UPDATEDudley Joiner demands removal of Leaseholder Association leaflet published on LKP
Dudley Joiner, of the Leasehold Association, has insisted that the letter explaining the organisation be removed from the LKP website.
He claims it is a breach of copyright to reproduce the document, which was purportedly sent to all “invitees” – in fact, Martin Boyd was not sent a copy.
It was also circulated to MPs.
The copy reproduced on LKP was that sent to Sir Peter Bottomley as part of the Leasehold Association’s lobbying exercise of elected politicians.
There is a public interest defence in reproducing copyright material that is being used to sway public policy, as could be argued is the intention of Mr Joiner’s leaflet.
However, Mr Joiner has specifically requested that this document be removed from public view on LKP. We have no idea whether it will be published on the Leaseholder Association website.
Mr Joiner added that LKP could reproduce the photograph with an LA copyright line.
Mr Joiner suggests that he “probably” would have consented to publication of the photograph in the LA leaflet:
“subject to a credit and seeing the article and context [before publication].”
Last month saw the first stirrings of a new organisation: the Leaseholder Association, which is urging another confidential dispute resolution service as the cure-all for leasehold.
The Leasehold Association “has the potential to restore confidence in leasehold ownership”, it informed key “stakeholders” in the sector at a meeting in central London on November 18.
The initiative does not come from a representative group of leaseholders but from entrepreneur Dudley Joiner, founder of the Right To Manage Federation, which isn’t a federation but a commercial RTM facilitator, and owner of property management company Team.
The Leaseholder Association wants to educate leaseholders at £150 a head when they purchase their properties, and to provide a confidential mediation service to resolve disputes.
It is argued that there are 200,000 new leasehold property purchasers every year and “our target is to give them all the opportunity to join the LA.
“Potentially, within five years over one million leaseholders could be enjoying membership benefits for the lifetime of their property ownership.”
It would also mean the Leaseholder Association would have revenues of £150 million.
The leaseholders would join as individuals rather than collectively in a residents’ association that signs up to the Federation of Private Residents’ Associations, an organisation which is representative of leaseholders.
“Through early education leaseholders will become aware of their statutory rights, which should encourage more residents to join tenants’ associations and work together.”
Whether leaseholders really need to pay for this “education” is somewhat doubtful. Subject headings on the Leaseholder Association website briefings are remarkably similar to those found on LEASE and ARMA, where they can be obtained for free.
The cure-all of leaseholder education also makes LKP a little queasy.
The argument that leaseholders are basically ignorant of what they have bought, and that this is the source of unfortunate misunderstandings, has been repeated at virtually every occasion when the sector’s professionals meet.
But the observation is not usually accompanied by another of equal validity: that the leasehold sector is purposefully complex and obfuscated for the financial gain of those who operate within it.
There are also a number of issues that require urgent reform, such as these.
Plenty of wealthy, educated and otherwise well informed leasehold owners have fallen foul of the system; they simply have greater means to get out of a fix than poorer leaseholders.
The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership (which was invited, then disinvited and finally re-invited to Mr Joiner’s meeting; but unfortunately could not attend) has no issue with educating leaseholders.
But the sector does not require another confidential mediation / dispute resolution service.
Mediation in secret is a way of sweeping the ills of leasehold under the carpet.
Janet Entwistle of Peverel is a firm enthusiast, naturally enough, so long as it keeps disputes out of the property tribunal. On the other hand, she has rejected mediation, suggested here, to address Peverel’s compensation for pensioners cheated in the Cirrus price-fixing scandal.
The Leasehold Advisory Service, which ran an unsuccessful mediation service, also has spoken in favour of this gentle process.
More importantly, the property tribunal itself is seeking to expand its mediation services before disputes escalate to full hearings.
This is actually an encouraging and useful widening of its remit: mediation by the tribunal service is in a different league to other have-a-go efforts, and parties can always reject it and fight things out in a full hearing.
Then there is the fact that all managing agents have to be members of an ombudsman scheme. This is an initiative that came in this year thanks to former housing minister Mark Prisk, and is broadly to be welcomed, even though the rulings are not published.
No one seriously expects ombudsman schemes to make a huge difference, but they are fine for resolving sub £1,000 leasehold disputes.
Finally, there is ARMA, whose regulator is former Labour housing minister Keith Hill. His rulings are public and, as a result, have teeth, as we have already seen.
