Urban Owners, the LKP accredited managing agent which specialises in right to manage, has been bought by the larger Warwick Estates.
The sale concludes 10-years in property management of founder Steve Wylie, a former management consultant with Chicago based giant Accenture. It was after he personally encountered the absurdities of leasehold tenure as the owner of a central London flat that he set up Urban Owners.
The company was also noted for its innovative software systems, which have not been sold and which have been adopted by other management companies.
LKP routinely refers all leaseholders set on right to manage to Urban Owners, which has carried out more RTMs than any other organisation.
Furthermore, it has done so without making errors or urging combative strategies in the tribunal that have ended up losing leaseholders thousands of pounds.
Sebastian O’Kelly, LKP trustee, said: “We regard the RTM service provided by Urban Owners very highly indeed and will be keeping a close eye on how it continues.
“Barely a week goes by without us recommending leaseholders to speak to Urban Owners on RTM issues.”
RTM is provided to numerous other managing agents as a white label service on sites that Urban Owners does not subsequently go on to manage.
Mr O’Kelly added:
“It was a pleasure to accredit Urban Owners to LKP: its references in widely different blocks of flats and varied geographic locations were outstanding.
“Setting up this successful company, which employs 27 people, was a considerable achievement.”
Along with Rob Plumb, CEO of HML Holdings plc, and Cherry Jones, of Home from Home property management, Mr Wylie briefed civil servants on the leasehold property management business. He has also attended APPG meetings at Westminster.
Urban Owners is not a member of ARMA.
LKP wishes Steve all the best for his future projects.
Related posts:
Right to manage champion Urban Owners joins LKP
Urban Owners finds 41% of leaseholders have not had lease terms explained by solicitors
RICS fines Warwick Estates £20,000 over lift shaft fatality – after ARMA ‘blocked its regulator from hearing the case’
ARMA regulator Sally Keeble quit ‘after being blocked’ from ruling on Warwick Estates lift shaft fatality
Property manager who champions leaseholders resigns from Tory party over ‘watered down’ reforms
Tribunal rules Citiscape leaseholders must pay to remove Grenfell cladding. Will this mean some lose their homes?
I recollect that the reason Sally Keeble resigned from ARMA was that she was prevented in investigating a complaint against Warwick Estates.
THIS POST IS VERY MISLEADING
“LKP routinely refers all leaseholders set on right to manage to Urban Owners, which has carried out more RTMs than any other organisation.”
WHY EXACTLY? IS LKP GETTING A COMMISSION I WONDER?
“Furthermore, it has done so without making errors or urging combative strategies in the tribunal that have ended up losing leaseholders thousands of pounds.”
THIS IS AN UTTER LIE. DOES LKP NOT CHECK ITS FACTS? FOR EXAMPLE I KNOW THAT IN 2015 URBAN OWNERS MESSED UP THE RTM CLAIM FOR ALEXANDRA TERRACE, BOGNOR AND LEFT LEASEHOLDERS TO PAY LEGAL COSTS OF £5,440.
FURTHERMORE, SHOULDN’T RTM ADVISERS BE INDEPENDENT, SO THAT OWNERS HAVE A CHOICE OF MANAGEMENT COMPANY?
I AGREE WITH MANY OF THE OBJECTIVES OF LKP BUT YOUR TWISTED REPORTING IN FAVOUR OF YOUR FINANCIAL SUPPORTERS DOES YOU NO FAVOURS.
We refer – and will continue to refer – leaseholders to Urban Owners over right to manage.
We do not receive any commission in doing so.
Urban Owners does pay to be accredited to LKP, but then so do all the accredited managing agents here. We recommend Urban Owners for RTM, though other accredited managing agents offer this service.
In our experience, its RTM service is excellent. Too many other RTM facilitators have been problematic.
As the article states, Urban Owners provides a white label RTM service for other companies. Leaseholders can use Urban Owners for RTM, and appoint whoever they like to manage the building.
We will ask Urban Owners for a comment regarding Alexandra Terrace.
Your smears and emotive language here make us suspect another agenda.
