• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
Donate

Leasehold Knowledge Management Logo

Secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
  • Advice
  • News
    • Find everything …
    • About Peverel group
    • APPG
    • ARMA
    • Bellway
    • Benjamin Mire
    • Brixton Hill Court
    • Canary Riverside
    • Charter Quay
    • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
    • Cladding scandal
    • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
    • Commonhold
    • Communities Select Committee
    • Conveyancing Association
    • Countrywide
    • MHCLG
    • E&J Capital Partners
    • Exit fees
    • FirstPort
    • Fleecehold
    • Forfeiture
    • FPRA
    • Gleeson Homes
    • Ground rent scandal
    • Hanover
    • House managers flat
    • House of Lords
    • Housing associations
    • Informal lease extension
    • Insurance
    • IRPM
    • JB Leitch
    • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    • John Christodoulou
    • Justin Bates
    • Justin Madders MP
    • Law Commission
    • LEASE
    • Liam Spender
    • Local authority leasehold
    • London Assembly
    • Louie Burns
    • Martin Paine
    • McCarthy and Stone
    • Moskovitz / Gurvits
    • Mulberry Mews
    • National Leasehold Campaign
    • Oakland Court
    • Park Homes
    • Parliament
    • Persimmon
    • Peverel
    • Philip Rainey QC
    • Plantation Wharf
    • Press
    • Property tribunal
    • Prostitutes
    • Quadrangle House
    • Redrow
    • Retirement
    • Richard Davidoff
    • RICS
    • Right To Manage Federation
    • Roger Southam
    • Rooftop development
    • RTM
    • Sean Powell
    • SFO
    • Shared ownership
    • Sinclair Gardens Investments
    • Sir Ed Davey
    • Sir Peter Bottomley
    • St George’s Wharf
    • Subletting
    • Taylor Wimpey
    • Tchenguiz
    • Warwick Estates
    • West India Quay
    • William Waldorf Astor
    • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
  • [Custom]
Menu
  • Advice
  • News
      • Find everything …
      • About Peverel group
      • APPG
      • ARMA
      • Bellway
      • Benjamin Mire
      • Brixton Hill Court
      • Canary Riverside
      • Charter Quay
      • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
      • Cladding scandal
      • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
      • Commonhold
      • Communities Select Committee
      • Conveyancing Association
      • Countrywide
      • MHCLG
      • E&J Capital Partners
      • Exit fees
      • FirstPort
      • Fleecehold
      • Forfeiture
      • FPRA
      • Gleeson Homes
      • Ground rent scandal
      • Hanover
      • House managers flat
      • House of Lords
      • Housing associations
      • Informal lease extension
      • Insurance
      • IRPM
      • JB Leitch
      • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
      • John Christodoulou
      • Justin Bates
      • Justin Madders MP
      • Law Commission
      • LEASE
      • Liam Spender
      • Local authority leasehold
      • London Assembly
      • Louie Burns
      • Martin Paine
      • McCarthy and Stone
      • Moskovitz / Gurvits
      • Mulberry Mews
      • National Leasehold Campaign
      • Oakland Court
      • Park Homes
      • Parliament
      • Persimmon
      • Peverel
      • Philip Rainey QC
      • Plantation Wharf
      • Press
      • Property tribunal
      • Prostitutes
      • Quadrangle House
      • Redrow
      • Retirement
      • Richard Davidoff
      • RICS
      • Right To Manage Federation
      • Roger Southam
      • Rooftop development
      • RTM
      • Sean Powell
      • SFO
      • Shared ownership
      • Sinclair Gardens Investments
      • Sir Ed Davey
      • Sir Peter Bottomley
      • St George’s Wharf
      • Subletting
      • Taylor Wimpey
      • Tchenguiz
      • Warwick Estates
      • West India Quay
      • William Waldorf Astor
      • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
You are here: Home / Latest News / Marriage value a bogus profit in the £2.5bn enfranchisement racket, LKP trustee Dean Buckner tells BBC

Marriage value a bogus profit in the £2.5bn enfranchisement racket, LKP trustee Dean Buckner tells BBC

January 8, 2020 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

Sam Kinsella marriage value
Sam Kinsella is facing a £42,000 lease extension bill, with a third of the sum being mnarriage value. How will the Law Commission’s options to reform enfranchisement help him, if at all?

On the eve of the Law Commission’s long-awaited proposals to reform the £2.5 billion enfranchisement business – where leaseholders extend leases or buy their freeholds – LKP trustee Dean Buckner has told the BBC marriage value should not exist.