The mediation offered is much weaker.
Well, at least Mr Joiner is frank about who would most benefit from this.
Janet Entwistle could not have expressed the virtues of mediation more clearly.
Finally, Mr Joiner is seeking a “modest” 10,000 signed-up leaseholders in the first year, rising to 35 per cent of the 200,000 new leasehold sales in the next, or 70,000.
That would bring revenues of £10.5 million to the Leaseholder Association (a company limited by guarantee – ie no shareholders like the RTMF and, indeed, LKP).
It may be another hat for Mr Joiner, but if he pulls this off we will raise ours (and eat it).
Related posts:
Dudley Joiner: Not relevant that I was disqualified from being a company director for 7 years
Pensioners tell Dudley Joiner to give them back their £27,000 sinking fund
Dudley Joiner and Barry Weir named in Commons … and Roger Southam invited to retire
Quadrangle House residents seek to regain control of their RTM
Dudley Joiner’s Team Property Management made insolvent by Quadrangle House RTM
Let’s say a management company charges me £350 for a sub-let registration.
I challenge them on the basis that i have seen sub-let charges agreed at the FTT of between £45-£75. I then get the sub-let fee reduced.
If the process was done by secret mediation as proposed by the Leaseholder Association, i would have no way of knowing that £350 was excessive (or if i did believe it to be excessive, how could i demonstrate the proof of it being excessive if i am denied the information i need.
Suppose the Cirrus/ Peverel price fixing fraud had taken place under the mediation of the Leaseholder Association, would anyone have heard about it?
I am the first to admit, that the Leaseholder Association’s plans are very ambitious.
Coming from an organisation with a net asset value of around £3,500 it is incredibly ambitious!
I note the “guest list included a director of Harrison Property Management (a company i believe to have been or about to be struck off at Companies House)
I’m also wondering how the LA is going to “capture” members? Is it planned to target conveyancing solicitors and estate agents to ask them to promote the scheme? Perhaps by offering them a commission to do so?
Or are new leaseholders going to receive a LA pack after moving in? If so this would involve a very sophisticated data base operation.
No mention is made in the presentation on how the LA will be marketed or publicised and yet rather grandiose claims are made about the membership expectations. Setting up a scheme such as this – no matter how laudable it is – will involve a lot of upfront costs, with no guarantee of a return.
And if a few hundred leaseholders do join and the scheme then becomes unviable, what happens to the money they paid?
As a certain American politician once said there are a lot of “known unknowns” to this enterprise.
I am surprised and disappointed to read the Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation/LKP article that appears to criticise the aims of The Leaseholder Association (LA) before the service has even had an opportunity to begin.
I was employed by Age UK for over 15 years as their national leasehold retirement housing advisor until I was made redundant in 2013 when Age UK made the decision to close this valuable service. (please see Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation/LKP article on 31st May 2013 ‘Age UK to wind down retirement leasehold service’). I had many years’ experience of using conciliation methods throughout my work, which resolved the vast majority of disputes that arose. I note the Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation/LKP article I refer to acknowledged favourably this impartial service and the use of non-adversarial methods to resolve complaints.
The ways in which The LA seeks to operate within the wider leasehold sector are in many respects similar to the service Age UK provided and are primarily what attracted me to seek employment with The LA.
Adversarial models to resolve disputes in the leasehold sector are time-consuming and rarely successful often resulting in strained relationships between the parties for a considerable time afterwards. Although The LA is primarily a service for leaseholders we consider the best approach is for potential disputes to be dealt with quickly by engaging with all the parties at an early stage, before relationships deteriorate and the potential for compromise is lost.
I consider that there are a number of inaccuracies and misunderstandings in the report Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation/LKP have put on their website, which I would like to address.
The Leaseholder Association (LA) will not only be educating for a one-off fee of £150 per flat but will provide advice, ongoing support and conciliation for the lifetime of ownership at no extra charge.
The costs of The LA would increase at the same time revenue is received from membership fees as the demand for advice, support and conciliation would rise both with an increase in LA membership and in respect of new flat-ownership as disputes are likely to arise after an initial period. The reason past attempts at setting up mediation services failed is due to lack of funding.
The Federation of Private Residents Associations (FPRA) has indicated that it is supportive of the aims of The LA as it can only provide advice to associations and does not provide ongoing support or conciliation at all. The LA differs from the FPRA in providing help to individual leaseholders some of whom may have no prospect of forming an association.
