Many have been happy to assist, while other groups regard their submission as confidential. We’re also waiting for the submission from the House Builders Federation.
We’re happy to publish other submissions from groups working in the sector.
It is normal for govenment consultations to be overwhelmed with input from providers in the sector. However, on this occasion there have been over 6000 responses, so a large proportion may have come from consumers.
Not everything has gone smoothly in the consultaiton. Although it applies to England and Wales (at least in part) and to existing houses as well as flats, that was not made clear by the government. Had they done so it seems likely that the number of responses would have been even higher.
A number of themes has emerged from the responses:
- Nobody is defending the most unfair lease terms which have been used over the last decade. However, nobody seems to have come forward with a viable solution for those who have been affected.
- Almost everyone agrees that there should be better regulation, particularly of managing agents.
- There seems to be a worrying lack of factual understanding of how the sector operates, even by august groups such as the Civil Justice Council.
- A number of assertions made by providers in the sector are unsupported by evidence.
- The small number of organisations who are expected to be “balanced” in their view, or even supportive of the leaseholder’s point of view, appear to have chosen to pull their punches on occasions.
- Some of the submissions from those organisations in the supply side of the sector have chosen, at least in part, to give some level of balance. Others are candidly partial.
- A number of submissions by providers in the sector suggest some form of voluntary code of conduct going forward, despite the fact that there is no evidence of any previous inclination in this regard.
- None seems to propose what to do about the problems already caused by the sector over the last few decades, which remain unresolved.
- There is a lack of ambition evident in many of the submissions from providers. Few offer any suggestions not already proposed by the government. None mention the other unfair practices in existence which are not already listed in the consultation.
- A number of responses from providers demonstrate a disinclination for change. This is perhaps to be expected given that many of these suppliers are the ones who have a vested interest in the abuses available in the existing system.
- There seems to be a huge divide between what the suppliers in the sector believe might be needed and the views of consumers.
- Almost all the provider side of the sector accept that things are wrong but they all point the finger at someone else as the cause of the problems.
- The review of commonhold is welcome by some who it might be assumed would be less than keen, but others are inexplicably agnostic.
We have only included one submission on behalf of leaseholders, i.e. that from the National Leasehold Campaign. Unlike providers they have no difficulty in pointing to various other unfair practices within the sector which have not been listed in the government consultation.
All Party Parliamentary Group on Leasehold and Commonhold Reform
Anthony Collins Solicitors
The British Property Federation
Building Societies Association
And in details here:
SLC response to the Government’s consultation on ‘Tackling unfair practices in the Leasehold market’ – Society of Licensed Conveyancers
Council for Civil Justice
House Builders Federation
LEASE (Leasehold Advisory Service)
National Association of Estate Agents
National Housing Federation
National Leasehold Campaign
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
UKFinance –Council of Mortgage Lenders