The National Leasehold Campaign Facebook group issued the following press release today:
The National Leasehold Campaign (NLC) Facebook Group celebrates its first anniversary on 27th January by topping 10,000 members. The NLC offers support, advice and guidance for 4.2 million leaseholders in England and Wales.
Katie Kendrick, founder of the campaign said: “I never believed when I started the campaign that it would become so big and influential. I am hugely proud of what’s been achieved in our first year, culminating with the Government’s confirmation that new leasehold houses would be banned. However, there’s still a long way to go. The words have been spoken but now is the time we need to see some action. The NLC is campaigning for the abolishment of leasehold; it’s already been abolished in Scotland, so why not in England and Wales?”
The definition of a ‘Scandal’ is ‘an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage’. It is evident that this clearly describes how many are feeling who are caught up in the leasehold scandal.
The Group is working on a new website to help to manage the huge number of enquiries they get from members every day. Katie, who juggles managing the NLC with her demanding job as a children’s nurse, added “We have new members every day who are just starting to realise that they are caught up in this leasehold scandal and we need a website to be able to answer the common questions that people have like “What can I do about my doubling ground rent?”, “How do I buy my freehold?” and “Help, how can I afford to extend my lease?. It is refreshing to see communities joining together to stand up to the outrageous situation we are in, it truly demonstrates the positive impact of people power”.
In addition to the original leasehold issues of onerous ground rents and the onward sale of freeholds to typically offshore investors, the NLC also sees numerous posts about wider housing issues. Katie notes “We are regularly now asked about what we call “fleecehold”, where developers are advertising properties as freehold, but closer inspection of the small print shows that these properties still require the payment of permission fees for things like home alterations – that’s not true freehold; that’s fleecehold. We also get lots of members asking about service charges and estate management fees. Greedy developers, in anticipation of the end of the leasehold gravy train, are already looking for the next money making machine.”
Katie runs the NLC in her spare time, with fellow leaseholders Cath Williams and Jo Darbyshire. The Government does have a lease advisory service, LEASE, but the Group does not refer people to them. Katie adds:
“LEASE is a Government funded advisory service, but we can’t in good faith, refer people to them when the Chairman, Roger Southam, has a clear conflict of interest. His wife has interests in ground rent portfolios. LEASE has been there throughout while this leasehold scandal was allowed to develop and did nothing to stop it.”
The Group does work closely with the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, a charity and also secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on leasehold and commonhold reform who have been incredibly supportive to leaseholders. The APPG now has over 130 MPs and is one of the largest APPG’s in Parliament.
Jo Darbyshire of the NLC said:
“What’s really striking about the leasehold scandal are the human stories and the impact that this is having on real people on a daily basis. It’s not unusual for us to get posts from people that are really upset and losing sleep because of the stress and costs associated with living in a leasehold home. I’ve spoken a member who is convinced that the stress of being trapped in this leasehold scandal caused her to have a miscarriage. Just this week, we helped a new member who has just become aware of the leasehold scandal and has incurable cancer. We helped to put her in touch with a good solicitor who can try to sort out her doubling ground rent as part of getting her affairs in order. It’s helping people in need that reminds us why we are sacrificing time away from our families to get this mess sorted out. The Government has taken some really positive steps forward to prevent future leasehold abuses and we need to see action for the thousands of us that are still trapped in this leasehold nightmare.”
Cath Williams of the NLC said:
“The human face of leasehold is often ignored as freeholders are only interested in profit not people. To counteract this the NLC are producing a punchy thought provoking video which will be available for release shortly. This situation is having a massive impact on people overall health and well-being. At the end of the day we are hard working people who just want to have the opportunity to own our own homes, free from any dictatorship”
-ends-
For more information contact Katie Kendrick @ National Leasehold Campaign – katiejane13uk@yahoo.co.uk, 07539 083958, Jo Darbyshire, joannedarbyshire@sky.com, 07973 694985 or Cath Williams cwcattwil@gmail.com 07790771319.
– Ends –
Editors’ notes
National Leasehold Campaign (NLC)
Founded by Katie Kendrick in January 2017, the NLC is a community of leaseholders campaigning for the abolition of leasehold. Currently 10,000 members strong, the NLC offers support, advice and guidance for 4.2 million leaseholders in England and Wales. They work closely with the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Charity.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/786983251448976/
Govt consultation
Sajid Javid launched a government consultation on tackling unfair practices in the leasehold market which ended in September. It received over 6,000 responses. On 21st December 2017, in a debate on leasehold reform in Westminster Hall, the then Housing Minister, Alok Sharma, confirmed that leasehold reform would be included in the Law Commission’s 13th term of work and they would report back the Government in the summer of 2018. He also confirmed that sale of new leasehold houses would be banned.
