Deep Sagar, chairman of the Leasehold Advisory Service, has demanded that the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership remove an article from its website and issue an apology, or it “reserves the right to take appropriate further action”.
It is an open question what is meant by this threat, which comes in the form of a letter from the LEASE chairman (left).
The article that has caused offence is “Wibble, wobble: why the Leasehold Advisory Service needs to be reformed”, which was placed on the site on June 1.
LKP rejects that there was anything actionable in the article, which makes a considered case for reforming LEASE, as well as criticising its monetising initiatives with the commercial leasehold sector, to the exclusion of leaseholders.
Deep Sagar’s intervention is all the more extraordinary as he, Anthony Essien, LEASE chief executive, Sebastian O’Kelly and Martin Boyd, of LKP, met in the offices of Sir Peter Bottomley as recently as Wednesday June 12.
Although LKP’s series of articles criticising LEASE were discussed, no request has been made to address particular concerns or statement of fact.
Deep Sagar makes no detailed criticism of the article and does not dispute any single point. He simply demands its removal and issue an apology.
He writes:
“I am writing to tell you that much of that article makes claims that are contrary to facts related to LEASE and does deep damage to LEASE’s reputation with no basis in merit. We are therefore asking you to remove this article from the public domain as soon as possible and to issue an apology. If this does not take place within a week of receipt of this email, LEASE reserves the right to take appropriate further action.”
Sebastian O’Kelly, of LKP, says: “I think leaseholders will be appalled to see LEASE – supposedly concerned with raising standards in this murky sector – issuing such a ridiculous threat to LKP, which has done a good deal more to bring political and public attention to those abuses than the Leasehold Advisory Service.
“If Deep Sagar, or anyone for that matter, disputes the accuracy or fairness of an article on LKP, it is taken very seriously and the issue will be addressed. That does not mean we will necessarily agree, but at least we will know why we disagree.”
Related posts:
LEASE chairman Deep Sagar to rule on Benjamin Mire advertising in its professional directory
[Eight] Ten days after talking tough, LEASE seems to have dropped ‘Mire for hire’
LEASE dumps Benjamin Mire … after eight months of dithering!
Wibble, Wobble: why the Leasehold Advisory Service needs to be reformed
Quango-crat Deep Sagar told: sack ‘disgraced and disgraceful’ Benjamin Mire or sack yourself!
Tchenguiz: is this the end?
I for one was mislead by LEASE. I asked for information regarding challenging service charges at a LVT hearing. They advised that it was a low cost Forum open to all leaseholders in dispute with their Freeholders (. Landlords) The most the LVT could order any party to pay was £500. After a prolonged LVT hearing i was ordered to pay £39K in legal costs this lead to the Landlords, Cinnamon Plantation Wharf Ltd starting forfeiture proceedings which ended up as £79K to be paid or loose my property. The Mortgage company paid this sum and added it to my mortgage. So beware of misleading information from LEASE.
The LVT also issue the same information £500 is the most they can award to any party, beware of false information, it is a scandal.
You certainly appear to have received the most dreadful advice from LEASE and, of course, this is the problem – they don’t commit themselves in writing which, given that the advice is paid for by the taxpayer is, perhaps, understandable. But it means that where that advice is bad then the client has no redress.
Presumably the £39K costs awarded against you were on account of Cinnamon’s legal bill which they obviously asked for – and got. And more, when they built further costs as a result of forefeiture proceedings. The £500 figure is presumably a ceiling for costs that can be claimed by the landlord/agent against service charge.
When was this case heard? Did you have legal representation? Were you claiming ‘reasonableness’ of charges under LTA 1985 s19(1)? Difficult to argue and disprove. Or were you challenging service charges under s19(2) ‘Advance payments and adjustments’? If so, I’d be very surprised to hear that Cinnamon complies with this aspect of legislation that requires managers to account in a very specific way for service charge – a requirement typically reflected in the lease and one which managements prefer to ignore.
If Cinnamon has been ignoring the requirements of s19(2) and your lease in regard to financial accounting for service charge, then perhaps you have a case against them and could sue for considerable damages including the £79k.
Managers should be familiar with leasehold law and their contractual obligations under the relevant leases. If they choose to ignore their statutory obligations to account properly, you might wish to bring an action against them for fraud, as well. In which case the statute of limitations doesn’t apply. Ask a good lawyer.
Frankly, I am of the opinion to tell these Bastards to Piss Off. I am already in dispute with Peverel, and have had a threatening letter offering Police Action if I rock the boat, well they can Piss Off as I have had more than enough of these robbers!
I have read through your article mentioned by Mr Sagar again and can see nothing to cause offence. You have clearly stated they do good and have good staff. All you have done is highlight the areas for improvement.