THERE IS NO AGENDA. I MERELY QUESTION THE FACTUAL ACCURACY OF YOUR REPORTING.
YOU SAY URBAN OWNERS HAS CARRIED OUT MORE RTMS THAN ANYONE ELSE. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
YOU STATED THEY HAVEN’T MADE ERRORS. CLEARLY THAT IS WRONG AND NEEDS CORRECTING. THEY HAVE MADE ERRORS AND IN ONE REPORTED CASE COST LEASEHOLDERS £5,440.
WITH RESPECT LKP ARE MASTERS IN THE ART OF EMOTIVE LANGUAGE THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTUAL ACCURACY. THIS DETRACTS FROM THE GOOD WORK YOU SAY YOU ARE TRYING TO DO. FOR LEASEHOLDERS.
With even greater respect, you claimed LKP was forwarding an “utter lie”. Or UTTER LIE, as you prefer to put it.
In fact, Urban Owners won the right to manage at 1-2 Alexandra Terrace, Bogner Regis in August 2015.
Defending was famous leasehold game players Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Limited, headed by retired solicitor Paul Chevalier. Not retired enough, some may think.
Urban owners lost the case to limit the costs run up by Chevalier.
Paul Chevalier was referred to by Dr Ian Twinn, former Tory MP for Edmonton, in the House of Commons on March 8 1996 in these terms:
“Paul Chevalier and Linda Malthouse deserve to have their names mentioned as much as possible, especially under the cover of parliamentary privilege in connection with their disgraceful activities.
“They have threatened and abused leaseholders and extorted money in the most disgraceful way.
“It should make us ashamed that our law allows people to behave in that way.
“They have used bullying tactics and threatened the full force of the law to try to seize properties when small parts of bills have not been paid, and have tried to load up mortgages behind home owners.”
Lastly, a £5,440 loss, while bad, is not quite the same scale as other RTM debacles: Brixton Hill Court and Kingsmere, in Brighton. (Although Alexandra Terrace may be much smaller.)
The most terrifying of all was the retirement site Elim Court, Plymouth.
With utter Irresponsibility, this case went to the Court of Appeal on the prompting of its RTM facilitator – who would have been unaffected had it gone disastrously wrong.
Thank God, the pensioners won.
I AGREE THAT THERE ARE BULLYING FREEHOLDERS LIKE SINCLAIR. THAT IS WHY SOMEONE HAS TO FIGHT THEM IN THE COURTS.. IF RTM’ COMPANIES “CHOOSE TO LOSE” TO AVOID COSTS THE WEALTHY LANDLORDS WILL KEEP ON BULLYING. THEY HAVE DEEP POCKETS AND WILL AKWAYS WIN.
IF FACILITATORS LIKE CANONBURY DONT STAND UP TO THEM WHO WILL? I APPLAUD THEIR EFFORTS FOR ESTATES LIKE ELIM AND KINGSMERE.
THE TRIBUNAL DECISION AWARDING COSTS THAT I REFERRED TO CAN BE FOUND AT THE FOLLOWING LINK: –
https://decisions.lease-advice.org/app/themes/custom/img/pdf-download.png
Before we obtained RTM we asked LKP for advice as we were considering Warwick Estates for our managing agent. LKP advised us against this route. We subsequently learned of another site who used Warwick Estates after acquiring RTM from FirstPort, and they were so bad they returned to FirstPort after the first year; We also know of the proposed ARMA investigation into Warwick Estates.
What really surprised me is that Urban Owners, who do have a good reputation for acquiring RTM, who sell out to such a disreputable company as Warwick Estates. Urban Owners accreditted to LKP sells out to Warwick Estates accreditted to ARMA?
Is it all down to money and is this more proof that managing agents couldn’t care a less about their residents?
Was it not the case that Warwick Estates was offered by your freeholder, the Tchenguiz Family Trust, as an alternative to FirstPort?
In those circumstances, we did advise you to turn the offer down: A gift from Mr Tchenguiz is one to avoid.
We are informed that 80 per cent of Warwick Estates business comes from RMCs/RTMs. Which makes it all the more surprising that it permits itself to be shortlisted by the Tchenguiz interests.