Leasehold tenure
Leasehold tenure is a remnant from the English Feudal system and retains ownership of land for the landowner with ‘tenants’ paying ground rent. Abuses are common: exorbitant management fees, onerous lease extensions and permission fees (Eg to change a bedroom carpet, changing mortgage provider).
50% of homes in London are leasehold and 9 out of 10 newly built homes in London are leasehold. Leasehold reform has been attempted several times over the last 50 years resulting in the development of a complex legal matrix which is unintelligible to the lay person, and often, conveyancing solicitors themselves.
Related posts:
NATIONAL LEASEHOLD CAMPAIGN (NLC) WILL HOLD A MINUTES SILENCE IN HONOUR OF THE VICTIMS OF THE GRENFELL TRAGEDY.
Here’s the National Leasehold Campaign pledge, after the government panders to the sector over its PR piffle emitted last month
Justin Madders MP endorses the National Leasehold Campaign trio for prestigious Women in Housing Awards
The creation of the National Leasehold Campaign
National Leasehold Campaign tells Roger Southam to resign from LEASE
Court of Appeal turns down Mundy case – unanimously
Congratulations to NLC.
Sadly I’m not on Facebook so like sound of a dedicated new help site. Spent five years almost daily answering leasehold questions on a well known forum but pulled off last year in frustration at outrageously pro-industry responses.
Once found myself lectured that RTM companies are not landlords. Even posting link to Upper Tribunal referring to RTMC as the landlord didn’t stop it.
Same problem found on the otherwise great Martin Lewis site, I felt anyway. Don’t visit that now either.
Leaseholders need a dedicated questions forum where leaseholders can post a problem and be confident that fellow leaseholders or friendly pros can share expertise gained by trial and fire themselves.
Anyone wanting to defend the industry rather than offer practical and helpful facts should find their posts barred by the T&C’s.
Not more “You signed a contract, You are a mere tenant so suck it up sucker” kind of help.
Also would serve as constant proof to government that very serious exploitation is a daily experience due to lack of effective rights, lack of empowerment, and lack of useful information.
RTM companies are not landlords.
An RTM company doesn’t collect ground rent. It doesn’t have right of approval for structural alterations. It cannot apply for planning permission. It is not entitled to forfeit the property of someone who doesn’t pay ground rent or service charges. It cannot enforce convenants in leases by itself. It cannot grant wayleaves.
All of those rights are reserved to the freeholder, who may monetise his interest in a variety of ways despite the existence of an RTM company.
Any description of an RTM company as a landlord, if it was not identical to the freeholder, is simply wrong. They are legally separate entities.
One of the anomalies that can result from members of an RTM company acquiring their freehold (collectively becoming their own landlord) is a legal obligation to comply with landlord and tenant legislation. This includes consulting themselves, in writing and with the correct notice periods etc., via the Section 20 process over any works that will result in a £250 expense for any leaseholder. The only way to avoid that is to convert to commonhold, which cannot be done at the moment if single leaseholder objections; 100% agreement is required.
Hi Paul, sorry I’m not going to waste my time arguing with you except to say…
As I said above, Upper tribunals expressly class RTMCs as the landlord (I do not know your status as a judge?) for self evident reasons, as to call them something else is rather absurd. They are not the freeholder as ‘landlord’, of course no. RTM does not remove the freeholder but essentially sidelines them from defined landlord functions per 2002 Act.
They are not the managing agent either. They state their landlord status under s47 and s48 for the purposes of service charge collection. Ground rent is irrelevant in context as this goes to Freeholders.
RTMCs take on landlord functions under the lease with specific exceptions that do not undermine their status for all practical purposes as being ‘ RTM landlord’ in operative terms.
They grant landlord consents (subject to notifying the freeholder). They do more than act as an agent or service charge administrator.
The 2002 Act makes clear that anyone claiming the status of landlord under the lease must, with a few prescribed exceptions, defer to the RTM company.
There is more nuances but you do not sound like you wish to hear them and i do not have the energy to argue pointlessly.