I personally sent an email to Ian Fuell in reply to correspondence sent to me in which I expressed my disappointment at the LEASE conference once again giving priority to Freeholders/Managing Agents. I also pointed out that most of the information I have regarding leasehold issues comes from their own publications but they appear ( as you rightly stated ) unable to give more than mere advice on any of these issues.
I for one would love to meet with someone who could give me accurate answers to my so far unanswered questions.
I agree with Lesley your article was “fair comment” and if LEASE is not big enough to accept fair criticism then they are a poor organisation. I am not aware that “public bodies” (if that is what they are) can be libelled anyway.
I used to be a fan of LEASE when Peter Haler was in charge, but they have gone rapidly downhill since he left. Clearly, they need money to function as their public funding has been cut and landlords and agents have such money. But this means LEASE are reluctant to bite the hand that now feeds them.
Resist their demands.
Dear Sir
I read the article, twice in fact to make sure I understood.
What struck me immediately was that Lease is adopting exactly the same style and attitude as “A Dubious Landlord” –Threaten without having any basis to do so.
It actually confirms my view that Lease should remind itself why it is there to start with – which unless I am wrong it is to help and assist the innocent owner.
Not to threaten.
Colin G Dennard
Any chance there’s a legal reader with a sense of humour?
http://abovethelaw.com/2013/06/how-to-write-a-great-response-to-a-cease-and-desist-letter/
From John Fenwick:
Interesting that LEASE should be seeking to take issue over an article to the point of demanding its withdrawal and an apology without particularising their complaint. The views expressed by LKP have always seemed to me to be considered and reasonable, and their criticisms well-founded and justifiable. Hopefully Mr Sagar can be persuaded not to devote his time, and the very limited resources of LEASE (funded by tax-payers), to taking any misconceived action.
From Susan
I, too, have read this article with great care. Perhaps as much care as was obviously taken by the author. LKP’s articles are always meticulously written. All I can say is that I am astonished by the attitude and action of LEASE. What is it frightened of? The article is nothing more than the truth, as substantiated by several of the comments above. The deck is stacked against both leaseholders, and people in mixed freehold/leasehold developments. It is time that this taxpayer-funded body did something truly useful for the ordinary people who inadvertently find themselves in the leasehold mire. LKP has made some useful suggestions, and LEASE would do much better to heed them, than to make ridiculous threats.
LEASE, or rather its management, should be ashamed of itself. Instead of fighting the many injustices in the leasehold world they would rather fight those who actually stand up for leaseholders.
I guess we now know where LEASE stands. The Wibble Wobble article told some home truths and sometimes the truth hurts Mr Sagar.
If LEASE did not exist, would we miss it? The annual conference at £350 a head has always been a bar to leaseholders, who were supposed to be served by this quango. Then there are info webinars at £60 each on issues such as Daejan v Benson, which would be useful to leaseholder litigants.
LEASE’s services to leaseholders are minimal and its heart’s not in it.
LEASE is self-serving as Mr Sagar is making so plain.
This is not to criticise the couple of good solicitors employed by LEASE, who make a genuine effort.
How astonishing for a chairman to expose himself to ridicule so unnecessarily. I just fail to see what he has to complain about and he obviously can not put it into words himself. Don’t panic; carry on regardless .
It is worryingly clear to me that LEASE chair Deep Sagar is hopelessly out of his depth and a bit of a Silly Billy in calling for withdrawal of your Wibble Wobble article, Sebastian.
Whatever you do, don’t withdraw the article. Sagar should know that his attempt to silence LKP is no less an affront to the public good than the recent gagging of whistleblowers by people who hold high public office, in the NHS and elsewhere. Stick to your guns and wait to see what his lawyers have to say. (Nothing, I’ll wager.)
Meanwhile, Sagar should shut up and accept your criticism with good grace, acknowledging that his organisation has failed leaseholders and needs to improve if it wishes to enjoy public trust and public funding. But, if LEASE prefers to line its pockets with advertising revenue from people who profit from their operations in the leasehold sector then it must go private without support from the public purse.
Personally, I found LEASE to be helpful when I visited their offices to ask for advice on a dodgy managing agent and equally dodgy lessee-directors.
You know the form, employer (directors of flat management companies) and employee (managing agent) in each other’s pockets, massaging each other’s egos, turning a blind eye to any wrongdoing by either party and generally keeping the other in office rather than doing what they are appointed to do which is to look after the interests of their shareholders, ie leaseholders.
Anyway, LEASE gave me some good advice and Tom and I had a bit of a laugh over his parting gift a brochure entitled ‘How to appoint a managing agent.’