On reflection, it may have been that the RTM was attracted to the name, which suggested geographic proximity.
The company appears to arouse strong feelings among some leaseholders who have contacted us.
The issue of the RICS fine against Warwick Estates last month and the issue of ARMA’s regulatory regime, will be dealt with after we have met the CEO of the company next week.
This article concerns Urban Owners and its founder, who have contributed a lot of good to the sector.
For clarification I have no knowledge of Urban Owners from a magement point of view. My knowledge is about Warwick Estates. I do understand from other sites that Urban Owners have been successful in obtaining RTM and that sites have been please with their services in this area of their business.
Are the employees of Urban Owners who obtain RTM now offering the same service for Warwick Estates?
IF YOU EXAMINE URBAN OWNERS ACCOUNTS YOU WILL SEE WHY STEVE WYLIE WANTED OUT.
HIS COMPANY HAD BEEN LOSING VAST SUMS OF MONEY EVERY YEAR AND AS PER THE LATEST ACCOUNTS HAD RUN UP DEBTS OF OVER £500,000.
I THINK MR WYLIE WAS VERY WILY GETTING OUT QUICK BEFORE THE POO HIT THE FAN.
THIS ACQUISITION IS HARLDY GOING TO HELP THE STRUGGLING FINANCES OF WARWICK ESTATES. GOOD LUCK MR STEVENS!!
In my submission to the Law Commission on Commonhold I’ve pinpointed managing agents as being the primary source of stress and worry for leaseholders across England and Wales – and not the form of tenure whether that be leasehold or commonhold.
On that basis, IMO being a better use of taxpayers’ cash, I’m asking for a deep and thorough investigation into how they operate (below the radar) ignoring regulatory controls ensuring, eg, that once appointed it’s more or less impossible to replace them; engaging in all-too necessary damage-limitation including coverups; abusing membership of professional and trade bodies joining for no other reason than to polish their street cred; gaining meaningless internet ‘awards’; a look at their relationships including those with FMC and RTM boards, especially those dominated by investor-leaseholders; the cartels, and the latest trend towards market dominance by some managing agents noting, with particular dismay, the trend for these MAs to invest in firms specialising in RTM services, leading to a automatic shoe-in for the said MA as the preferred provider.
I did say that some of this abuse would have remained hidden if it weren’t for the efforts of LKP.
With a sense of ‘here we go again’, I also found it necessary to explain the essential differences between managing agents and letting agents, government’s ignorance on the matter being highlighted in a House of Commons paper last April setting out proposals to regulate both as if they were one and the same animal.
I share the concerns expressed here about Urban Owners’ new management.
Thank you for your kind remarks to the Law Commission.
We disagree about commonhold.
The key issue in leasehold is the parasitical freehold owner, who simply grazes off the ground rents, insurance “commissions” (more than 50% of the premium in many cases), management fees, reversionary values and development potential.
For which he does nothing, as Sajid Javid is discovering over the Grenfell cladding.
The problems with managing agents stem from the freeholder: he is the landlord and leaseholders are the unempowered tenants.
They are always in a position of vulnerability in relation to the disproportionate power of the freeholder.
As for managing agents, the same firm can be virtuous when employed by leaseholders through RMC / RTM. Or predatory, when employed by a freeholder.
The rest of the world – where some of us have direct experience – know that there are alternatives to this system.
Are they harmonious? No, people argue among themselves because a lot of them like it. But at least there is not a third party parasite kicking everyone around – and profiting mightily.
In my submission to the Law Commission (which ran to 14 sheets of A4, all thoughtfully arranged to correspondence as far as I could in line with their, at times, abstract, questioning), I referred in some detail to the modern role of LANDLORDS – otherwise called the Freeholder.
Indeed, I referred to other significant relationships including, importantly, those between the Boards of the flat management companies (FMCs) and/or Right to Manage Companies RTMs) – and the managing agent/s that they appoint,
I speak from experience. Here at Mill Quay we have had operating all at the same time:
2 Blocks of flats that enfranchised and own their own Freehold
5 Blocks of flats that have not enfranchised thus retaining the original (institutional) Landlord – namely, Ground Rents Regis
2 FMCs with Leaseholder directors
1 RTM with Leaseholder directors
1 Estate Management Company with Leaseholder directors
2 independent commercial firms of Managing Agents, appointed by the FMCs
Leasehold tenure is multi-faceted.
