms – besides, there no Members of Parliament genuinely or sufficiently knowedgable willing to address the radical degree of change (transformation) needed.
The Old Guard APPG champions – the likes of Sir Peter Bottomley – who have tried must be mentally and emotionally exhausted but have only ever been able to scratch the surface of the issues involved with the Establishment – for , of course, it is the Establishment who own the properties, or have a vested interest in maintaining the current ‘status quo’! Frankly,
it’s only people, laymen and laywomen like myself, who having spent hours, and hours, and hours pouring over the labyrinth of LTA legislation, experiencing a First Tier Tribunal at first hand etc etc. who realise the sheer scope of what needs to be taken on, the overwhelming complexity of the task to implement any meaningful change.
In the meantime, tens of thousands, if not millions of leaseholders will discover the choice of purchasing a leasehold property is to tantamount to buying a living nightmare, and like every horror film, it gets worse as time passes. That is the reality.
Jonathan,
Hear, hear! I agree, the establishment are the problem.