The sector fights back … er, deploying LEASE chair Roger Southam
The blog of Roger Southam, the controversial chairman of the Leasehold Advisory Service, was removed this afternoon.
The article was seen as an apologia of the existing leasehold system that has brought misery to tens of thousands of leasehold owners, particularly those in new-build properties that now cannot be sold.
Instead of expressing the slightest sympathy with their predicament, the chairman of the quango that is supposedly representing leaseholders’ interest, Mr Southam made references to “vitriol” and a “rhetoric of profiteering and finger pointing”.
“In reality leasehold is not the evil thing that is being portrayed,” he wrote.
Someone has obviously had enough, and Mr Southam’s words were removed.
Mr Southam is a lifelong leasehold sector insider, controversial property manager and advisor to freeholders on “how to maximise your ground rents”.
Both the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the National Leasehold Campaign have urged him to resign.
In April, Mr Southam astonished listeners of BBC r4 You and Yours when he said that it was not the job of the Leasehold Advisory Service to alert ministers to the unfolding leasehold houses scandal.
Not the job of LEASE to warn ministers of leasehold houses scandal, Roger Southam tells BBC
In For those who missed it, Mr Southam’s article is reproduced here:
It is great to see the two DCLG consultations launched and the opportunity to have open engagement to address the issues.
In reality leasehold is not the evil thing that is being portrayed. Doubling ground rents and unreasonable administration fees are the evil things. We can have all freehold houses and bring in Commonhold across the board for flats but it will not remove the challenges of management and the need for regulation of managing agents along with effective ways to resolve conflict.
As a result of the consultation and process I sincerely hope that we get an easier route to access information for leaseholders to create resident associations. I also expect that developers will be forced to create freehold houses and reduce ground rent amounts.
There is of course an elephant in the room that has not been discussed with all the vitriol and upset that was caused by the doubling ground rents. To be clear I do not want to see any person have unfair contract terms under any circumstances and I have always sought fairness for leaseholders, indeed I was a leaseholder before I became a residential manager. I still live in a leasehold home.
The elephant is the investment sale of ground rent provides additional income for the developer to make schemes viable in a lot of cases. There is rhetoric of profiteering and finger pointing but somewhere along the way we need to have an objective conversation about the whole development cycle and how it works in all facets to ensure that the right decisions are being made for the right reasons. For example, there will be situations where houses must be leasehold because the developer has a head lease. In these situations, there must be the same rights for leasehold houses as leasehold flats.
There are parades of houses that have been sold freehold that should have been leasehold. I know of one where there are all sorts of challenges for the owners because of the behaviour of other owners where access is affected, door entry systems damaged and major alterations undertaken to the houses. The effect of each is to impact and effect the neighbours adversely.
There is a drive by planners and society to have the most environmentally efficient and friendly developments. Indeed, meeting the Breeam standards is compulsory with a desire to get to the highest grade. This is achieved with communal heating plant and systems. This is as applicable to houses as well as flats. Therefore, houses would be sold freehold with a need for positive covenants to pay for shared services and the running thereof. This can bring challenges as the above example shows.
So, we need to make sure we have an objective debate that considers the challenges and complexities of the development process. That will weigh up and balance the benefits and disadvantages of the tenures. That will ensure fairness and equity for the consumer. That will ensure we have the housing developed needed to meet demand.
Make sure you make your voice heard by contributing to the consultation.
Related posts:
The sector fights back … er, deploying LEASE chair Roger Southam
LEASE chair Roger Southam resigns
LEASE chair Roger Southam launched complaint to Parliamentary Standards Commissioner against Sir Peter Bottomley and Jim Fitzpatrick (and LKP, naturally enough)
Roger Southam takes over as LEASE chair
Motion of no confidence in Roger Southam as LEASE chair
Our ground rents are fair, says McCarthy and Stone (even though they go up to £600 and are for no service whatsoever)
The National Leasehold Campaign hope LEASE are also giving him his marching orders.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
He has clealry made it known what side of the fence he sits on.
He’s making an absolute mockery of LEASE.
Again we (NLC) reiterate what we asked of u in April “we urge you to resign immediatetly”.
Totally agree Katie, perhaps if lease has taken the decision to remove the blog they might be taking their “rose tinted glasses” (where have you seen that before) off, and are coming to the conclusion that leaseholders did a long time ago:
that Roger Southam just might not be the man for the job after-all.
How on earth can someone with such conflicting interests and outrageous views expressed in the now-removed-online- blog be in a position to head an organisation said to represent and advise ordinary leaseholders?
LEASE will have no credibility at all as long as Roger Southam remains Chairman. His position is clearly untenable.
From one ‘ ignorant quarrelsome leaseholder’
Totally agree.