Marriage value is the supposed increase in value of a property when the freehold is added to the lease: it is relevant in the calculations of extending leases of less than 80 years.

Dean Buckner
LKP trustee and former Bank of England regulator Dr Dean Buckner thinks marriage value is bogus and profit for freehold speculators

Dr Buckner, a former Bank of England regulator and trustee of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, tells the BBC:

“You are asking someone to pay someone else for something they already own.”

Dean Buckner

If the leaseholder has already paid for the extension, there should not be any compensation for the supposed additional “profit”.

Dr Buckner objects to the payment since the leaseholder has already paid for the extension. To consider it a profit is specious, he says, and he points out that it doesn’t exist in deals outside the property world.

The BBC report includes the case of Des Kinsella, a North London leaseholder facing a £42,00 bill to extend his lease. Almost a third of the sum is marriage value.

Every year there are around 100,000 lease extensions and about a fifth of them involve calculations for marriage value.

leasehold marriage value
BBC addresses marriage value on the eve of Law Commission report offering moderate options to improve freeholders’ £2.5 billion enfranchisement business

For Mr Kinsella, part of the expense is down to the fact that the freehold owner thinks the flat, in Ilford, east London, which he bought in 2014 for £165,000, will be worth £265,000 when an extra 90 years are added.

Much of that gain will be down to the extra years themselves – a new buyer will pay more for a flat with about 150 years to go than one with only 60, like Mr Kinsella’s. But the freeholder thinks £25,000 of it will be a profit it should share in.

Mr Kinsella says it’s very hard to find a similar property nearby that will sell for even close to that estimate, even with a share of the freehold.

He tells the BBC he is realistic about wanting to pay what is owed, but that a £25,000 gain in value – half of which he will be obliged to pay to the freeholder – isn’t a fair valuation.

If freeholder and leaseholder can’t agree, valuations are decided by a tribunal.

A request for comment by the BBC from Mr Kinsella’s freeholder, Fable Estates, received no response.

Related posts:

APPG recognises efforts of Law Commission to improve enfranchisement Is Law Commission wobbly over 25% commercial exclusion to collective enfranchisement? (Let’s hope so) Justin Madders MPJustin Madders launches Bill to end the enfranchisement and lease extension racket Wellcome Trust ‘wrong’ over exploiting the lease extension racket in its property portfolio, Bottomley tells The Times Professor Nicholas HopkinsIf you want to reform enfranchisement push government hard, is message of Law Commission

Category: Latest News, Law Commission, News, PressTag: Dr Dean Buckner, Enfranchisement, Law Commission, Marriage value

Sign up to the LKP newsletter

Fill in the link here

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (44) ARMA (91) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (33) CMA (46) Commonhold (56) Competition and Markets Authority (42) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (55) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (55) Israel Moskovitz (32) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (36) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (31) Justin Bates (41) Justin Madders MP (75) Katie Kendrick (40) Law Commission (61) LEASE (68) Leasehold Advisory Service (65) Leasehold houses (32) Liam Spender (39) Long Harbour (51) Lord Greenhalgh (32) Martin Boyd (87) McCarthy and Stone (43) National Leasehold Campaign (42) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Retirement (38) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (67) Sir Peter Bottomley (211) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (34) Vincent Tchenguiz (45) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « Campaigner Katie Kendrick gets Rightmove to include lease details on sales listings
Next Post: APPG recognises efforts of Law Commission to improve enfranchisement »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. stephen

    January 8, 2020 at 4:23 pm

    The flat was sold in 2014 with 65 years on the lease and the price paid for the flat reflected the cost of extending it . The formula requires the lessee to pay 50% share of the marriage value. Leaving aside whether that is equitable the point is the flats value reflected that formula.

    The lessee now wants marraige value removed so on the one hand using the argument about marriage value to push down the price on acqusition but when it comes to extend the lease cites that marriage value as unfair and should be abolished.

    Again if the costs of the lease extenstion were understood prior to purchase and the financial burden of the rent appreciated before signing up then much of the perceived unfairness would lift

    • Dennis Everest

      January 8, 2020 at 10:23 pm

      If anything the formula for calculating what a lease extension should cost is too tipped in the lessees favour as interest rates as high as 5% and 6% are used to work out the compensation payable for the lease to be compulsorily extended. We haven’t had rates of return this high for fifteen years or so. It is not right that the particular lessee of the moment exercising the rights under the Act enjoys the benefit of a computation done at such high deemed interest rates and the time is ripe for this issue to be addressed so that the calculation is fair to both parties.