LA members will not be paying specifically for early education as this is only one of the services offered. They will be paying for specific advice, ongoing support and where necessary conciliation, none of which are provided by ARMA or LEASE.
Independent sources all indicate that there is need for education in respect of leasehold matters such as the recent CMA Report. With 4.1 million leasehold flats we have to make leasehold work. There are four decades of legislation to protect leaseholders and although it can appear complex, it is not that complicated when properly explained.
There is a great deal of evidence that suggests the leasehold sector will benefit from a conciliation and conflict resolution service. The only current redress for most leaseholders is to use the landlord or managers’ complaint procedure, which is clearly not independent and viewed by most leaseholders as biased towards the manager. The alternative is to make an application to a First Tier Tribunal, which is fundamentally an adversarial system and can be time-consuming and costly.
The LA will not be conducting mediation. It will be offering a conciliation service followed by an independent and unique form of redress. It is quite normal that parties entering into dispute resolution and who wish to settle through conciliation might want to keep the outcome confidential. Not everyone wants their affairs made public in the press or on websites.
Ombudsmans’ schemes cannot resolve sub £1000 disputes. Ombudsman schemes have a very limited remit which concentrates on evidence of maladministration and whether the landlord or manager has followed procedures. They do not determine the reasonableness of service charges and whether they are payable or cover the wide range of other complaints that burden the Tribunals, which The LA can deal with. Cases can only usually be referred to Ombudsman once the landlord or managers’ complaint procedure have been completed whereas The LA will offer a speedy process and certainty of an outcome.
ARMA’s determinations are about the conduct of managing agents who choose to sign up to ARMA-Q. Despite its undoubtedly good intentions, it does not provide an outcome to individual leaseholders.
All parties will benefit from the type of conciliation The LA will offer because it gives certainty of an outcome. Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation/LKP have not mentioned that The LA panels and committees convened to hear disputes will always be formed of equal representation from leaseholders and property managers.
I hope that the above information will allow Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation/LKP to publish more balanced and accurate information in the future regarding the service we will be providing.
Mark
It was reasonable for LKP to consider the Leaseholder Association once it was unveiled to the professionals in the sector. Indeed, it would have been wrong not to have done so.
You say there are inaccuracies and misunderstandings in our report, but your points are mainly about opinion not factual errors.
By the same token your reply also contains what some might term inaccuracies.
“All parties will benefit from the type of conciliation The LA will offer because it gives certainty of an outcome,” you say. The problem is nothing is “certain” in the leasehold world, even when a matter is heard in court. There is no certainty the landlord will fully abide by the decision.
We provided evidence to the Competition and Markets Authority that citing the lack of leaseholder education is mostly a myth pushed by the industry for more than 30 years.
Each time the sector promises that a new code and better informed leaseholders will solve the problems of leasehold.
The real reason why leaseholders do not understand a number of important issues is there are strong vested interests to make sure that things are far too complex.
For example, from your own experiences at AgeUK you’ll know there is a very good reason why retirement developers do not talk about second hand values when purchasers buy a brand new flat.
Yes, leaseholders should know more about certain matters, but too often things are only complex because someone is profiting by making it so.
I accept your argument that in a leasehold dispute “not everyone wants their affairs made public in the press or on websites” (which I assume means us). But you also know it is almost always the landlord or agent who are keen to keep decisions confidential – for a reason.
The sector can’t have it both ways: saying that leaseholders need to be better informed; and yet, when things go wrong, ensuring that the controversies be kept confidential so that other leaseholders do not become better informed.
Without publishing the bad behaviour of landlords and agents is there any reason why they should stop?
Turning to your comment that “ombudsman schemes cannot resolve sub £1,000 disputes”. I may have missed something but why is this the case?
I would suggest that you are wrong in saying: “There are four decades of legislation to protect leaseholders and although it can appear complex, it is not that complicated when properly explained.”
Some leasehold legislation may be easy to explain, but extremely difficult to apply. But much of the legislation is ridiculously complex, or contradictory, or does not work, or has not been fully implemented, or cannot be applied.
Lord Neuberger explained some years ago that the 1987 Act is among the most badly drafted and confusing on the statute book.
So, yes, once someone can properly explain the relevant bits of the 1925, the 1985, 1987, 1993, 1996, 2002 and, maybe, the 2008 leasehold related Acts and the 2006 Companies Act, and the Acts relating to unfair terms – oh and the bits of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, along with the Tribunal procedure rules 2013, the RICS code and maybe the ARHM code – it is all “relatively” straightforward and “not that complicated”.
