• 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 / MPs tell government consultation: End leasehold houses. Scrap new ground rents. Ignore pleas for self-regulation. Ban Help To Buy on rip-off leaseholds

MPs tell government consultation: End leasehold houses. Scrap new ground rents. Ignore pleas for self-regulation. Ban Help To Buy on rip-off leaseholds

September 22, 2017 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

The three LKP patron MPs who head the APPG on leasehold reform: Sir Peter Bottomley (Conservative), Sir Ed Davey (LibDem) and Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour)

Self-regulation and codes of conduct have failed. Bring in commonhold and end the leasehold rip-offs.

APPG pays “public tribute” to the work of LKP in revealing these abuses

“LKP have helped hundreds of leaseholders keep their homes and continue to do so with very limited resources,” it says.

Leasehold Sector ‘cannot be trusted’


More than 100 people attended the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold and commonhold reform on September 11

All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold and commonhold reform has today published its uncompromising response to Communities Secretary Sajid Javid’s consultation.

The APPG, which has 110 members, demands an end to leasehold houses and urges the scrapping of new ground rents, which are for no service whatsoever.

The property industry’s pleas for giving self-regulation another chance with a “code of practice” is emphatically rejected.

The solution is to bring in commonhold and end the creation of leasehold tenancies, which cause such misery for so many who buy them.

It adds:

“There is a question not asked in the consultation:

“Why has it has taken so long for parliament, the civil-service advisers to ministers and government to stop the leasehold situation getting worse and to start dealing with the historic issues, which have been and are in plain sight?”

The APPG continues:

“The government has made clear that it accepts that we have a “broken housing market” and that there are “unfair practices” in the leasehold sector, which need to be addressed.

“Action is needed urgently, so that millions of leaseholders can be given greater protection and security and be treated more fairly within a sector which is presently open to abuse despite the systems that exist under current legislation.”

The APPG brushes aside one of the favoured arguments of developers and leasehold sector professionals that leasehold properties are cheaper than freehold ones:

“The APPG’s interim report (April 2017)8 found there seems little direct evidence that offering leasehold houses results in lower costs to home buyers.

“No developer has been willing, nor do we think able to provide specific evidence that ground rent income streams are needed to make a development viable.”

The APPG quotes Jolyon Harrison, CEO of Gleeson Homes, saying that there is no justification for leasehold houses.

It cites Bob Bessell, founder of retirement housebuilder Retirement Security Limited saying there is no justification for ground rents, either.

Faced with the question, in what circumstances do you consider that leasehold houses supported by Help to Buy Equity Loan could be justified?

The APPG replies: “None.”

“The APPG is aware that providers in the sector are likely to come forward with some form of self-regulating code of conduct. There is no evidence historically that self-regulation has been effective.

“There is evidence the sector may have already begun to move on from generating ground rent income streams. We are now seeing an increase in onerous covenants in freehold titles that seek to reflect many of the charges that had recently been imposed on leasehold houses.

“The fact that the sector has moved so rapidly to find new income streams should alert the government to the sector’s approach to self-regulation.

“Too many cannot be trusted,” says the APPG

Regarding those trapped in unsellable leasehold properties, the APPG says:

“The government might wish to consider whether what has taken place constitutes miss-selling of new build homes in England and Wales.”

Further points are made concerning the retirement housing sector not working as it should; that leasehold property managers, who are entrusted with hundreds of thousands of pounds, require regulation, and that the cost regime of the property tribunal is weighted against leaseholders.

Referring to charity freeholders, such as the National Trust, MPs argue that as they are exempt from leaseholders exercising their right of enfranchisement to buy the freeholds to their homes, they should not be subjecting their leaseholders to onerous “modern” ground rents.

The full APPG submission to Sajid Javid’s consultation is here: APPG response unfair practices consultation (fv)

Related posts:

Leasehold houses to be banned and future ground rents set to zero, announces Sajid Javid Gavin Barwell: ‘No excuse for leasehold houses or punitive ground rents and we will stamp them out’ Labour to cap ‘legalised extortion’ of ground rents and end leasehold houses … Opposition and government now compete to reform leasehold Lords hear how LKP warned government over ground rents and leasehold houses … in 2015 Default ThumbnailGovernment to ban leasehold houses and set ground rents ‘as low as’ zero

Category: APPG, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Latest News, News, Parliament, Sir Ed Davey, Sir Peter BottomleyTag: Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Martin Boyd, Sebastian O’Kelly, Sir Ed Davey, Sir Peter Bottomley

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (37) ARMA (87) Bellway (30) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (31) CMA (45) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (41) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (42) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (54) Harry Scoffin (150) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (35) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (30) Justin Bates (40) Justin Madders MP (67) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Long Harbour (48) Martin Boyd (80) McCarthy and Stone (39) National Leasehold Campaign (38) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Redrow (30) Retirement (37) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (55) Sir Peter Bottomley (201) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (31) Vincent Tchenguiz (43) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « Ground rent speculator in leasehold homes laments losses in FT
Next Post: Pensioner paid £38,000 for Taylor Wimpey freehold to ground rent speculators E&J Capital Partners E and J Captial Partners»

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. David McArthur

    September 26, 2017 at 7:07 pm

    Sussex lessee, I have an in payment pension which was frozen four years ago and will remain frozen until I die – unless I live to my late nineties. Why do I mention this? Because I am the victim of well intentioned(?) government pension law and its fixed nature. There may well be (there may not be) victims if leasehold is abolished, but the overwhelming general good will be served if (when) leasehold is abolished.