      • Stephen

        January 9, 2020 at 11:35 am

        When Sportelli was decided the rate of 5% was costed off a risk free rate of 2.5% that was back in 2007

        Since then the risk free rate used to compute the Ogden rate used in personal injury settlements case crashed from 2.5% to MINUS 0.7%

        Accordingly a significant downward adjustment in the Reversionary rate and capitalisation could be argued

    • Philip Alexander

      January 8, 2020 at 10:33 pm

      That’s part of the problem. The lease extension process is never fully explained if at all. Leaseholders are happy with this arrangement as lessees simply stumble into large bills blindly.

  2. Noelle Greenaway

    January 8, 2020 at 8:15 pm

    It is a small flat in Ilford, not Downton Abbey

  3. Alec

    January 9, 2020 at 7:25 am

    Where the flat is part of a residential leasehold development and freehold title was sold to a freehold speculator in criminal breach of s4 of part 1 of the LTA 1987 (as amended by the Housing Act 1996) – that is -section 5 (or following criminal sale-buyer s3A) notices were not issued providing the majority qualifying leaseholders with right of first refusal (RFR), the majority leaseholders continue to hold the right to purchase the freehold on like terms to the original disposal. And for the avoidance of doubt, continue to do so (without time limit) until a s3A notice is finally issued by the buyer (or any subsequent buyer)

    This criminal trade has been going on for many years, and the properties so affected have usually been those nearing 80 yrs or already going under 80 yrs remaining on the lease. = with disposals taking place for what can only be described as a relative “peppercorn”. There are many reasons the original freeholder can wish to offload the title (usually the state of the buildings -built in 60/70s- with long term remedial issues) and to do so quickly as part of a portfolio of like developments. These particular sales do not take place at auctions – they are done behind closed doors and far from prying eyes.

    Thus an unscrupulous buyer illegally purchases the freehold title to a residential development of say 100 flats at c. £100,000 and, as the length of time remaining declines under 80 year on year, aims to extend individual leases at an ever increasing and extortionate cost thereafter –

    Eg: Flat built 1970 =
    99yr lease sold at full market value to leaseholder (and subsequent leaseholders). RFR ignored and
    freehold title illegally sold in 2000 for relative peppercorn – providing extortionate scam extension business thereafter.

    Imperative Law Commission , CMA, and Gov address this existing scam and not provide any further “loopholes”.

    LKP: Happy New Year – love your new look – but please put a “Post Comment” up top on toolbar -so the IT dummies like me can navigate more easily.

  4. Kev Richards

    January 10, 2020 at 8:49 pm

    Why are we still talking about this? Leasehold needs to be abolished not reformed – like the rest of the world! It is a gigantic scam, a legacy from Feudal land ownership, a misselling scandal. None of these future costs are ever indicated at the point of purchase and are not in the “contract” and at no point does any professional tell you you are not a homeowner but a tenant and paying rent. no leasehold flat or house should ever be “for sale” – it isn’t and the adverts are scandalous lies. They know they are but there is a collusion of professionals to keep that fact out of sight. And to even have a hope of understanding what you are signing up to, you have to understand Lease Law, which of course is ridiculous. People are being forced to pay twice for the home they thought they purchased, and indeed “purchased” at the market value of freeholds.
    The other scam and scandal is that there is a hidden market in ownership which the Leaseholder is not privy to – his home could change hands many times but he wouldn’t know, and the investor sale price is not even available to the Leaseholder.

Above Footer

Advising leaseholders. Avoiding disasters.
Stopping forfeiture. Exposing abuses. Urging reform.

We depend on individuals for the majority of our funding.

Support Us and Donate

LKP Managing Agents

Become an LKP Managing Agent

Common Ground
Adam Church
Blocnet property management2

Stay in Touch

To achieve victory in the leasehold game where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well - stay informed with the LKP newsletter.
Sign Up for Newsletter

Professional Directory

The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders.
Click on the logos for company profiles.

Barry Passmore

Footer

About LKP

  • What is LKP
  • Privacy and data

Categories

  • News
  • Cladding scandal
  • Commonhold
  • Law Commission
  • Fleecehold
  • Parliament
  • Press
  • APPG

Contact

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
Open Data Institute
5th Floor
Kings Place
London N1 9AG

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

Copyright © 2025 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership | All rights reserved
Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Limited (company number: 08999652) is a company limited by guarantee that is a registered charity (number: 1162584) with the Charities Commission.
LKP website is hosted at www.34sp.com
Website by Callia Web