Mr Southam must go and GO NOW! It is an utter travesty that you wrerevappointed the chair of a tax funded quango supposedly to support Leaseholders..you very clearly bat for the other side who is the freeholder. Enough Already! Sling yer hook Southam,you are of no use leaseholders. I urge everyone to delve into Mr Southams background anand other public media. SOUTHAM MUST GO.
PS. I have emailed the housing minister requesting that he acts decisively to remove Mr Southam from post if he does not do the decent thing and RESIGN. I hope thousands more do the same. C’mon folks LEASEHOLDER POWER !
Ooops fat finger keyboard error. To clarify-.Delve into Mr Southams background and report your findings on Facebook, Twitter , LKP. Southam s appointment was a big fat kick in the teeth to leaseholders. IT STINKS!!! Something does not feel right… He must go.
I have just begun to look into Rogers background and this is what I find on Wikipedia.
“Roger has increasingly become known as an advocate for the consumer and leaseholder.
Roger aims to bring about industry change to protect the rights of homeowners and leaseholders..
In 2010 Rogers campaign ran alongside CARLEX.”
Have I got the correct Roger Southam?
Roger Southam speaks with forked tongue. Javid and Sharma have been taken for idiots by the silver fox. They are running the country for the ‘few not the many’..
When thousands of homeowners can’t keep their homes because of double ground rents they will blame homeowners.
Section 8 Housing Act 1988 supported by Javid and RS will turn lease into short term assured tenancies when ground rent reaches £250 pa outside London and £1000 in London.
Does anyone have information on Section 8. Not seen it mentioned in the media but lawyers have belatedly noted its significance which appears the reason for blocking remortgages and selling the property
If someone picks up on this maybe it needs a separate learned article. Looks devastating for leaseholders and will lead to forfeiture.
The whole point of the article is to make clear the politicians have understood which is maybe why Southam’s article has gone.
The s 8 issue has rumbled for some time and causes problems mostly because some solicitors hand out bad advice. Removing the s8 issue should not take too much effort.
Is Roger Southam a non executive director of ‘AAIM EUROPE, a ‘ “Celebrity – backed private investor syndicate”? I think it’s a property related syndicate. .Not sure.However, ” Celebrity backed private investors” is not a sentence that fits too well with “Shafted patronised Leaseholders”, at least I don’t believe it does!!
When I read someone has “specialised experience in customer service and effective management of residential property” from my stage of life, I have to smile.
What exactly is being “specialised in customer service”?
The modern business world is marvelous at spouting grand mission statements about its customer focus and orientation toward ‘serving our clients’ needs’.
“Let’s all make great burgers today, yay!”
Who is the customer in leasehold? The client is the freeholder.
Meanwhile I await meeting an ‘effective manager of residential property’.
Talking of LEASE, this is old news but I am slow…
Lease has a 2016 article titled “An Informal Lease Extension – A Tailored Fit?” which I find shocking for what it omits to say.
http://www.lease-advice.org/article/an-informal-lease-extension-a-tailored-fit/
It starts reasonably enough, mentioning the formal s42 route (which grants +90 years and peppercorn rent):
“Best practice indicates that it would be for a leaseholder to proceed with a statutory lease extension, and to ensure a notice under the Act is served prior to the unexpired term falling below 80 years.”
That’s grand.
But then it crashes and burns as a ‘government funded advice service’ in my opinion:-
“Informal lease extensions could be considered carefully and may offer a ***commercially sensible solution*** to a particular leaseholder.
It references the author ( a Lease legal adviser?) having a client who served the s42 notice only to find the freeholder “offered an informal lease extension for a substantially lower premium, however has attached a rising ground rent.”
The advice to the client was “I suggest that we could potentially re-negotiate on more favorable terms”, i.e. go for informal negotiation:-
“A flat owner may wish to start the process using the statutory procedure. However in circumstances where the Freeholder makes an informal offer, these offers should be carefully explained to a flat owner and where possible negotiated and considered, to achieve the best commercial outcome. The key is choice. This choice must be an informed choice, with legal advice being taken.”
The article does not mention the result.
Choice is always grand. I can choose to start an open ended legal negotiation that leaves me unprotected and liable for fees whatever the outcome, or I can stick to my legal rights and if the premium countered is silly or the costs equally so, can go to court. (If more did this, something might be done about ridiculous ‘modernised’ leases with premiums to boot).
There is no mention that once the informal route is chosen the statutory timetable will be horlixed (despite any legal fees incurred to date) and the freeholder is free to pull out at any time without penalty.
There is no consideration that the ‘client’ is embarking on their first and only experience of a lease extension and has no idea what they are being asked to ‘choose’ as to the alternative final costs.
Meanwhile those legal advisers/surveyors must be paid.
I am rather surprised this is not mentioned?
The whole point of the 1993 Act was to provide legal protections to leaseholders. Why ever advise to abandon the legal framework in the hope of something cheaper with no protection as to fees incurred if nothing gained?
Then I am not a Lease advisor.