• 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
    • 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
      • 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 / Now Israel Moskovitz wins right to charge £30 for his ground rent demands …

Now Israel Moskovitz wins right to charge £30 for his ground rent demands …

April 2, 2021 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

But leaseholders poised to launch crowd-funded appeal

Israel Moskovitz

Freeholder Israel Moskovitz has won the right to charge leaseholders £30 admin fees plus VAT to send out his ground rent demands.

The owner of Avon Ground Rents Ltd, a property tribunal regular, defeated a group of 11 leaseholders of an RTM site in Stepney in east London.

Mr Moskovitz decided to deploy counsel to argue the case, in which the leaseholders were self-represented, led by Philipp Stampfer. He argued that the fee should not be paid, and questioned whether it would be levied by the RTM anyway.

It is an open question whether Mr Moskovitz gets his legal costs, with Judge Simon Brilliant ruling “It would not be just or equitable to prevent the Respondent from recovering its costs under the lease (insofar as it can) because the Applicants did not succeed on either issue before us.”

Mr Stampfer and his neighbours believe the issue is of wide significance to leaseholders. They are considering a crowd-funded appeal and seeking a pro bono barrister.

“Any limitation on these fees would be a huge political win and in line with a more consumer friendly leasehold legislation,” he said.

He has raised the matter with his MP Florence Eshalomi, and with Sir Peter Bottomley, Father of the House and co-chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for leasehold and commonhold reform, of which LKP is secretariat.

“We are in 28 flats in two blocks which means that every six months Avon receives £840 plus VAT just for printing and posting 28 letters. This is outrageous and unreasonable.”

The ruling is here:

Judge-Brilliant-decision-26-Feb-Flat-12-6-Trinity-Mews-London-E1-3BT-1Download

Related posts:

Israel Moskovitz fails – again – to appeal against the Regent Court right to manage Ruling blasts Israel Moskovitz’s lawyers for ‘wasting tribunal time’ in legal warfare that is ‘part of a pattern’, as RTM gains control of £69,000 funds Israel Moskovitz Bridge Court SouthIsrael Moskovitz demand for £22,170 admin charges reduced to £300 in ‘colossal waste of court’s time’ Default ThumbnailBottomley meets Joseph Gurvits and Israel Moskovitz over leasehold right to manage disputes at Plymouth retirement developments – but residents are determined to fight it out Israel Moskovitz loses epic Elim Court right to manage battle in landmark Court of Appeal decision

Category: Israel Moskovitz, Latest News, Moskovitz / Gurvits, News, RTMTag: Avon Freeholds, Israel Moskovitz

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 (44) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (39) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (39) 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 (64) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Long Harbour (47) 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 (200) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (31) Vincent Tchenguiz (42) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: «BovisHomesGateway Bovis Homes leaseholder in Bristol cannot sell as ground rents reviewed every five years
Next Post: New Capital Quay Litigation continues, with concern that repairs may still not meet Building Regulations New Capital Quay»

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Interested

    April 5, 2021 at 3:50 am

    This whole case rests on wording of lease. It’s clear in this lease that fee is payable and hence what would appeal help ? What wider implications? It all depends on individual lease. The costs of Freeholder when appeal is lost will be borne by the leaseholders and costs in an appeal are usually high. Not sure what effect an appeal will have, especially as the decision if it remains as is in the Tribunal without an appeal, is non binding.

    • stephen

      April 5, 2021 at 11:17 am

      Just because a demand can be produced at a “click of a button” many believe that the cost should therefore of producing a demand and gathering it in should be measured in pence. This argument fails to consider what the time and costs that are necessary to get to that position.

      Many lessees who run an RTM do not charge for their services and can be very efficient in terms of running costs, working from home posting letters by hand and therefore do feel aggrieved that what for them seems like a simple exercise should carry a cost of say £30 – £50. What is overlooked is their own time that, for a variety of reasons, they do not wish to charge for (and will inevitably feel aggrieved when a neighbour fails to pay or runs vexatious arguments to avoid payment)

      Leaving aside the landlords own time there are indeed costs of collection, in terms of staff, computer equipment, office costs, postage and stationary – its only when you have set up an office that you realize how these costs mount up

      Third party agents will charge around 10% to 15% of the ground rent collected to gather it in assuming that the rents are not very small.

      A ground rent of say £350 could well result in a fee to the landlord of some £30 to £50 per unit and if the lease terms provide for that to be recovered then as noted above it seems unlikely that any appeal will overturn the FTT decision.

      • Phil

        April 8, 2021 at 9:27 am

        Utter rubbish, these people need support from us all.

        How can anyone justify a £30-£50 charge on top of a “money for old rope” ground rent?. As for comments about office costs – have we moved back a few decades?

        This issue goes deep. When we dig into the grimy world of leasehold exploitation we find widespread excessive fees, strange “commission” payments for insurance/other contracts and a generally very poor deal for all leaseholders,

        Come on LKP – show some leadership here.

        I would certainly support a crowd funding for these people and it would be fantastic for such a move to inspire greater legal representation for everyone caught up in this U.K. leasehold nightmare.

        Best wishes to all.

      • Patrick Garside

        April 8, 2021 at 2:45 pm

        Surely the answer is to write back confirming payment then charge the landlord £30 for your costs.

        • Kay

          April 29, 2021 at 9:09 am

          Nice! 🙌🏻

      • Kay

        April 29, 2021 at 9:09 am

        The cost of posting a letter out should be included in the extortionate ground rent fees that freeholders are charging. Exactly what else do they do for their money?

