‘Amount for a leaseholder to purchase their freehold would be capped at no more than 10 times the annual ground rent’
‘I have never been given a satisfactory answer by a developer as to exactly what ground rent pays for, other than to provide an additional cash cow for the builder and a revenue stream for the freeholder.’
‘In many cases, the freehold to their house was moved offshore, so that what they had thought was their home became, in fact, the property of a string of shady companies operating from a tax haven.’
‘Keepmoat has asked many residents to pay huge additional sums to avoid their freeholds being sold to a private company’
‘It will take years for the stench of ignominy that envelops guilty developers to wear off, but this Bill may help in that process.’
Justin Madders’s 10-Minute Rule Bill was passed with no opposition in the Commons yesterday and is set to have its second reading on February 2 next year.
It calls for an end to the lease extension and enfranchisement racket with leaseholders being able to purchase the freehold to their houses or blocks of flats for “no more than 10 times the annual ground rent”.
The full text of his speech is below. And on Parliament TV at 15.24 here: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/22040324-95e2-4aca-ab7f-2b07c8713444
Property Industry Eye website reported the speech yesterday:
PPI-style compensation scheme for leasehold home owners could pay out billions
Labour MP and leading leasehold reform activist Justin Madders has secured a second reading of a Bill that aims to introduce a compensation scheme for existing home owners suffering from unfair leaseholds. He described leaseholds as a “scam”, with possible compensation being the “PPI of the house-building industry”.
Second 3.24 pm
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Share this contribution
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the regulation of the purchase of freehold by leaseholders; to introduce a system for establishing the maximum charge for such freehold; to make provision about the award of legal costs in leasehold property tribunal cases; to establish a compensation scheme for cases where misleading particulars have led to certain leasehold agreements; and for connected purposes.
The working title of this Bill is the Leasehold Reform Bill, but it has been suggested to me that a better title might be the Leasehold Emancipation Bill. Although I welcome the Government’s recent consultation on ending unfair leasehold practices, and I urge Ministers to hold their nerve and end this outrageous practice, sadly there is little to suggest that the Government are going to address the ongoing situation of leaseholders, many of whom feel trapped in their homes.
I hope that the genuine cross-party support for this Bill will encourage the Government to facilitate its passage through Parliament, or at least to come up with a Bill of their own to deal with these proposals. On cross-party support, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who have been true champions of the leasehold community. [Both are patrons of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership.]
The principal aim of the Bill is to deliver a fair and simple mechanism to help tens of thousands of our constituents to escape from their current leasehold agreements. Before I set out how that will work in practice, I will briefly explain the background. Many of my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, have spoken about how they bought what they had thought were their dream homes on new housing developments, built by household names, more often than not in the last decade or so. Many, but not all, of the buyers knew that the property was being sold to them on a leasehold basis. Between the salespeople and the solicitors recommended to them by the developer, however, very few were fully aware of the finer detail of what they were signing up to.
Almost all were left with the impression that they would have first refusal on the freehold of the property and that it would be possible to purchase the freehold for a reasonable price. However, the figures that were quoted for the purchase of the freehold by the salespeople working for the developers bear little relation to the costs that people were quoted later on, because, shortly after they moved in, the freehold of their property was sold, without their knowledge or consent, to a third party that they had never heard of. In many cases, the freehold to their house was moved offshore, so that what they had thought was their home became, in fact, the property of a string of shady companies operating from a tax haven. Often, it is impossible to say who the ultimate beneficiary is.
Under the terms of the lease, to continue to live in their own home, the buyers are charged an annual ground rent, which, in some cases, doubles every 10 years, taking an initially modest sum of a few hundred pounds to an exorbitant annual fee of thousands of pounds within their lifetime. In some cases, that renders the property unsellable.
The ground rent, it should be pointed out, is separate from and in addition to a service or maintenance charge. Although the latter charges pay for something clearly definable, I have never been given a satisfactory answer by a developer as to exactly what ground rent pays for, other than to provide an additional cash cow for the builder and a revenue stream for the freeholder. The person living in the house gets absolutely nothing in return for their annual payments.