Just as the industry prefers to call long leaseholders ‘mere’ tenants rather than title holders, it seems to me that it prefers for some reason to underplay the status of the RTMC as acting as landlord under the lease?
Perhaps that is why so may RTM directors report problems of being sidelined by the professional agents they appoint?
I find myself on this occasion preferring the views of judges on the matter of description. But whatever floats one’s boat, I suppose.
No, I am not a judge. I am merely a leaseholder whose development and RTM company is still subject to the rapacious behaviour of a monetising freeholder.
The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act (2002) which enabled us to acquire the right to manage, enabled us to assume most of the rights and obligations of the landlord but not all of them. I indicated some that are reserved; some can be debated, especially by a deep-pocketed freeholder willing to use court costs to intimidate. A lot has been left unclear, some of which has been discussed on this site in the past.
Judges certainly have the last word on the interpretation of the law and I have no argument with that. I meant to dispute or qualify the idea that an RTM company is effectively the freeholder, apart from the collection of ground rent, which is simply not the case.
A freeholder can, up to a point, do what he likes to a building he owns, whether the RTM company likes it or not. He can apply for planning permission to add additional floors to a building, even running an elevator through someone’s living room. And this is all entirely legal and no leaseholder or RTM company consent is required to apply to do it, and nor is its absence even a planning consideration! To say that the RTM Company is “the” landlord in such circumstances is somehow a mockery of the term as it’s commonly understood.
Apologies, I botched the italicisation of most.
Thank you so much for your continued support.
I’m hoping by expanding the group platform from facebook will increase our following and also raise wider awareness.
(Don’t know where the time to maintain its going to come from but I’m sure we will find time to make this work)
Katie Kendrick x
congratulations!
All members should contact their MPs now to clarify their position. Irrespective of party interests, we should only vote for those who genuinely support abolition or genuine reform.
Where people live is more important than anything else. and even those of us who live in freeholds (as I now do) must remember -they may have children who may become leaseholders one day.
Paddy you usd to post under the name of Mr Soffit if I am not mistaken and I wondered why we had it had your contributions to landlord zone
Spill the beans MI5 Agent. Give more information on “ Mr Soffit”. Can’t wait for an update.
Well done “;Laydees”. You have my full support. You have what I call cojones and that is a very good thing for a woman to have. LKP showed you the direction of travel and boy didn’t you make the journey! Let’s hope the petition reaches the 10,000 figure soon. Well done. Take a bow!, ????????????????????
Thanks him. As always your continue support is very much appreciated.
The petition has now got 6700 signatures. We will continue to push this on the new website.
https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-abolish-leasehold-strict-regulation-for-residential-managing-agents-be-introduced
Katie x
Excellent Katie. If there is anything I can do let me know.
Together leaseholders and right minded folks have to fight to rid ourselves of this toxic element in English/ Welsh property law.
Kimx
Paul, further thoughts to save time and argument…
As well as tribunals logically treating RTMCs as acting landlord under the lease (they can be nothing else in practice without some rather tortuous new description – I have heard ‘mere block administrator’ grudgingly applied):-
RTMCs have no agency contract with the freeholder. They appoint their own agents and contractors etc. What description would this suggest?
Where you say an RTMC cannot approve structural alterations, they could not approve or choose to build new units of course but:
Section 98 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 provides that the RTM company (where it has acquired the RTM) takes over the landlord’s functions relating to approvals under the leases including a consent required under a restriction in the register.
The RTM company must give the landlord notice before it grants the approval. During the prescribed notice period the freeholder landlord has the opportunity to object – see section 99 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.
I tend to find that they and their agents prefer to continue to claim that havuing the right to object means only they grant consents. This ignores that if the freeholder failed to respond, the RTMC can consent independently.
RTMCs, unlike agents, can go to court in their own name, whereas an agent must act for the ‘landlord’ , which goes full circle as the RTMC’s appointed agent can go to court in the RTMC’s name without needing permission from the freeholder landlord. Confusing rather?
I could go on. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck and acts as a duck… I think this may be the sensible view the UT etc takes if only to save typing other clumsy descriptions.
I could be wrong. Six years helping to run an RTMC acting as landlord under the lease gives me no guarantees of being right.
Paul, accepting I am in danger of wishing to argue… I do not understand the ‘anomaly’ of your final paragraph.
If -as you describe- members of an RTMC acquire the freehold, they will not incur any new consultation obligations to consult “themselves” as you put it, not any different to those they already have as an RTMC anyway.