It would make us feel more comfortable if the Leaseholder Association were a little more transparent.
You launched on November 18, having invited me on November 4. I was de-invited as associated with Sebastian O’Kelly, and therefore “press”, on November 10, and then re-invited on November 17.
I was not able to attend, and although you marked me as sending apologies in your minutes I was not sent a copy of those handouts or the minutes.
We have not broken any confidence, and we were sent various copies of your notes by other people who attended or sent their apologies and asked whether we were going comment.
Should we not be worrying a little that your company was only registered at Companies House on November 17, the day before the launch to the sector, and some time after the invitations were sent?
There is still only one director listed, and that’s Dudley. With any supposedly representative group that would raise a large red flag.
We do agree on a number of issues, but our report was fair and balanced and there is no reason why we should reprint a marketing statement from anyone.
Mark Spall,
Many contributors have acknowledged the excellent work you did at AGE UK, before being made redundant. Many,(even if unfairly) linked your redundancy with the withdrawal of Peverel funding,for your department after you assisted in exposing some rather unsavoury practices. (which despite vociferous denials proved to be true.
It is to your great credit that you felt able to attend a function alongside Claire Banwell-Spencer of Peverel given the circumstances.
Silence is the enemy of truth.No wonder companies such as Peverel would fall over themselves to keep misdeeds confidential.
Your own launch document concerning conciliation “The LA considers this will be attractive to both parties IN PARTICULAR THE MANAGERS AS IT MEANS THERE WOULD NOT BE A PUBLICISED DECISION THAT MIGHT CREATE A PRECEDENT.” Already that shows a bias towards the property managers
Excellent work whilst at Age UK? Yes in many respects, but Peverel liked Mark Spall to address leaseholders on Right to Manage as he tended to concentrate of the negatives rather than the positives. (I know as I’ve heard his presentations). Indeed, they used to “promote” him to any leaseholders contemplating such a move. Whether this was at all connected with Peverel’s donation to AgeUK I do not know, but I feel he put many a development off RTM much to Peverel’s delight!
I so much agree with ME’s comments.
I wish all those parties who are battling for leaseholders would get together and adopt a common approach.
I am almost 75 years old and would like to see some major improvements in my lifetime.
I think there must be a silent majority of many thousands out there who would agree with me.
The LA event was a clearly entitled a ‘Preview Event’ to enable us to engage further with responsible trade organizations and obtain their input on LA procedures and plans prior before implementation. We invited some leaseholders to the event but it was made clear that we were not ready for our public launch until all our procedures were finalized. This includes the procedures for our conciliation and conflict resolution service.
Our concerns were obviously well founded, because the very thing we wanted to avoid has now happened. LKP has unfairly chosen to prematurely and presumptuously criticize our procedures before they are finalized and ready for implementation. We are now forced into the dilemma we did not want to face. Do we respond to your inaccuracies to ensure your readers are not misled or do we stay silent and allow misconceptions to go unanswered?
Mark Spall decided in good faith that he should correct some of the misunderstandings. These were not matters of opinion. They were factual errors about LA processes and procedures, which are also evident from your own reply.
For example, I will quote some of your points and give our reply: –
YOUR COMMENT
By the same token your reply also contains what some might term inaccuracies.
“All parties will benefit from the type of conciliation The LA will offer because it gives certainty of an outcome,” you say. The problem is nothing is “certain” in the leasehold world, even when a matter is heard in court. There is no certainty the landlord will fully abide by the decision.
OUR REPLY
It is our very firm intention that our conciliation and conflict resolution will provide a certain outcome. Before entering the resolution process all parties involved in the dispute will sign an agreement confirming they will accept the outcome, which will be decided by independent committees representing both leaseholders and managing agents. The certainty is determined by that agreement. We are committed to a certain, timely outcome. Our research indicates that both leaseholders and managers would welcome such a process.
YOUR COMMENT
We provided evidence to the Competition and Markets Authority that citing the lack of leaseholder education is mostly a myth pushed by the industry for more than 30 years.
