• 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 / No ‘clarity or concern’ over Law Commission proposals on enfranchisement reform, says ground rent fund Time Investments

No ‘clarity or concern’ over Law Commission proposals on enfranchisement reform, says ground rent fund Time Investments

January 29, 2020 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

Time Investments is reassuring punters in the ground rent game that the Law Commission’s 137,703-word report on enfranchisement reform has “sufficient clarity or creates additional concern” to revalue the ground rent portfolio.

It would appear that analysts in the sector have echoed the sentiment of leaseholder activists: that the Law Commission enfranchisement report won’t amount to much.

The wonderful thing about ground rents, says Time Investments, is that they are enforceable through lease forfeiture. That’s something else the Law Commission is shortly to reform … or, rather, write a report about.

Time Investments January-2020Download

Related posts:

APPG recognises efforts of Law Commission to improve enfranchisement Law Commission enfranchisement valuation models delayed for second time as election ‘purdah’ rules kick in Professor Nicholas HopkinsIf you want to reform enfranchisement push government hard, is message of Law Commission Telegraph and Mail attack Nationwide for £54 million ground rent investments Default ThumbnailGleeson tells ground rent speculator Landmark Investments to remove testimonial

Category: Latest News, Law Commission, NewsTag: Law Commission, Time Investments

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: «Paul Lewis MoneyBox Law Commission lost its way with human rights for offshore hedge funds, says BBC’s Paul Lewis
Next Post: Brexit day prisoner: Polish father desperate to sell Notting Hill Genesis cladding flat to join ailing family back home Notting Hill Genesis cladding»

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Simon

    January 30, 2020 at 11:25 am

    At least they say they are not acquiring any more which is something.

  2. James Hayes

    February 3, 2020 at 5:54 pm

    “It would appear that analysts in the sector have echoed the sentiment of leaseholder activists: that the Law Commission enfranchisement report won’t amount to much.”

    Mmmmm… not sure how much I agree with that. Or rather I don’t agree that the report is that relevant to the question!

    In terms of leaseholder activists… I can’t speak for them but it does not seem to me to be unreasonable of them to assume or fear that it “won’t amount to much”.

    In terms of an analyst who is trying to be rational, what are they supposed to say other than “there are a variety of proposals which could each give very different outcomes, and therefore the report is almost irrelevant, the only question is “how much will the current majority Conservative government do to shift money and power from big business and people like the Duke of Westminster and to leaseholders (some of whom are very rich, others are not at all)?”

    My views are as follows. The report makes three proposals in terms of valuation methodology.

    One proposal is basically retain “marriage value and keep things as they are” (but one could still set relativities and do anything from keeping things precisely as they are to making lease extensions a fair bit cheaper.)

    At the other end of the spectrum is a proposal to abolish marriage value (which would appear to me to be unlikely because to do so would cost freeholders huge amounts of money, and would take us, IMHO, to a position that was illogical, unfair on freeholders and potentially in breach of freeholder’s human rights.) [Note – I am not saying for one second that marriage value should be anywhere near the level it is at now, but that doesn’t mean it is not right].

    The middle alternative is to replace marriage value with hope value with respect marriage value, and dependent on where relativities were set and what percentage hope value was payable at, it could lead to marginal or significant benefits compared to now.

    Effectively the report is saying “we could make things much much cheaper for leaseholders… or we could do one of these other two things which could be done in a way that saves leaseholders significant amounts of money or could be done in a way that saves them next to nothing… that’s all a political decision”.

    This is nothing to do with the report, it is quite simply a question of “how much do you think that a Conservative government will shift the balance of power from freeholder’s to leaseholders?”

    In the interestests of openness and transparency I value in this field and I mainly work for leaseholders. I think that the current system is “fair” subject to a few VERY SIGNIFICANT caveats.

    (1) There should be much greater certainty for leaseholders at the outset and there is no need for the system to be quite so good at allowing Professional advisors to make money.

    (2) The law should not be used to drive marriage value and premiums up over time – the law as it stands (or rather it’s somewhat dubious interpretation IMHO) DOES cause premiums to rise over time (other things being equal).

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