IMO since the 1960s when a gentleman of Polish birth called Peter Rackman defined our perception of the role of landlord by turning swathes of the capital and elsewhere into tenement slums, the role of Landlord has changed beyond recognition. This change has come about largely thanks to Peter Rackman and subsequent Landlord & Tenant legislation intended to curb the worst excesses of his kind.
Today, we have the old ancestral Landlord and the newer institutional Landlord being and extension of the financial operations of the City, comprising family and pension Trust Funds. The latter, for sure, has but nominal influence on the daily lives of leaseholders except by reference in the contract called a Lease wherein it states ‘Me Landlord’, ‘You Tenant’ and, quite often, ‘Them Managing Agent where appointed’.
Indeed, what Trust Fund manager in the guise of Landlord would really want to be involved in the daily lives of leaseholders? Their role is to gather ‘ground rents’ and other, frequently dubious, sources of revenue – eg ‘licences’ – to amass wealth for the funds they manage.
Invariably, the Managing Agents together with Leaseholders are responsible for the day-to-day running of leasehold property.
It is there logical to look, first and foremost and with some urgency, at how these relationships between two distinct and potentially opposing interests of Leaseholder and their appointed Managing Agent actually work in practice – on the ground, where it all happens – not in some City office.
In the circumstances, given all the nonsense condensed into a simplistic argument in favour of Commonhold, I pride myself on self-restraint In commending LKP – without qualification – for its work in highlighting abuse in the leasehold property sector.
I kept it to myself that LKP’s expertise lies in the abuse of leaseholders in the retirement sector – an area that is not comparable with mainstream leasehold because people who buy retirement property do so to live in it. In contrast, mainstream leasehold in England and Wales attracts a significant amount of investment cash, along with sub-letting and absentee landlords. All of this makes life for Leaseholders in general – and their appointed Managing Agents – more complex and ripe for abuse.
LKP’s only other significant contribution has been in the emergent field of Leasehold Houses.
I am shocked to read that LKP will continue to recommend Urban Owners to leaseholders who want to exercise RTM.
“I kept it to myself that LKP’s expertise lies in the abuse of leaseholders in the retirement sector”
Not any more. The Law Commission read this site on a regular basis.
I liked this one as well “LKP’s only other significant contribution has been in the emergent field of Leasehold Houses”.
The governments decision to review unfair lease terms, enfranchisement, the regulation of managing agents and commonhold must have nothing to do with us.
SUE IS CORRECT. IT IS A DILUSION TO THINK COMMONHOLD WILL CHANGE MATTERS.
I HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF THE STRATA SYSTEM IN AUSTRALIA AND OWNERS HAVE ALL THE SAME ISSUES OF POOR MANAGEMENT. FURTHER THE SYSTEM OF ADJUDICATION IS PROLONGED AND STRESSFUL..
IF I COMPARE THE PROCESS OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT STRATA SERVICES OR CONTRIBUTIONS WHEN TAKEN TO THE COMISSIONER WITH THE RIGHTS OF LEASEHOLDERS TO TAKE ISSUES TO THE TRIBUNAL SYSTEM HERE I WOULD SAY OURS IS A MUCH BETTER SYSTEM. AND I HAVE DONE BOTH.
Thank you David – the small voice of reason based on experience 🙂
Thank you David for those pearls of wisdom from someone who has real-life, first-hand experience.
David,
The evidence from Australian research suggests on balance there are many advantages to strata. Nobody is suggesting that commonhold somehow removes all poor management but it does make it a lot easier to remove bad management. It also takes away the huge incentive of the third party landlord to make a profit from owning the freehold.
As Tribunal system over here being better, you should say that the leaseholders who had three tribunal cases to try and stop them forming a residents association. I spent 3 years in the tribunal recovering monies for our site so would not say its that efficient. We also see many cases where the landlord overpowers the leaseholder with overwhelming legal resources due to their cost advantage
Hopefully, you’ll submit your views to the Law Commision in this initial call for evidence.