OUR REPLY
What is your evidence? What is the size of your sample? Our evidence is based on direct interaction with thousands of leaseholders at their own properties. I have personally given hundreds of presentations to leaseholder audiences of 30-50 persons and the evidence is overwhelming. Leaseholders do NOT understand the basic principles of leasehold when they buy their properties. The evidence is that neither estate agents nor solicitors explain it properly. The CMA rightly agrees with us. I ask again, what is the basis of your evidence?
YOUR COMMENT
I accept your argument that in a leasehold dispute “not everyone wants their affairs made public in the press or on websites” (which I assume means us). But you also know it is almost always the landlord or agent who are keen to keep decisions confidential – for a reason.
The sector can’t have it both ways: saying that leaseholders need to be better informed; and yet, when things go wrong, ensuring that the controversies be kept confidential so that other leaseholders do not become better informed.
Without publishing the bad behavior of landlords and agents is there any reason why they should stop?
OUR REPLY
You are completely missing the point. This isn’t about covering up major wrongdoings. The point of our conciliation service is to deal with day-to-day misunderstandings and disagreements that really should be ‘nipped in the bud’ and not allowed to fester into major disputes that poison relationships and create barriers to compromise. If both parties want to resolve issues quickly, possibly involving compromise, they should be able to do so. They shouldn’t be forced into an adversarial process of resolution because there is no alternative.
YOUR COMMENT
Turning to your comment that “ombudsman schemes cannot resolve sub £1,000 disputes”. I may have missed something but why is this the case?
OUR REPLY
Ombudsman Schemes will not generally deal with financial issues of quantum or the reasonableness of service charges. You need to read their terms of reference closely. They are principally concerned with complaints about maladministration and breaches of practice. Issues of quantum will nearly always be signposted back to the manager or the FTT.
YOUR COMMENT
I would suggest that you are wrong in saying: “There are four decades of legislation to protect leaseholders and although it can appear complex, it is not that complicated when properly explained.”
Some leasehold legislation may be easy to explain, but extremely difficult to apply. But much of the legislation is ridiculously complex, or contradictory, or does not work, or has not been fully implemented, or cannot be applied.
Lord Neuberger explained some years ago that the 1987 Act is among the most badly drafted and confusing on the statute book.
So, yes, once someone can properly explain the relevant bits of the 1925, the 1985, 1987, 1993, 1996, 2002 and, maybe, the 2008 leasehold related Acts and the 2006 Companies Act, and the Acts relating to unfair terms – oh and the bits of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, along with the Tribunal procedure rules 2013, the RICS code and maybe the ARHM code – it is all “relatively” straightforward and “not that complicated”.
OUR REPLY
I note the sarcasm but again, I think you miss the point. Leasehold might not be a perfect system, but is has moved on and there are now quite draconian sanctions in place to protect leaseholders, such as appointment of a manager, enfranchisement and RTM. The problem is leaseholders lack knowledge of some of their basic rights. Over the last few months I have engaged with hundreds of leaseholders seeking RTM. I have asked simple questions, such as “Do you know you have a right to be consulted before your landlord spends more than £250 of your money?” The sad truth is too few leaseholders understand their rights. It does not require in-depth knowledge of all the legal authorities or a recitation about the history of landlord and tenant legislation to explain these simple, straightforward rights, nor is it relevant to do so
YOUR COMMENT
It would make us feel more comfortable if the Leaseholder Association were a little more transparent.
You launched on November 18, having invited me on November 4. I was de-invited as associated with Sebastian O’Kelly, and therefore “press”, on November 10, and then re-invited on November 17.
I was not able to attend, and although you marked me as sending apologies in your minutes I was not sent a copy of those handouts or the minutes.
We have not broken any confidence, and we were sent various copies of your notes by other people who attended or sent their apologies and asked whether we were going comment.
OUR REPLY
We have demonstrated our transparency by disclosing our plans to responsible parties and inviting feedback. You were invited on behalf of LKP in good faith. The primary reason you were disinvited is a direct result of your apparent lack of respect for accepted protocol following your attendance at the LEASE Stakeholders Forum in October. Before the formal minutes of this forum had been circulated and within a few days of the event you posted your own summary of the meeting on the LKP website. This is unethical and irresponsible reporting and a discourtesy to other attendees. As you are aware this prompted LEASE to restate its protocols for subsequent meetings.
In your correspondence with XXX, our event organizer, you sought to suggest LKP was not a media organization but a charity. That response is at best disingenuous considering LKP is an organization that has picked up ‘press awards’ for its journalism! However, as you rightly say we reinstated your invite following our private discussion at the FPRA conference and the assurances given. In the event our fears appear to have been justified.