The problem with LEASE is that public funding does not allow them to provide written advice. They are a good starting point for general verbal advice on leasehold matters but, when it comes to baring teeth to dodgy management, many of us will find we have to get that crucial hard-hitting letter which is only available , at a price, from independent solicitors. (I recommend west London firm Iliffes Booth Bennett – Ralph Bankes really knows his stuff.)
Pretty extraordinary and completely unjustified reaction. Millions of people live in leasehold properties and they have no effective advocate (FPRA is small and has minimal clout, so far). Perhaps this attempt to stifle criticism — perfectly fair comment in fact — should be seen as a sign that LEASE is rattled? It’s not all bad. Nicholas Kissen has been helpful to some leaseholders and I’m sure others have too, but is this the best LEASE can do? A management consultant for £220 a day for 12 days a year? I’d love to see him cross examined about his knowledge of leasehold. Mr Sagar has a lot of part time appointments, so his knowledge us unlikely to be very deep.
Beware social media Mr Sagar. I think an apology would be appropriate. You’re not selling sugared water now, as Mr Jobs might have put it.
I think all the previous posters have have hit the nail on the head and I agree entirely with Sue above. Deep Sagar should think long and hard before he opens his mouth about a subject he obviously has little knowledge about.
I note that he had to resign from a few previous posts:
http://wwwbrokenbarnet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/a-useful-exchange-of-ideas-your-choice.html
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmworpen/297i/29703.htm
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Deep-Sagar/978306298
Health and Care Professions Council – 18 September 2012 – Mr Sagar resigned yet again.
I feel that he should do the same now as I have no confidence in him.
How dare he ask LKP to remove an article that is true? Had he researched the story and the history of LEASE he may find that it is him who should issue the appology.
Mr Sagar, we live in a democratic society and that means being able to speak one’s mind!
Digging the dirt, Karen. Good for you girl – pity more leaseholders aren’t like us!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=deep-sagar
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/deep-sagar/
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/77888/NLC_reappointments.pdf
Can somebody please tell me how I can get jobs like these……
Unfortunately LKP are so right with the Wibble Wobble article. The Leasehold Advisory Service are available for basic advice but when it comes to anything complicated they cannot handle it. I sympathize with Dennis Jackson because he and a lot of other people were persuaded by the Web Site to make applications to determine the fairness of their service charges. Their advice was misleading at best. On behalf of my Son and Daughter I made an application to challenge the fairness of their service charges on a development managed by Mainstay. The Tribunal, after 17 months of hearings and paperwork, agreed that more than £222,000 had been overcharged on the block. The experience was expensive, exhausting, stressful and time consuming. The Leasehold Advisory Service gave me no help. On the one occasion I rang them their only ‘advice’ was to take legal advice! If it wasn’t for the help, advice and support from Martin Boyd and Sebastian O’Kelly I may have given up.
The support for ARMA and not for LKP is misguided. Lease need to reappraise their role and where their service is required.
It made me smile when I read the words “reserves the right to take appropriate further action”. What may that entail? Spending some of the Public Purse on legal action?
Lease should be accountable they seem to forget that they are costing the tax payer quite a few million pounds every year, we the tax payer are paying for them so they should make sure that they are putting leaseholders first and not the rich power brokers.
I am long of the opinion that Lease et al are financed by the Management Companies who also fund the Political Parties and the latter won’t rock any boats so as to protect their income. Wake up Folks, polite society with this lot does not nor will not be recognised. Money talks and they won’t bite the hand that feeds it, will they? Personally, I have had a gutful of these arrogant swines!
Frankly I’m amazed that anyone working in the bruising world of residential leasehold should be so thin-skinned! Probably Lease’s budget is not excessive considering the enormity of the task in hand, but I feel they should not be charging leaseholders for access to information. Certainly they could do a lot more to prepare leaseholders for the LVT. Half the battle is knowing what to expect and how to go about things like preparing a statement of case or witness statements. Lease could help leaseholders a good deal more by offering practical advice of this kind, and MOJ would save money in the long run, because cases would be a good deal less time consuming if leaseholders were better prepared and aware of how things work from the outset. Meantime, dealing with criticism constructively would already be a good starting point…
I agree entirely with the comments made by LPK. The unbalanced issues related to lease hold property in favour of the Freeholders/ Managing agents needs addressing urgently. I have experience of acting on advice from them to my cost. Lease should act along the same lines as CAB and not promote Freeholders/Managing Agents interest, by arranging training courses for them, as they are able to access expensive lawyers. Which in many cases the cost incurred by them is recoverable from condition in the leases. Plus the £500 limit for cost to lessees in LVT cases needs to be abolished and as in other legal issues a level playing field should be in place.
Mr Sagar. There is a saying it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Leasehold Advisory Service – what utter rubbish. If you bothered to read LKP properly you could learn a thing or two.
Are you not there to help leaseholders?