When those living in their leasehold home inquire whether the new freehold owner is willing to sell them the freehold of their home, they are often told no. Sometimes, they receive no response at all, and I have had to threaten freeholders with naming them on the Floor of the House just to elicit a response. Such responses are not consistent either: neighbours in almost identical houses in my constituency have been quoted wildly different prices to purchase their freeholds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) has brought to my attention such a situation in her constituency. The company, Keepmoat, has asked many residents to pay huge additional sums to avoid their freeholds being sold to a private company. At the same time, others were told the freehold was unavailable, yet a lucky few were actually given theirs for free. Such an inconsistent and unfair approach would no longer be possible under the Bill.
When the leaseholder eventually receives the quote for purchasing the freehold, they are often quoted an astronomical sum and are told that it is non-negotiable. These quotes are always many times higher than any figure the developer’s sales staff have told them. The same has been true when residents of a block of flats have collectively sought to purchase their freehold and take responsibility for the shared areas themselves.
Instead of the simple purchase of the freehold for a set price that the developer led them to expect they could take advantage of, the leaseholder enters the convoluted and expensive process called enfranchisement. This is a process of incessant horse-trading, which at present exists to establish correct valuations and provides a lucrative market for surveyors and lawyers. The provisions of the lease often require the person wishing to buy the freehold to pay the freeholder’s costs in dealing with the application. We have the indefensible situation of people footing the bill for the costs of professionals, whose job is actually to maximise the amount of money they will take off those people.
The Bill’s first aim is to introduce a simple and fair scheme, with a clear and transparent statutory pricing model, and the amount for a leaseholder to purchase their freehold would be capped at no more than 10 times the annual ground rent. At the moment, leaseholders are often quoted costs of over 100 times the ground rent to purchase the freehold. We can change this: such a system already exists in many other countries, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I believe it is time that people in England and Wales had the same rights.
Such a system would involve a simple formula for calculating the value of the freehold, based on the ground rent and the number of years left on the lease, with a cap on the maximum payable. This would be set out in statute so that everybody knows at the outset what they are dealing with. While this would come as very bad news for surveyors and lawyers in this field, it would provide a mechanism to enable our constituents finally to own their own homes in a straightforward way and provide security for their futures.
Currently, too many leaseholders are prevented from exercising their rights because they cannot afford to do so. One recent example was of a retired couple paying £38,000 to buy their freehold. Such people are being ripped off when they first buy the house, and then ripped off again when they try to buy the freehold.
The Bill’s second provision seeks to rebalance the awarding of costs at leasehold property tribunals. The system as it stands reinforces the existing imbalance of power between the leaseholder and freeholder, and the Bill ensures that a leaseholder will not have to pay the freeholder’s costs just to enforce their own rights under the lease.
Finally, I have deep concerns about both the information provided to purchasers by developers and the advice given by solicitors. Solicitors are often recommended by the developer, which is why I am calling for a statutory compensation scheme. I have labelled this scandal “the PPI of the house building industry”, and that phrase has caught on precisely because of the similarities. We need a similar process to compensate those who have fallen victim to this scam.
In some cases, I have evidence that developers insisted that purchasers used solicitors nominated by them if the sale was to go ahead, or offered large incentives, including paying for the leaseholder’s legal fees. In many other cases, buyers were put under pressure to use a recommended solicitor because they were told that there was a short window of time available to complete the purchase and that only a solicitor from its panel would be able to complete the relevant searches within this timeframe. This has meant that many of my constituents ended up using firms whose advice on these leases was that they were standard documents. Such a document may have been standard for that particular development, but that does not make it fair or reasonable.
The third element of my Bill therefore seeks to establish in law a system of compensation where misleading particulars have led to certain leasehold agreements.
Alongside this, I would expect there to be a full independent inquiry to look at the relationships between developers, freeholders, finance companies and conveyancers and to establish how a system was allowed to develop that has left so many innocent people feeling ripped off. It is time we held to account the guilty men and women who must have known that this scam would ultimately be at the cost of their customers.
The leasehold scandal is one from which nobody emerges with credit.
The Government, lenders, freeholders and lawyers have all played a role, but I must reserve the lion’s share of the obloquy for developers who have deliberately and systematically created a set of toxic assets, with those left in the lurch finding that the biggest purchase of their life is a pup.
When people bought their houses, they thought they were doing just that—buying their home. They never contemplated for a moment that the true owner of their home was actually someone—they might never know their identity—who could then sell on their interest in the property to somebody else without their knowledge or consent. We need to give people the chance to escape that trap fairly.