YOUR COMMENT
Should we not be worrying a little that your company was only registered at Companies House on November 17, the day before the launch to the sector, and some time after the invitations were sent?
There is still only one director listed, and that’s Dudley. With any supposedly representative group that would raise a large red flag.
OUR REPLY
We have already made it clear that the LA will have a broad-based executive pledged to ensure it meets its objectives with transparency and integrity. Most fledging organizations start with a founding director in order to exist. When LA has made its board appointments they will be publicized. In the circumstances I think your comments are unfair, as it would also be unfair to suggest that the conduct of LKP/Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation is ‘worrying’ because it changed its corporate structure without public disclosure. Do your readers know that LKP is now a different company? Do they know what the structure and governance of Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation is? The words goose and gander come to mind!
YOUR COMMENT
We do agree on a number of issues, but our report was fair and balanced and there is no reason why we should reprint a marketing statement from anyone.
OUR REPLY
We have not sought a ‘marketing statement’ from anyone. LKP chose to publicize our activities prematurely and Mark Spall sought to correct misunderstandings. That is hardly a ‘marketing’ exercise.
COPYRIGHT
Finally, and in light of LKP/Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation declared desire to see all matters conducted ethically and lawfully, I should state for the record that the reproduction of LA documents and photographs on your websites without our permission is a blatant breach of copyright. All material generated by The Leaseholder Association is its sole property and copyright and publication without our permission is illegal.
You say you had the meeting to “engage further with responsible trade organisations and obtain their input on LA procedures and plans prior before implementation.”.
Then why was Peverel invited, given that you seek to (justifiably)trash them at every opportunity on your website?
Isn’t this a bit hypocritical? As someone who represents leaseholders, who will ultimately pay your fees if this venture takes off, should you not have held a meeting with them FIRST?
It seems we do not agree. You say “there are now quite draconian sanctions in place to protect leaseholders, such as appointment of a manager, enfranchisement and RTM”. This resonates with the words I have heard from landlords’ counsel on a number of occasions.
Some might say these are basic rights and if only these powers worked a little better it would help. If they did, it would save the RTMF spending years going to court. On a wider scale, would it be even better still if we could make s22 actually work so leaseholders can check their accounts or, even better still, why not protect their funds inside a real trust?
On the major works £250 consultation rule you, of course, also need to explain it is a bit of a mess since Lord Neuberger decided that leaseholders can only limit their liability if they can show a prejudice has arisen followed a failure to consult properly. Then there can, of course, be an issue of 20ZA dispensations or the “sets” rule which now comes into play following the recent court of appeal decision.
I’ll not respond to the suggestions about our alleged lack of professionalism. Or explain the fairly obvious reasons why LKP felt it relevant to become a charity. Since we have one Secretary of State and two ex Ministers as patrons I’m not sure what else you would like us to do.
.
I agree with Dudley Joiner on one thing.
Many,many leaseholders are unaware of their rights and have even less knowledge of much of the lease..
The Landlords, Management Companies and their regulating bodies show little interest in providing unbiased information and answering questions on this subject.
Solicitors can be dilatory and very expensive.
So I believe the £150 fee, which includes this information service, to be good value.
Can we not give them a little more time to get the Association going before we start throwing criticism at them.
That Dudley Joiner wishes to use “breach of copyright” which can only serve to stifle genuine debate and the airing of legitimate concerns sends a very powerful message.
I have reluctantly given up any hope that my actions and comments will be reported by LKP fairly and without additional spin to unreasonably distort or unnecessarily exaggerate what has been said or done.
I have for some time been seeking an agreement with LKP over some basis protocols. I have discussed these with Sebastian and Martin privately on several occasions.
The Leaseholder Association is not seeking a cover up, which is implied in today’s update. We circulated some material to a select list of industry specialists from whom we have been acquiring feedback prior to a formal rollout of our service in the New Year. That information is our copyright and every organization has the right to protect its intellectual property from unlawful copying. I have not sought to prevent honest reporting.
I am copying below my recent email to Sebastian and leave it to readers to judge if I am being unreasonable. I see no point in continuing dialogue on the matter. I have made my position clear for the record and the matter is now closed.