  2. Kate Bevington

    April 8, 2021 at 9:15 am

    I think it is outrageous that an administration fee is levied on top of a bill for ground rent ( and remember you get no service of any kind for paying ground rent). The costs of issuing the demand should be included in the ground rent. Ground rents- as many of us agree- are an outmoded and obnoxious way of receiving money for nothing. The very least a landowner can do is include any costs involved in sending out bills within the rent itself.

    • Stephen

      April 8, 2021 at 9:46 am

      It is incorrect to state that ground rent is “for no service” – it is part of the overall sale price when the flat is sold – the flat is sold for a premium along with an obligation to pay into the future a stream of income – the purchaser and their solicitor consider the terms and seek amendments to a lease in many cases prior to signing the lease . In many cases subsequent purchasers re confirm their acceptance of the terms by entering into a deed of covenant with the landlord.

      There are indeed abuses in leasehold but they do not stem from the ground rent terms (aside from 10 year doublers) or indeed the lease length but from management practices.

  3. flying freehold

    April 8, 2021 at 10:53 am

    Most managing agents offer an option of payment by bank standing order for a regular reoccurring ground rent. There are a few people who are adamant that they will not pay unless they are sent a s166 notice. It is perfectly reasonable for the managing agent to charge to prepare and serve the notice. Contrary to what people might think, producing the notice is not straightforward, due to the provisions of the act, and has to be done semi manually on some estate management software. Staff have to be paid and the overheads of running an office are considerable. We strongly encourage lessees to pay by standing order and for that reason abhor ground rents that are linked to RPI, because a long running standing order can’t be set up. It may not be a popular decision but it is right. In general terms where a Notice has to be served on a lessee under a lease, the lessor is entitled to the costs properly incurred.

  4. Michael Loveridge

    April 8, 2021 at 11:40 am

    All the comments in favour of being able to charge are evidently written by people with a vested interest in being able to do so. It’s a simple fact of life that ground rent landlords have NEVER charged for collecting ground rent in the past. I’ve been dealing with ground rents for over 40 years, and I have NEVER seen a freeholder attempt to charge for collecting it.

    When a developer sets up a development the ground rent is simply a bonus. They therefore factor in the cost of collection when setting the level of ground rent.

    Unlike a service charge the leaseholder receives absolutely nothing in return for the ground rent, and it’s therefore adding insult to injury to charge for collecting a rent that confers no benefit.

    In this case I think the applicant was correct in saying that `collection’ of ground rents means more than just sending out a demand notice, and that it was aimed at covering the costs of pursuing unpaid rent. This is because, as stated above, ground rent landlords have never charged the leaseholder for collecting the ground rent, and it would not, therefore, have been in the reasonable contemplation of the tenant or their solicitor at the time the lease was granted that such a charge would ever be made.

    I also think the Applicant should have pleaded that the provision was unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, as it seems to me that the term is ’contrary to the requirement of good faith’ as set out in the cases of Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank Plc; Aziz v Caixa d’Estalvis de Catalunya and Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi.

    To my mind this is a classic case of a greedy and unscrupulous landlord attempting to exploit what they see as a loophole in the lease. I can only hope that it’s successfully appealed.

  5. Phil

    April 8, 2021 at 12:14 pm

    Michael – I wholeheartedly agree.

    The landlords and managing agents are a disgrace. They prey on the vulnerable and will use any trick at all to extort extra cash from leaseholders.

    I agree that posters above in favour of ground rent obviously have a vested interest. We all know that ground rents are an absolute rip off disguised as payment for use of common areas. The lessees already pay for these common areas in their managerial fee. This is all part of a leasehold system that is specifically designed to benefit landlords at the expense of tenants.

    In my view, LKP need to set themselves a higher bar. At present it seems like watered down legislation will allow many unfair practices, such as this, to continue.

    In the longer term I think the only language freeholders/managing agents will understand is legal redress.

    • Andrew Hempleman

      April 16, 2021 at 4:41 pm

      Wholeheartedly agree. A lot of these charges serve no real purpose. They have no benefit for the leaseholders. They do not benefit the economy either as large amounts of ground rents go to offshore accounts.. Unfortunately there are too many vested interests, many of whom have got their tentacles into the government and the decision-makers. Often property developers are not content just to make money from building a quality property, but they have to make side money on carefully worded contracts that most conveyancing solicitors cast little scrutiny over and fail to properly advise the buyer. This is the case here. As you observe, some of the commentators are clearly on the side of these ground rents companies – a charge for billing you is absurd. Nobody would put up with that for anything else they bought in life, yet for some reason the property industry is allowed to get away with these shady practices. Peversely the government is encouraging people to buy property with things like stamp duty holidays and right to buy schemes but fails to properly regulate the industry.

  6. lucienne sharpe

    April 29, 2021 at 3:23 pm

    My story today. I tried over the last 4 months to pay the ground rent and the phone was either not answered or I was told I couldn’t pay by card. I couldn’t get to the post office because a lot of the time I was locked in then people died here because they had contracted the covid at the post office, so I eventually got through to E and M who said all was fine my account was on hold and that I should send an email to say that I wanted to pay by instalments. This I did. When my direct debit for my management charges was not collected I knew something was not right. First Port had now instructed JB Leitch Solicitors because E and M had also taken the Ground Rent to them> My account for First Port was actually in credit. E and M have now taken it away from JB LEITCH and First Port have arranged the payments again, however all I want to do is pay by direct debit over the year and this is a ridiculous situation I still haven’t heard back from E and M all I want to do is pay The stress has been enormous I only wanted to pay.I have asked for the direct debit to be set up over 12 months but E and M are not happy to do that.

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