It will take years for the stench of ignominy that envelops guilty developers to wear off, but this Bill may help in that process. Until we come up with an effective way to release people from the shackles of leasehold, the authors of this injustice will never be forgiven. I commend this motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Justin Madders, Jim Fitzpatrick, Sir Peter Bottomley, David Hanson, Ian Austin, Mary Glindon, Justin Tomlinson, Ruth George, Antoinette Sandbach, Bill Esterson, Gareth Thomas and Derek Twigg present the Bill.
Justin Madders accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 121).
Related posts:
Justin Madders MP tells Chester Chronicle leasehold is ‘the PPI of housing sector’
Justin Madders delays Leasehold Reform Bill and calls on the Government to provide justice for leaseholders
Justin Madders launches Bill to end the enfranchisement and lease extension racket
Justin Madders Bill: 10x annual ground rent and the freehold is yours … Anyone got a problem with that?
Ban revenue-generating leasehold houses, says Justin Madders MP. Redrow responds
Two opportunities to raise leasehold scandals in Parliament today
Awesome even second time around.
Cue the Right Hon Sajid Javid announcing the government will support followed by Right Hon Leader of the Opposition…
Paddy – Wotever.:This is the beginning of the End for sleaze in Residential Housing. The Managing Agents / Shady solicitors/ dodgy surveyors et al are gonna have to look for other avenues of revenue cos leadeholders have woken up and are not going to be Intimidated with empty threats of Forfeiture for monies undue under terms of occupational leases, Charging for services not received,, Giving FTT an email address that was known to be out of use and other very dirty tricks played by Managing Agents.
THIS MUST END. I truly believe that the recorded rise in mental illness/ depression ( same ball park I know) is caused in no small part by the deplorable tactics used by UNSCRUPULOUS Managing Agents out there who bully, badger and threaten leaseholders.
I know of one 90 yr old very well heeled lady being asked by an agent to verify- oh forget It.. That’s for another day………..
These individuals with their unscrupulous methods must be expunged from the Residential Leasehold “ Profession”….
Hell yes!
“The leasehold scandal is one from which nobody emerges with credit.
“The Government, lenders, freeholders and lawyers have all played a role, but I must reserve the lion’s share of the obloquy for developers who have deliberately and systematically created a set of toxic assets, with those left in the lurch finding that the biggest purchase of their life is a pup.”
Developers (and freeholders and lawyers and surveyors and any other professionals involved) are just chancers.
It is the enablers, GOVERNMENT, who are most culpable.
David, how dare you NOT include Residential Managing Agents in your list of “Deplorables”. How very very dare you?
Kim, humble and profound apology. I have been educated fully by posts in this forum, on managing agents – moments ago by Lesley Newnham and Fleecehold reform, for instance. But it is difficult for one to type the words “Managing agents” without being soiled, God forbid I ever have to mouth the words.
David, as you are such an excellent ‘ Poster’ I shall let you off.
There are enough folks on this site who heap deserved opprobrium on Unscrupulous Residential Maging Agents.
Thankfully these rogues days are numbered but they just can’t handle the truth!! . Leaseholders have risen like lions from slumber. Fini!!!
I hope the cost of buying the freehold means not more than 10 times the ground rent in the FIRST year of the lease commencing.
Bellway Homes sold many, many blocks of leasehold flats on 7 April 1995. to Cherrybase Properties Ltd without offering Right of First Refusal at 7.5 times the annual ground rent.
The Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 required the buyer to offer the freehold to the leaseholders on the same terms but Cherrybase Properties Ltd has been silent for the past 22 years and never offered the freehold to the leaseholders.
It was made a criminal offence since 1996 Housing Act if the RFR offer is not made to leaseholders. But previous Housing Ministers since 1995 ( taking wrong advice from Senior civil servants in Housing Department ) never gave any backing to protect the leaseholders against abuse by the freeholder.
Consequently, instead of owning the freehold , those leaseholders have paid annual ground rent since 1995 and the current ground rent will double next year in March 2018 ( and this will raise the cost of lease extension and cost of buying the freehold if “the leasehold reform” fails to proceed ).