.
As a general principle, I wonder if the day will ever arrive when leasehold managing agents are required to permit (i.e. no litigation threats) ‘verified purchaser’ named RTM/RMC clients (as distinct from random lessees who might have a grudge over debtor action or a repair issue) to publicly review their contract experience with a particular agent, in the same way verified purchaser consumers can currently review toasters etc?
In my experience, even glowing references suggested by an agent when bidding for a contract can prove less than predictive.
Not hard to confirm if a named RTM-RMC was a ‘verified purchaser’ of a particular agent if they used it as their registered office, which I think most do?
I suggested this notion to the DCLG last year because I think it is rather a genius idea. It would create actual ‘peer’ reviewed ‘accreditation’, no? Help balance out industry self-awards? No need to rely on Sajid Javid’s blanket opinion as to who are the good guys? The good guys would get no bad reviews from verified purchasers?
Where does this facility exist?
I see maybe a property ombudsman or such like offering the space to add such reviews? Naturally agents could reply but not hide behind lawyers.
Perhaps I am more naive than a genius.
Can’t comment personally on Urban Owners.
If Mr Steve Wylie is as good as portrayed by Admin, it is then arguably a travesty that he did not make a takeover of Warwick Estates PM instead.
On the Urban Owners’ website, there is an interesting article on the tab ‘Managing your block’, and from there a link to ‘5 Questions to ask a Managing Agent’. For us leaseholders who have direct experience of Warwick, this is so ironic. If Mr Wylie lived in a ‘UO/now Warwick flat’ and saw the changes coming, he would understand.
PS. Quickly re Commonhold: Ok, we take your point re ‘parasitical freehold owners’, and maybe Commonhold will work for new sales. But what are you going to do about all the millions of existing freeholds? Force them to convert/sell? Who will compensate [pay] them for their loss of value? If you don’t impose dictatorial compulsion, there will be a two-tier market. ‘Old’ leaseholds will quickly dwindle into ‘fag-end’ assets.
Bad Managing Agents are an equal or greater root cause of existing leaseholder woes, even when leaseholders appoint them through their own RMC, and FMC where they own a share of the freehold. Please see that the Commonhold proposals alone will not even touch this problem. We are leaseholders too, we too want proper solutions, but workable ones. Effective Regulation and easy access to remediation is paramount. Unfortunately, the one remaining bastion of hope, the RICS, is starting to crumble. Could this be, like ARMA, that they feel ‘threatened’ by certain so-called ‘associates’?
HOT NEWS READ ALL AOUT IT
Latest Bank of England figures show a 11% drop in YoY lending to the Buy to Let sector, namely those absentee Leaseholder Landlords I refer to above in my reply to Admin.
These guys have a lot to answer for in the way they operate on the Boards of both FMCs and RTMs.
Hot on the heels of this news, the mortgage lenders association is challenging government NOT TO INTERFERE yet further in the workings of the leasehold sector, noting that recent regulatory changes have led to this 11% fall reported by BoE. Panic all round!
Big lesson to everyone: interfere at your peril in the way the City operates – whether that be as the big institutional landlords managing Trust Funds; or as mortgage lenders to wealthy typically overseas investors in the lucrative Buy-to-Let sector.
By all means introduce Commonhold. It will make no difference to the way the big commercial (Managing Agents) and financial (City) firms operate.
Piss them off enough and they’ll move to Frankfurt or Paris.
I think the don’t-reform-leasehold-because-it-will-piss-off-the-City is about the most pathetic argument you advance.
Look at the somersaults already introduced into leasehold law: the right to compulsorily purchase the property of another private citizen via enfranchisement, for example.
Where else does anything similar exist in English law?
Regarding commonhold, you fail to mention that it is already on the statute book. It exists. We are set on making it work – and compulsory on new build properties.
It is true that with the widespread introduction of commonhold, existing leasehold flats would be less favoured by purchasers. This has happened over 50 years in Australia and NZ (although there is not much leasehold in either place).