An RTMC is already bound by the body of landlord and tenant acts – which may be a useful pointer as to what to call one as it cannot be the tenant so what else? – and an RTMC or its agent must consult with all ‘its’ managed leaseholders (whether members or no) under section 20 if this is triggered, or alternatively seek dispensation, exactly the same way as any ‘landlord’ is obliged to do.
The members of the RTMC would of course kill of the RTMC and re-emerge into the sunlight as a different type of articled company and section 20 would still apply, as you correctly say.
I see no anomaly. Only much joy.
Not to suggest that the 2002 Act and ensuing RTM case law is not a dog’s dinner in operation and not fully fit for what it claims to offer.
Mama Mia!! May I make a suggestion? I will anyway. Let’s make this thread ( or wotever it’s called) about the MAGNIFICENT Katie Cathy and Jo. Let us celebrate their blooming fabulous achievement.
I shall now make a sexist comment which I believe to be true- here it is,
Only women can be so bloody minded that they are NOT going to put up with s#i#e and are not afraid of confrontation. Hence their success so far In this case)
The aforementioned women have careers , run a home and family etc. Yet they are fighting for justice.. c’ mon fellas and gals. Nuf respect.
These ladies are pointing at the moon and others are looking at their fingers.
I take your point about the lack of “new” obligations, what is new is that despite having shaken off an unwanted freeholder and abolished ground rent, the new freeholder is STILL required jump through the hoop of consulting, effectively, itself.
That seems absurd and that absurdity is novel. Part of the absurdity as things stand is that the law is unclear on whether email is an acceptable form of consultation, so to be on the safe side, most managing agents insist on doing the consultation by mail. Some charge a couple of thousand pounds just for the administration of each such consultation.
This nonsense can be dispensed with via commonhold, but commonhold is hard to achieve — it is currently impossible with 100% consent.
One would almost think that the act was sandbagged deliberately by people who knew exactly what they were doing to ensure an uninterrupted flow of leaseholders’ money to freeholders, commonly known as landlords.
Can anyone be surprised that the UK consistently ranks last or 2nd last in the EU in terms of inequality? The UK economy is the most rigged in Europe in favour of “the selected few” — for the selected few, by the selected few.
Blimey, can one imagine the outpouring of congrats for the founders of an organisation that has managed to galvanise 10,000 members and forced the Javid to initiate a consultation if the founders were MEN????
It’s all very well waving willies ( excuse moi French) about RTM yadda yadda . Most folks on this site are well versed on Malarkey .
On the other hand , Katie, Cathy and Joe have actually put their arses on the frontline and effected change.
It’s all very well stating “ i don’t do Facebook”, “I don’t do the other” etc. Fine – no prob with that. However, Katie, Cathy and Jo do, and are making real change.
Let us use this thread to congratulate them and leave the nuances of RTM for another thread. Boring, Yawn Yawn. Let us celebrate this wonderful women and the NLC.
Goodness I do hope there are no misogynists on LKP?
Looks like you are typing unsubstantiated nonsense.
Would you like to turn on all caps?
Mr Weenie, Judging by your comment It seems I may have stirred a little hornets nest….I assume that you are aware of how a misogynist conducts himself?
I am a little puzzled re your question “ Would you like to turn on all caps”? Did you mean “Taps”? Let me categorically state that I would never turn on all taps because I do not believe in wasting water.
I trust you have signed the petition set up by Katie Kendrick and have shared it with your friends and family.
PS. Weenie this thread is about the Anniversary of the NLC and you have not congratulated or otherwise , katie , Cath or Joe on their sterling work to date.This Speaks volumes.
Oh and Weenie. I wont get into a game of ping pong posting with you. I have made my final. point
Well done Katie, Cath, Jo!
Since I’ve joined the campaign on Facebook I’m not as stressed and concerned as I was when I didn’t know what I was going to do about my freehold being sold without my knowledge. I was upset when I wasn’t offered it in the first place and even more upset when I was quoted 10k for a fleecehold they called a freehold. Keep up the good work, we all appreciate it! Cheers!
Thanks chris.
I’m glad you are finding the group helpful and supportive.
Together we will get there.
Katie
What an unusual turn of events?
We Irish have a saying: Catch yourself on.
In life we must always and every day strive to catch ourselves on.
Otherwise we may create a reality that nobody else comprehends or sees.