    • Sussex lessee

      September 26, 2017 at 7:24 pm

      I know what you mean. But also, if the Grantor does not like its leases as in my case, so much that they did not repair or insure the buildings, then I think ‘forfeiture’ should be available the other way round, for fundamental breach. Academics argue that there is no reason in principle, within the normal law of contract, for lessees either to have their money back or have the freehold. Such cases do not occur, because of the lack of funding for housing law, as I outlined in answer to Paddy. The law of contract is good in theory*. You just cannot get at it.

      *Apart from s. 151 of the LPA 1925, allowing non-consensual sales of the freehold. That ain’t lawful, in contract, but this section (that allows it) dates from 1705, when Parliament was ultimately in the pocket of just 5 or so great landowners of the realm. In its preamble, the 1705 Act claimed that tenants were ‘attorning’ to false landlords. We don’t know if that was really true, but possession was everything in those days, some argue.

      • Sussex lessee

        September 26, 2017 at 7:28 pm

        no reason why lessees should NOT have their money back, or the freehold, I meant to write!

  2. Kim

    September 26, 2017 at 7:12 pm

    I’m saying nowt!

    • Sussex lessee

      September 26, 2017 at 7:30 pm

      Thank you Kim. Your very kind words to a struggling fellow lessee the other day do you great credit. Love you too! xx

  3. Kim

    September 26, 2017 at 8:03 pm

    Sussex Lessee thank you for your kind comment. Let us hope that we will have a reason for genuine cheer when the ‘ results’ of the consultation are eventually announced.

    Positive karma to you and all fellow leaseholders. Xx

  4. Peter walker

    September 27, 2017 at 9:46 am

    Buying lease of persimmon homes. Keeping permissions fees his worth buying

  5. David McArthur

    September 27, 2017 at 8:07 pm

    Kim, I still think the petition would be better on government site, Mary (above) thinks the same. As Chief Whip can you have words with the appropriate people.

    • Kim

      September 27, 2017 at 8:50 pm

      David I have just replied to you and Mary ( chief whip hat) explains why I do not think it a good idea to initiate another pettition oaticularlyba ‘ Government’ one! I think it will read approx 37?comments from top of this page. I believe the oetition currently has 2,140 plus in 3 days- not terrific but we are working on really bringing in the numbers which I am sure we will!!!!

      • Kim

        September 27, 2017 at 8:52 pm

        Excuse grammar mistakes but have been emailing quite a lot today. I’m sure you get the gist.

  6. Paddy

    September 27, 2017 at 8:29 pm

    Would not suggest starting another petition…
    1. Loads of leasehold petitions show up on Google.
    2. Gov site stops petitions if general election is called.
    3. Numbers mean little if gov isn’t listening
    4. 2000plus now would not sign again.

    What now matters are the 6000 plus responses.

  7. John

    September 28, 2017 at 10:57 am

    Just wondering how many of those agitating for leasehold reform are buy to let landlords who no doubt will be reducing the rents charged to their tenants in anticipatiion of the success of their campaign.

    • Kim

      September 28, 2017 at 3:08 pm

      Hello John

      I hope you have/ will sign the petition and share it with everyone you know!

  8. John

    September 28, 2017 at 3:43 pm

    Hi. Kim.
    Without the information asked for above I am not sure where my sympathies lie, so I will not be signing the petition at this stage. I would not want to influence others.

  9. Kim

    September 28, 2017 at 5:03 pm

    Hello John.

    I am unsure of the correlation between leasehold being abolished, Struct Regulation for Managing Agents and what private landlords charge their tenants? Surely if they charge them too much then they will not get a tenant for their ‘ buy to let” flats?

    If YOU believe that leasehold should be abolished in England and Wales as it is everywhere else in the Western world and that Managing Agents should be strictly regulated then sign the petition. It shouldn’t matter to you what “those agitating for leasehold reform” will do. It is a matter of conscious for you alone.

    I

    • Kim

      September 28, 2017 at 5:05 pm

      Oops meant ‘conscience!!