We want to see all 650 MPs who were voted into office by their constituency residents , agree to vote in favour of Justin Madders’ Bill.
The MP s were voted into office by local residents in their constituency, they were NOT voted into office by the freehold companies controlled from offshore countries.
We want the freehold titles of property in the constituency, fully owned by their local residents.
Well done Justin Madders.
I wrote in my reply to the recent consultation on ‘tackling unfair practices in the leasehold market’ that the nature of leasehold itself is the primary problem, and leasehold is a scandal a thousand times worse than the PPI scandal that has given rise to extortionate lease extension costs inter alia.
That was my beef at the time and now I am starting to wrestle with managing agents and the mind games that they like to play and I am not impressed.
I do not get the sense that the government or Parliament has awoken to the extent of the scandalous nature of leasehold yet but we can all live in hope and pray for a miracle for it will take a miracle to open eyes and prick consciences to do what is right, fair and just.
The leasehold market is rooted in deception and it is time for Parliament to bring the deception to an end and liberate leaseholders from enslavement to an investor class of people and their agents who see themselves as some type of overlord entitled to fleece leaseholders at every opportunity.
So, well done Justin Madders, LKP and the APPG. Keep up the good work.
A fleeced Leaseholder
You say that you are “Wrestling with Managing Agents andvthe mind games they play”,?
I am currently being sued for “ Defamation “ and “ Harassment” by a Managing Agent. I shall not comment much further as I am preparing my defence. Suffice to say I shall be informing the Rt Hon Sajid Javid of this utter travesty.
Intimidation of Leaseholders by Managing Agents I cannot be allowed to continue.
Kim. If I was you, I would commission the services of a specialist solicitor and have a read of the RICS code of practice entitled ‘Service Charge Residential Management Code and additional advice to landlords, leaseholders and agents’. I am not sure if your managing agent is RICS qualified but if they are then you might want to note that they have a duty “not to harass leaseholders as it is a criminal offence” (section 4.5 of the RICS code, page 16). Not sure if that helps but the code also says the managing agent “should manage the property on an open and transparent basis’ (section 4.1, para.4) and they “should never mislead [their] client or leaseholders. [And] in all communications [the managing agent] should be accurate, clear, concise and courteous” (section 4.2, page 15). All the best.
Hi fleeced leaseholder ,
Thank your for your comment.
The Agent in question is indeed an RICS qualified etc etc but most certainly in my belief adhere to the “Code” of the RICS however facile the “code” might be.
In addition, the agent in question has misled prospective clients by leading them to believe the agent is a member of “ARMA” no matter how ineffectual ARMA are as a self regulatory body, it still resonates with the naive leaseholder.
In Oct of this year I notified ARMA of this misleading information and it was removed.
I have prepared my detailed response complete with 20/exhibits and my response to the “ Paticulars” of the Claimaint. This was delivered by hand to the Court and the Claimants Solicitor early this week.
The scheduled Part hearing Is due in several weeks. I shall represent myself at that particular hearing but have a specialist QC waiting in the wings should it go full trial.
My delivered written defence provides CRYSTAL CLEAR evidence that the Claimaint has told big porky pies…….
Hi Kim. Now that I know the agent is RICS qualified, you might want to note some comments from the Foreword to the Code. To quote “… non-compliance with best practice is a serious matter and practitioners would need to justify the reasons for not following best practice. This Code, having been approved by the Secretary of State, can be used for evidential purposes before courts and tribunals as well as disciplinary measures by RICS against regulated firms and members” (page 5, para.2). Might be worth a read and bringing it to the attention of your QC friend. All the best.
Dear Fleeced Leaseholder
I thank you once again for your informative information relating to RICS Agents and can confirm that the Agent in question has I BELIEVE breached every single code with alacrity.
I believe that in suing me the agent has given me a golden opportunity to expose the utter nefariousness and venality that I believe is the Agents modus operandi and in addition iResidential management as a whole.
I am fortunate in that I come from a family of Lawyers and therefore am not thrown into panic by a Solicitors letter of In this cas hundreds of pages of utter nonsense.. However, not everybody Is like me and that is why rogue agents need to be brought to heel.!!!
Thank you very much for all of the information about the Leasehold Emancipation Bill.