Yes indeed Paddy. I concur. As well as the Irish having a “sayings” they also have the Blarney Stone which alas not every Irish man or woman has kissed and therefore are not equipped with supreme eloquence., although most think they are……….. Yawn
I love the Oirish. My dear mama is one of them and I had an idyllic childhood in Dalkey. Ya know Paddy there is a “ Saying” it goes something like this –
“ You have the Irish and everybody else who wishes they were Irish” !
Hi again Paul (others please feel free to skip).
If I (a) whisper quietly; (b) keep my underpants on; and (c) point out that I have communicated supportively with Katie in the past and am chuffed she used my scribblings for the NLC campaign, including the cartoon attached to the petition; we both might get away with continuing our chat about leaseholder RTM rights – given this is LKP and it is raining outdoors.
Now that I know we are both on the same side, I withdraw my defensiveness of earlier. This is a sensitive subject for me as I have fought years to make RTM both better understood and reformed fit for purpose.
I’ve answered an endless stream of queries from confused leaseholders who are either members or directors of RTMCs and even RMCs who were ill-informed as to their rights and powers and outrageously treated by either their own company or, more usually, their professional agents. The common themes were lack of information linked to historical apathy.
I can’t argue that RTM law is shockingly bad, and I also think it was created to be so. It suggests nobody wants leaseholders to succeed in self empowerment?
It starts with the form of incorporation. Guarantorships end at the whim of that member and do not transfer on sale. Whereas there is no required ceiling of members after acquisition, no RTM will survive with a minority of active support. Shares on the other hand would transfer on sale and assist the company maintain membership.
It is all downhill from there. We used a national RTM formation company back in the day and made them our agent. They were a dead loss and the RTM almost went insolvent in only its first year.
There seems to be a shocking lack of detailed expertise around, either that or those who have it deliberately ignore what they know.
Simple things like being able to recharge for management costs – even for a cheap D&O policy for the volunteer directors, is barred, while managing agents can charge huge fees. It is as if all roads delieberately lead back to the industry status quo.
I have been forced many times to give researched legal information to a string of agents – only this week having to save our directors from CH legal action due to a failure of the agent as company secretary to make the returns. I then had to explain the nature of company accounts versus service charge accounts to the same agent. The quality of agent knowledge is awful.
It is no surprise that ‘ordinary’ leaseholders fall into the holes if they are apathetic to learn. They may turn to the industry expecting to gain protection of its advice and expertise, only to find themselves taken over by cynical agents who order the ill-informed directors around and give no advice or just make it up to keep control.
You could usefully lurk on the Leasehold Questions Forum and get many historical examples of shocking mistreatment.
Because there are so many problems, I try to start with fundamentals.
Terminology and meaning is important.
Just as leaseholders are not ‘mere’ tenants, even if they are tenants by law, but holders of registered title and in this sense ‘owners’, leaseholders who form an RTMC may not be the freeholder, or lessor ,or landlord in that sense, but the 2002 Act gives the RTMC the powers of landlord under the lease, with some exceptions.
An RTMC is the acting landlord within certain conditions. Those conditions do not dilute the legitimate use of the shorthand terminology. Nobody suggests that landlord = freeholder or lessor. And thereby there are limitations on the RTMC.
The industry seems to redesignate an RTMC as a mere ‘anything but landlord’ which I suspect is to keep leaseholders confused as to their powers and in their place.
I have heard RTMs described as mere service charge administrators, as if agents of the freeholder.
The prescribed RTM articles say:
4. The objects for which the company is established are to acquire and exercise in accordance with the 2002 Act the right to manage the Premises.
5. These objects ***shall not be restrictively construed but the widest interpretation shall be given to them***. In furtherance of the objects, but not otherwise, the company shall have power to do all such things as may be authorised or required to be done by a RTM company by and under the 2002 Act, …. {etc}
In shorthand the ‘things’ empowered are to manage functions per s96-s97; grant approvals under the lease (excluding things like variations or consents not provided in the lease); to monitor all covenants under the lease and inform the freeholder if not resolved; make applications to vary leases; provide services; employ staff; enter contracts; issue notices affecting the premises; commence, defend, participate in or pursue any application to, or other proceeding before, any court or tribunal of any description; advance or lend money or give guarantees; borrow; {etc}
We are not in large disagreement I’d suggest?
One final point….
Having the obligation to consult is not a burden. The first thing iI did when forming our RTM was compile a folder of the needed stages and form of words. It would be outrageous to pay thousands of pounds for a s20 consultation process. And, except in real emergencies, I wouldn’t see an RTMC wanting to go for dispensation. The whole p;oint of RTM is participation.