  10. John

    September 28, 2017 at 8:36 pm

    Hi Kim.
    Seems to me that a simple abolition of leasehold with the freehold passing to the present leaseholder would be equivalent on, for example, a 350K london flat. gr. 1K pa. 70 Yrs. on lease, to a transfer of 50K plus to the present leaseholder made up of cost of 90 year statutory lease extension plus an unknown but not insignificant increase in the property value,c/f leasehold, leading to a further increase in property prices generally.
    My conscience tells me that for a buy to let property a part of this benefit to the present leaseholder should pass to their tenant/s (who after all are paying for the whole ‘shebang’ plus their landlord’s return out of their taxed wages), in the form of reduced rent.

    • Kim

      September 28, 2017 at 11:49 pm

      Dear John

      I take it the petition will not be getting your vote? Cest la vie. Why not share the petition with your friends and family as they might think differently??

  11. Trevor Bradley

    September 28, 2017 at 10:32 pm

    Here we go again.
    I think “John” and “Stephen” should form their own website and call it whatever “their dreams” mean.
    This site is all about abolishing totally unnecessary (except in extenuating circumstances) leasehold houses and changing apartments/flats (multi occupancy) to a minimum of common hold.
    If you don’t support that, and don’t support the petition please – move on

  12. Paddy

    September 29, 2017 at 5:26 am

    Methinks John would find any ‘excuse’? Might be a freeholder? Who knows. Who cares.

    Leaseholders pay FULL market value (no argument this is fact) for their home. Some may decide to sub let if their lease permits – but they pay an inevitable back-hander to the freeholder for consent. At least they also paid full market value for the opportunity, not 1-5% of total value like freehold investors. And unlike freeholders they have to repair their own ‘asset’. What do freeholders pay for all the tears being poured by those like our John about their property rights?

    Just because it is legal don’t make something right. Good folk like our kid John for example seem to have a blind eye to feudal tenure.

    Freeholds are traded as if the home owners are captive assets (and boasted of as such). Freeholders expropriate the hard earned wealth of those who buy their own home. As said by Kim of this manor, the rest of the world saw through this feudal scam long ago – including the Scots and Irish.

    It’s a scam, it’s exploitation, it’s a rip-off. A nice little earner undoubtedly. For now.

  13. Michael Epstein

    September 29, 2017 at 6:28 am

    What all this boils down to is something relatively simple (So it is time for someone relatively simple to comment!)
    Be it called leasehold or commonhold, of course a system needs to be in place to maintain flats,insure blocks, maintain covenants on new build developments or to maintain landscapes. And some covenants are totally justified in order to preserve the integrity of the development or good order in a block of flats.
    The real issue is that these necessary requirements are being ruthlessly exploited by third parties, at leaseholders and quasi freeholder’s expense.
    If control was brought back to leaseholders then all that is needed can be achieved on a not for profit basis. It is only in England & Wales that allows leaseholders to be exploited in the way they are.

  14. ollie

    September 30, 2017 at 1:11 pm

    In Australia, the Strata title system is same as our Commonhold title system which means no ground rent is paid to a superior landlord.

    With Strata Title came the “Body Corporate” which is responsible for maintenance of the building and gardens. The Body Corporate was replaced in 2007 by the “Owners Corporation” as described in attached website :

    https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/housing/owners-corporations/buying-into-an-owners-corporation/what-is-an-owners-corporation

  15. ollie

    September 30, 2017 at 9:06 pm

    We should ask the CMA to pronounce the requirement of ground rent for any Lease term over 21 years is an “unfair contract term” in the LEASE.

    The current development at Lincoln Square , London WC2 is selling new studio and 1 bed flats and prices starting from £1.o4 Mil and requires annual ground rent starting from £500 p.a .

    Why is it necessary to ask for for freeholder to demand £500 p.a ground rent ??

    • ollie

      September 30, 2017 at 9:07 pm

      Correction : Not we , but APPG should ask CMA

      • S McDonald

        October 1, 2017 at 1:02 pm

        Hello Ollie,

        I agree lets ask APPG to ask the CMA to pronounce the requirement of ground rent for any Lease term over 21 years is an “unfair contract term”. This would affect many hundreds of thousands of leases.

        Why arent lease contracts already subject to existing consumer legislation ?

        If we need to chip away at leasehold bit by bit, until its eventual abolition lets do so as it may quicken its end.

        • ollie

          October 1, 2017 at 4:35 pm

          Glad to see someone recognises a way to skate around the major obstacles.

          Lets ask the APPG to ask Civil Justice Council to modernise and recommend removing the 2 years waiting period before allowed to seek statutory 90 years lease extension .

          Buyers of new leasehold property should NOT be required to wait 2 years from purchase of lease. They should be allowed to choose a leasehold price with Nil ground rent at the time of purchase which can be included in the mortgage.

          • S McDonald

            October 1, 2017 at 6:37 pm

            If the CMA pronounce the requirement of ground rent for any Lease term over 21 years as an “unfair contract term”.

            Why not also get this applied retrospectively because it does not matter when the contract was signed if it was unfair.

            This would have a positive effect of many hundreds of thousands of leaseholders. .

« Older Comments

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.

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 © 2023 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