A really BIG THANK YOU to all contributors. At last a light in a very long tunnel. Those dragging their feet (In The Government) – please support Justin Madders MP, as he has just show how things should be done. Swift action is needed, as our bills are mounting, given the timescales we may have to still wait a long time before this becomes law. And please, NO MORE CONSULTATIONS.
Dear fleeced leaseholder
Thank you for your comment 7.52pm- MOST USEFUL! I think that my 8.02 pm comment overcrossed with your latest one.
We leaseholders must hang together, help each other in extremis and ultimately gain VICTORY.
APATHY IS A CRIME!!
And when you are in Court , remember to quote the Fraud Act 2006
Section 3 – Fraud by failing to disclose information.
Section 4 – Fraud by abuse of position
Dear Ollie
Thank you for your comments, They have been duly noted.. It is gratifying to feel that my fellow leaseholders / Campaigners are onside.
Thank you.
I wondered how long this might take to become law, so I looked up the process. It’s set out here:
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/
of course, without a timetable. It seems it would take some time even at the best of times, that is, without other legislative demands and the likely sandbagging efforts of vested interests. Still, it’s writing on the wall and some freeholders and their lenders will need to think about divestment while they can, before their grotesequely inflated valuations suffer punctures.
I’ve been predicting further disclosures related to tax avoidance by freehold monetisers for some time. The Paradise papers provide further example of the “financial engineering” techniques used by some. For example, charging rates of interest on loans from offshore companies which are calculated to minimise any profits in the UK. The good news is that there is more to come.
Here’s what needs to be done: https://youtu.be/0IbxHMsLQU0
Tax justice blogger Richard Murphy has even prepared a draft law, short, like that of Justin Madders, that would put an end to the concealment of beneficial ownership:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/11/06/the-law-we-need-to-really-regulate-companies-and-trusts/
As he notes, it was talked out (effectively killed) by Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Although 70% or more of the owners in many London developments are supposedly offshore owners, a good few are in fact British and only offshore for tax purposes. The Paradise Papers will be followed in due course by larger and more explosive revelations and by commensurate public reactions.
Was Jacob Rees – Mogg acting for his constituients who voted him into office as MP or was he paid for acting for unscrupulous freeholders to block leasehold reform ? .
Rees-Mogg is an MP for a Somerset constituency which may not have many homes owned by offshore companies (compared with Westminster which has 11%, see http://www.private-eye.co.uk/registry) but which may well have a few owners of offshore companies who own numerous homes in London and elsewhere. Such constituents can’t be sufficiently numerous to see him elected.
Mogg, whose offshore financial holdings have been reported on, is not short of a few million. As such he is unlikely to be quite as biddable as some who actually need the money to send their children to Eton.
His motivation is likely to be solidarity with his class of people. These are neither the haves or the have-nots but the have-yachts (including the honorary members who could have yachts if they wanted to but who are too discreet to do and who may just rent a yacht when they need it, possibly form a company they control). And his reason for this solidarity is simply that these people donate large amounts of money to the Conservative party.
Dear Kim,
I know of one 94 yr old lady who received a threat of forfeiture in relation to a bogus demand for inflated buildings insurance and died two days later. She had lived all her life in her immaculate flat which she treasured and the mere threat was the last straw.
Dear Alec
I am not surprised in the slightest by your comment. A plague on the shady shonky solicitor that sent that letter.
KARMA.
Cont;
And a plague on the house of the Managing Agent .
When presenting the third element in his bIll , Justin Madders said :
Alongside this, I would expect there to be a full independent inquiry to look at the relationships between developers, freeholders, finance companies and conveyancers and to establish how a system was allowed to develop that has left so many innocent people feeling ripped off.
I would ask Justin Madders and members of the APPG for leasehold Reform to study the latest Yr/Ending 31 Dec 2016 Accounts of Beta Centauri Ltd ( Co. No. 09603996 ). This company reported :
Ground Rent Income = £12.7 Mil
Other Income = £ 7.5 Mil
Total Income = £ 20 Mil approx.
Value of properties = £2.53 Billion ( by actuarial valuation basis on rent from 63 years of the lease )
Loan Value = £666.5 Million
Based on ground rent income of £12.7 Million , the fair market value at 25 times = £320 Million and no UK bank under sane management should lend .more than 60% of market value = £200 Million max..