We invite all flats to our meeting, members or not. Voting is limited to members but any leaseholder can join the company on the spot if they want to vote.
Liberty, fraternity and gender free egality!
Seems things have become even more unusual?
“Spill the beans on Mr Soffit”?
As it happens, that forum is public to read with logging in, and all threads are open to anyone to read. No beans were harmed in its creation.
I recommend a read of Mr Soffit’s advice if seeking practical layman information as a leaseholder. If one has the will to do so, one might even glance back here on LKP where I waved my hand to being Sparticus.
What a bizarre inference to be drawn, to be sure?
Meanwhile nobody, however sensitive they may be to diversions from their personal expectations, is forced to read any comments. Disagree as to facts by all means, but don’t try to bully or create a twilight zone.
There is no limit to comments or sub-threads, and presumably LKP is not in danger of running out of space below articles any time soon?
If a comment is addressed to someone else, why not just skip over it? No law says everyone has to read every comment, let alone referee other’s opinions or choice of comment.
There is no line of command, no sergeant majors. No generals. Leave moderation to the site moderators.
Absolutely last time I will engage in this nonsense, so why not try to relax and enjoy life as best as possible?
Live and let live. To do otherwise brings torment of the soul.
If you want to avoid dark clouds, watch Derry Girls on Channel 4.
Slainte.
Correction: “Without logging in”.
The leaseholders are being ripped off by the Housing Associations/Developers. Why are these Feudal land barons given the status of a Charity? They have not been transparent when selling us a leasehold, thereby pitching us into a very expensive trap. They have rich shareholders who also thrive off the leaseholders. Where is the charity in all this?
Yes, I fear charity begins at ‘home’ in these situations and leaseholders are merely a convenient lucrative and captive funding stream.
I see the Property Tribunal last week did as could be predicted and found leaseholders liable to pay for fire wardens, and I suspect will soon find leaseholders liable for cladding works too.
How any ordinary householder of any age could be expected to suddenly find service charges of over £4K a year even before major works costs is beyond me.
Yet Sajid Javid, who I believe means well, last week told the Commons that there was a moral obligation on freeholders if not a legal one. This suggests to me a disastrous lack of comprehension of leasehold law and how courts operate purely on law. Even where there is law, courts seem to stretch the wording and spirit to benefit freeholders, but that’s just my jaded view on reading cases.
It might be supposed that many young or new leaseholders are having a rude awakening to the reality of long leasehold?
The only sane solution to English long leasehold is simply not to buy into it.
This does not help those of us already stuck.
I suspect the silence of the majority (apart from the 2016 and other surveys citing majority dissatisfaction) is not because they are content but because of a natural fear of blighting their own values if they go public. Only those facing the most serious problems, I think, do this out of necessity. The rest possibly hope that ignoring their vulnerability will make threats go away or that ‘it’ will never happen to them.
This is, I think, a reason why many leaseholders try to avoid tribunals in the first place aside from legal fees. A canny conveyancing solicitor will run a search for an address to see if there has been ‘trouble at mill’ not revealed in sales questionnaires.
It is a terrible dilemma.
We have now had the Court of Appeal act predictably in my opinion re lease extension valuations, and another tribunal equally predictably ignoring the moral indignation of the Ministry in respect of fire safety costs.
You might hope this will ensure meaningful legal reform but I caution realism. Even if the Ministry brings forward the promised reform in 2018 it will not help the existing 4-6 million, and is in danger of defeat or being ham strung by vested interest in Parliament.
Any other reform is a long way ahead and I would not hold breath.
I do not understand why anyone buys a long leasehold in a large block, even less on a large development containing multiple large blocks.
Is there any sign this is changing? In a seemingly deliberately restricted housing market I guess not.
I recall being stunned at the introduction of RTB just as all the essential public social housing had reached the end of its ‘tax dollar’ loan repayments, and even more so at the offer of long leases on large blocks.
But it worked. I guess it only needs: “You can fool some of the people all of time”?
I’m stuck in a seriously devalued purpose built leasehold flat but it is a small block. Yet we have experienced attempts to exploit us financially.
The whole point of service charges is that there is no limit. Nobody on ordinary income should buy long leasehold for that reason.
There is no assured solution short of abolishing. And England has no intention to do that as far as I can see.