Email dated 18/12/14
Dear Sebastian,
In my view the law on copyright is quite straightforward. If you want to actually copy our documents or photographs you need our permission. Otherwise it is a breach. If you want to keep the photo on the website I will give permission as long as there is a credit under the photo to say ‘Photo courtesy of The Leaseholder Association. Copyright.’ This prevents third parties copying it again and using it without consent. I would like you to remove the LA letter and attached documents.
My general point, as explained to you and Martin when we had coffee, is that in my opinion you have a responsibility as a journalist to seek my comment whenever you publish something quoting my name or something I have allegedly said. That seems to me a common courtesy. Further if you had called to say you wanted to reproduce our photograph I would probably have consented from the outset, subject to a credit and seeing the article and context. If you don’t want to extend that professional courtesy, then I will be forced to protect our intellectual property rights on our material when copyright is breached and to seek corrections where you misrepresent or misinform your readers. That seems to me to be quite ethical and fair.
I believe the attitude you expressed in your earlier email is wrong. To the best of my knowledge, unless there has been a change in the law I am unaware of, you cannot copy and publish someone else’s material without their consent on the ground of public interest. You seem to think you can do what you like without impunity. I disagree and I don’t like threats about ‘handing it over to professionals’. It seems to me you should seek advice before, not afterwards.
KRgds
Dudley
“We circulated some material to a select list of industry specialists from whom we have been acquiring feedback prior to a formal rollout of our service in the New Year”
……is a quote from your latest e mail above. I repeat my question of 17th December if leaseholders are goiing to be paying for this service why are they not the FIRST to be consulted on thise new venture. You seem anxious to obtain industry feedback, (and by the above statement have already done so prior to the meeting), but that not of leaseholders.. Cart before horse I feel.
Dear Dudley,
Your latest post displays your almost limitless sense of grievance, and repeats – again – fundamental untruths.
You demanded that we remove the reproduction of the Leaseholder Association leaflet on the weasely grounds that it was your copyright. This was in spite of the fact that you have circulated it widely among you chums in the sector and to MPs, rather than just the invitees to the meeting of November 18 (as you claimed).
We removed the item, and then you complain that we did so with “spin to unreasonably distort” – Eh? Is there such a thing as reasonable distortion?
Yet again, you write a long post on our websites.
One concession that you may allow is that at least here you are free to spout whatever you like, even if it is sanctimonious and self-serving drivel. That compares rather better than your insistence on secrecy, and pretending that copyright is a serious matter here.
To correct an untruth in your post, you did not distribute your material to “a select list of industry specialists”, but you also circulated it to MPs.
I am confident that there is no copyright issue on such a widely circulated document, which seeks to influence elected representatives.
However, your insistence on its removal speaks volumes for your priorities and methodologies.
I will address the “basic protocols” point in your post.
You appear to believe that you have been unfairly treated, particularly in not having been contacted prior to publication of matters that concern you.
There are three recent issues that have been publicly addressed that have concerned you:
1/ Quadrangle House
Here your Right To Manage Federation, which is not a federation but a commercial RTM facilitator, brought the site to RTM and your property management company Team was appointed to run the place.
You have remained a director of the RTM company for four years. This year you ended up as the only director, even though you do not have a lease there, and are also the proprietor of the appointed managing agent.
To put it at its most polite, this was an unsatisfactory state of affairs and caused concern.
You were contacted, and did respond at considerable length, before publication of our reports.
I shall contact you again as four resident directors now appear to have been appointed.
2/ Elim Court
First, you were angry because we reported on October 11 that the right to manage appeal to the Upper Tribunal had failed.
The result was that the residents learned from us, not you or the RTMF, that the appeal had failed.
This was entirely your responsibility: the ruling had been on the Ministry of Justice website since October 6, and your own lawyer was well aware of the result weeks before that. (I met her on September 23.)
In short, you had plenty of time to forewarn the residents and it was a shambles of your making that they weren’t.
There was no requirement at all for me to contact you prior to publication over this matter. Only the tribunal ruling was relevant to the report that was published.
Then we come to your desire to take this litigation on to the Court of Appeal. We reported this on November 7.
We were questioning whether this was in the interests of the residents or whether it was, in fact, more in the interests of your own RTMF which faces the landlord’s legal costs.
Our aim in running this article was to inform the residents in very clear terms what this litigation could involve in terms of their liability and, possibly, costs.
I have already explained why I did not feel any obligation to contact you before we published this piece. But to repeat: you had made clear (by publishing on your website) your desire to take the matter on to further litigation; we wanted to inform the residents of the potential risks of such a course.