If Justin’s Bill is passed and leaseholder’s can buy their freehold at not more than 10 times ground rent.. the bank lender to Beta Centauri will be holding security only worth £ 127 million against their loan of £666 million.
Is this a scam against the bank ? In 2008, the Kaupthing Bank and HBOS made loans to finance overvalued freehold properties and those bank failed.
Are we about to witness another bank failure ? Or will the Directors of Beta Centauri be allowed to scam the leaseholders out of their savings ?i
.
Ollie. Let us not forget Mr Cummings of HBOS who was instrumental in the granting of such loans, which were said to have gone way outside any accepted lending criteria and was subsequently banned from working in the city ever again.
It seems to me that the whole”freehold” property sector is based on loans secured against entirely bogus valuations. Without making any assertions I can see a remarkable similarity in the care home sector as evidenced by the struggle that Four Seasons are having coping under the weight of huge “unsupported” debt.
Michael Epstein,
From what I read a few years ago , the Chairman and Board of Directors at HBOS thought they were getting into joint venture partnership with CBG and getting the benefit of their superior management style of operation as claimed and bragged about on CBG’s website.
What the Chiefs at HBOS did not realise, the “joint venture proposals” was intended to subvert their lending criteria and induce excessive lending decisions. This subversion is happening NOW …
Cor Ollie, you are good!!!
I feel a lot of Ground Rent Portfolio Merchants will be wetting their cheap Primark undergarments at this moment. WHY? Because their “ offshore vehicles” which they use to “ transfer “ freehold titles through “shares In the company” thereby depriving leaseholders of the opportunity to purchase the freehold will now be closely scrutinised. GOO
Bunch of shysters! That’s my opinion folks .
The dominoes have started to fall…….
EDIT – GOOD!!!!!!!!!
Kim,
You can make the dominoes fall earlier by send a warning letter to the bank – ( For Attention of Chairman and Directors ) to point out what is clearly false:
Beta Centauri Ltd ( No. 09603996)
Value of properties = £2.53 Billion ( by actuarial valuation basis on rent from 63 years of the lease )
Loan Value = £666.5 Million
and send cc to HMRC Swindon which has responsibility for investigating MoneyLaundering plus BOE, PRA and FCA –
by anonymous letters or sign as “Julian at the London Embassy”,.
Dear Ollie,
Your comment has been duly noted by me and hopefully by many others on this site who will take the appropriate action
“ Every action is one step closer to Justice”
Ollie, Is that London Embassy freehold or leasehold?
Michael Epstein :
Ref : yr question posted 15 Nov about London Embassy ? .
My reply is definitely wrong but just assume the wrong reply is better than no reply .
Address of Building : = Knightsbridge SW1
Freeholder of Building : West London Borough Council
Long Leaseholder : Ecuador Government
Protected tenant : Julian Stateless ..
Proceedings in hand : Eviction of protected tenant by London Authorities
Latest Info – by Google search or Julian + London Embassy.
This is an example of the Authorities spend tax payer money, going after eviction of a protected tenant .
But the same Authorities will not spend tax payer money going after ground rent freeholder companies and off-shore controlling entities
which contribute to collapse of our banks in 2008..
If passed, would this bill apply the freehold purchase cap to all existing leasehold contracts, or only to new builds from the date of enactment? I lead the owners of a small block of flats and we’re in dispute with our landlord/freeholder about the price to buy the freehold. The lease still has 109 years of the original 120 left to run.. He originally offered it to us at 16x the ground rent but has withdrawn that saying he now wants much more. We’re still waiting to hear what that will be but Justin Madders’ bill makes even the 16x seem a bit fanciful. Any suggestions?
John K,
I suggest you ask your local MP to join the APPG and raise up your situation for a solution.
Many of the freehold companies owned by the leaseholders have a clause which restricts shareholder membership to leaseholders in the block, Perhaps this clause could be inserted to apply to all freehold companies which stops the freehold title of residential blocks being sold off to Pirate Looting Companies based in the Caribbean .
Ollie., sometimes all the problems associated with leasehold are made worthwhile just to read your posts. You are a star!
Hear hear. Although your posts are rather jolly informative and erudite too Master Epstein!
I like to think that I inject some “Sturm und Drang” to the flow of the” mostly excellent comments on LKP.
Michael Epstein,
I think you are the real Superstar in the troubled retirement homes sector. You have stood in the spotlight on different websites and posted for so many years . I think your mind has been engaged thinking and living full time ( i.e 24/365 ) on leasehold issues and I guess even doing OT whilst asleep. .
Compare to you, most of us posting here are just bit players ( like part -time actors walking across the stage ).. Yes , I say you are the Superstar .
I noticed most posters make complaint against their freeholder and over many years, leasehold tenant issues are not regarded as important by the Government of the day because Cabinet Ministers have to toe the party whip and have to support the rule of law .( including all of the unfair lease agreements issued by developers and builders.).
So my postings tries to expose how some freehold investment companies have taken advantage of the outdated leasehold property title system which now largely exists only in England and Wales.
At last the oppressive, venal , nefarious and downright dishonest Mugabe regime seems to an coming to an end. The straw has finally broken the camels back.
Is this portent? EG Will the unscrupulous and downright dishonest operators in Residential Property will soon be subject to the same treatment. ( only worse) Let’s hope so. It’s a long time coming but all good thing do come in the end. ( Hope that’s not too folksy)
Mugabe thought his main residence was held under freehold title and he was the registered title holder in the Zimbaby Never Land Registry.
Now it seems his main residence was under leasehold title and he had tried to transfer his leasehold property to wife’s name but the real freeholder has commenced proceedings for forfeiture of his main residence. .
Edit.
1st Para- “ Seems to be coming to an end.”
2nd para wotever.
Why no edit on this wonderful site?
Good luck with your case, Kim. Do you have some help with drafting your Pleadings? I used ‘Pleading without Tears’ as a guide. It is quite an old book now, but it help me quite a lot, and pre-warned me that the other team would waylay me outside the courtroom, to give in at the last minute.
Through concentrating purely on ‘winning’, one thing I had not foreseen was the nonsense about Costs: If you allow the other side APPARENTLY to concede everything, you go into court and get a ‘Consent Order’ (by consent of both sides), and you think you’re going to get ‘costs’ (including the minimum £18 per hour for Litigant in Person). But you don’t: You only get ‘Standard Costs’ – your basic expenses.
So driven into a hell-hole in the first place, just to beat the most facile but determined fraud, you are then faced with the tricky decision of whether to stretch out the case for an extra year or two, just to get Judge-awarded costs. Even had I known about this, I don’t think I would have continued. It would have gone to the High Court, and the stress is too great, particularly with other leaseholders wanting to know what you’re up to all the time, but not contributing or helping!
The result is that you win your civil case, but there is no effective financial sanction or punishment for the fraud. From that point of view, no-one wins, since I am still stuck with a lease that is unsaleable other than at a big discount. Crowd-funding some private criminal prosecutions would the best answer, to my mind.
Dear Sussex
I thank you for your comment and in answer to your question,
1. I have delivered my defence and response to the Claimaints “ Paticulars of Claim and hand delivered my bundle to the County Court and the claimaints Solicitor.
2Several days ago I hand delivered a “ Dossier” ( not a dodgy one) to Court/ claimaints Solicitor raising questions on the credibility of the claimant……
3.I enclosed a latter addressed to the solicitor inviting the Claimaint to widthdraw the claim in light of the information provided. I stated that if the claimant widthdraws then I will not ask for my costs to date, if not then I am instructing lawyers and the claimant will have to pay for them at the end of the day.
Incidentally, you are aware that I am being sued by a Managing Agent for “ Defamation “ and “ Harassment”? Oh the irony…
Thankfully I have crystal clear evidence that the claimant has told some very big porkie pies.
I really have much better things to do with my time then h@ve to scrabbble in gutter with a Managing Agent”. Hey ho!,
Sounds good Kim. Keep calm and struggle on!
Sussex, I agree with Nietchze who once said “ That what does not kill you makes you stronger”.
It is not in my DNA to allow myself to be bullied, Intimidated, threatened or other….
It has been my great misfortune to have encountered such an agent and I have had nigh on 3 yrs of hassle from this individual chasing me for monies undue and threatening “ Forfeiture “, denigrating me to my peers in emails that excluded me , etc etc.
Well now I have clear evidence to expose this individual as in my view utterly morally bankrupt!! Shocking.