You have also made clear that you do not think that the Elim Court’s litigation is any of our business. Reasonably minded people would disagree with you on that, I believe.
I have told you that while going to the Court of Appeal may serve your interests and involve confronting an issue of RTM law, it is not necessarily in the interests of the elderly residents, who are in a position of exposure.
No one I have discussed this with in the legal profession agrees that a retirement site should be taking an RTM matter on to the Court of Appeal.
I have urged you to litigate at this level on behalf of well-healed and well-informed metropolitans, rather than pensioners.
I have frankly admitted to you that this case has made me question the RTMF business model: supposedly free or low cost RTM paid for by commissions to you from the incoming managing agent (that is, managing agent companies prepared to pay the commissions).
The residents at Elim Court may well have been better served had they been in the driving seat of this litigation from the outset.
That would have involved paying the RTMF properly for its work. But it would also have meant that the residents could have dispensed with your services at a time of their choosing.
It is perfectly possible that Elim Court would now be in a better position had the RTMF – which was first introduced there by LKP – never been involved.
3/ The Leaseholder Association
This was presented to the professionals in the sector on November 18. At this point, it could reasonably be said that relations between us were strained.
Martin Boyd was invited, then disinvited specifically because of his association with me, and then re-invited.
You obviously did not want us to write about this organisation until you were ready.
Sorry, that is not a runner. You were lobbying the sector and MPs over this latest venture and we were justified in writing about it.
Of course, we were going to address an ostensibly representative leaseholder organisation, albeit one set up by a commercial operator in the sector. (To date, you are the sole director of the LA, as you are with the RTMF: a “federation” that hasn’t been a federation since it was set up in 2006.)
Should I have contacted you before writing about your meeting?
I don’t see why. Your briefing paper had been passed on to me, giving your own account of the meeting at considerable length. I decided that there was no purpose in speaking to you.
I reproduced your own account of the meeting, which set you off whining about copyright.
My intent was not to offend, but to ensure that your account of this organisation was reproduced. As we are critical of the LA, this seemed to me balanced and fair. You probably won’t believe that, but in fact I habitually reproduce the documents on which an article is based.
You now say that had I contacted you beforehand to reproduce your photograph, “I would probably have consented from the outset, subject to a credit and seeing the article and context.”
The response to that, Dudley, is four-lettered and blunt.
I am aware of Victoria Beckham making such demands over editorial approval, but they are not going to apply to you.
We have had a strained couple of months dealing with matters in which you have been involved. We accept that we have been critical.
You may not accept this, but we do try to report this sector accurately, fairly and responsibly.
I am struck by the contrast between your praise for our coverage regarding your nemeses Mr Moskovitz and Mr Gurvits, and the opprobrium you feel once we consider your affairs.
Regards,
Sebastian O’Kelly
Q.E.D.
Dryforce Dissolved.
Design& Evolution Dissolved.
Pyrosafe Dissolved
Harrison property Management Suspension of strike off letter.
Team Property Management. sudden increase in value from £1,811 up to £60,582. Compulsory strike off suspended.
Right to Manage Federation net value £3,268.
And you want leaseholders to invest millions in another one of your schemes?
That I believe is Q.E.D!
Martin’s view on the legislation is with respect to all that he has acheived, is specious. Looking at legislation from tax to immigration to benefits to human rights are all roundly criticised by the Courts and commentators. We are all poorly served by the draftsmen of the civil service in so many respects in so far as learned counsel to the girl on the desk at Heathrow look at new law and say ” that won’t work”. it is preposterous to then expect property law to be any different. Buildings and situationa reoften complex and the sets rule is a reversion to law pre Phillips, and practice that msot have long adopted.
For most people when it comes to expenses the Duck test applies if it look like a duck etc and distinguishing between what are different unrelated works and what are a nice try to get round the limit is esily distinguished by most. The Phillips ruling was very tenant friendly, at first glance that is, but all it did was pile on admin costs and drive down service levels.
Leasehld law does need a good spring clean I agree, but what makes it hard is that leases, the 5 million odd of them kicking around are not the same neither are buildings or the circumstances, and that is complicated by varioous tyoes of ownership. there is no simple answer and that includes commonhold as the problems (monetising aside) that underlie living in flats apply irrespective of tenure, though the latter of course have no rights at all!