There must be every means for leaseholders to enfranchise or extend leases or transform to commonhold. The Law Commission is looking at precisely these areas.
I cannot see an improved regulatory regime for managing agents is sufficient.
As for leaseholder redress, the property tribunals were supposed to be the low cost forum to deal with these.
How fair are they?
In LKP’s experience they are only low cost in significant disputes if the tenants pay the disputed sum in advance and fight retrospectively. This is our repeated advice to leaseholder litigants.
Otherwise, the freeholder adopts the favoured tactic of loading the legal costs (as the Wellcome Trust demonstrated spending £114k to get back £6,000). As the legal “owner” of the land and building this is his right.
Leaseholders cannot ever get back their legal costs. They are only tenants, and there is no provision in the leases for them to do so. So they are worse off than in an ordinary civil dispute.
Dear Admin
You calling my argument ‘pathetic’? Perhaps that’s because you don’t understand the argument which isn’t an argument, but a statement of fact.
Parliament will take no action that upsets the City. Scream from the rooftops for the need for reform but it won’t happen if, as they are briefing to the press, mortgage lenders see it as unwelcome interference in the free market economy. Ditto, down the line, managing agents: if they don’t like the reforms, they will look for – and find – ways to subvert both the spirit and intent of those reforms.
Reforms that work in practice are about consensus. What you call those reforms really doesn’t matter.
Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002: I didn’t mention it in this post about the City because it wasn’t relevant – or logical – to do so.
But, in any straight up discussion as to the merits of Commonhold v Leasehold, I’d make two points. The first is that, not long ago, under this Conservative govt, reform wasn’t considered necessary. The name Grant Schapps comes to mind. Secondly, some of the clauses in CLRA02 most beneficial to Leaseholders (eg much disputed accounting requirements) STILL haven’t been enacted.
[As to accounting requirements, moves are afoot to get TECH03/11 embodied in statute, giving leaseholders the right to demand compliance with these very comprehensive statutory accounting guidelines prepared by ACCA/ICAEW in agreement with key stakeholders – RICS, Law Society, ARMA.]
‘… enfranchise, extend leases or transfer to commonhold.’
These rights already EXIST in current legislation. For example, I enfranchised in 1998 under existing L&T legislation. To do so, we need 50% of qualifying members which, as I experienced personally, is tough to achieve. People are lethargic and don’t sign up willy nilly, so anyone organising an enfranchisement must spend a great deal of time explaining the whys and wherefores.
No managing agent will want to organise this. Solicitors may, at a cost. It generally falls to a leaseholder.
Reform here should make it much easier for a leaseholder to enfranchise.
Extend lease: again, the right exists. Here it isn’t so much the difficulty as the cost. I’ve done this one, too. It’s an unmitigated rip-off; a most unwelcome right of passage.
Reform here could abolish the need to extend existing leases by the statutory grant of 999 year leases. The details could be challenging. Converting to any other form of tenure would, as you note, disenfranchise the land owners.
Commonhold: the right to convert exists. Take-up has been minimal. Really, why so? The present Law Commission enquiry has a final question that left me gobsmacked. The LC wanted to know if CH should be imposed by statute.
Further reform here is likely to disadvantage leaseholders, creating a two-tier market of more, and less, desirable properties, reflected in property prices.
So, you can call my argument pathetic. Name-calling makes you look weak, desperate?
Kind regards
ps (1) LKP annual accounts (2) Urban Owners – there,s an interesting post on TrustPilot, search Warwick Estates
I find your comment very cogent and hope that regulation of agents will be introduced as promised as I believe that will go some way to alleviating the suffering of leaseholders. I read Trust Pilot and the Leaseholders reviews of warwick estates, I fail to understand that urban owners could not have known of the reputation of wr among leaseholders but .of course they are at liberty to sell to whomsoever it chooses .
Sue Stuckey, a good response to Admin. It is on the surface “weak” to call your position “pathetic”, but I think Admin could elaborate if they chose to.
I think if your take on things was common we would still have slavery, and the efforts of those who dared to trespass on Kinder Scout would have been in vain – one mustn’t upset the apple cart, must one?
Upset the apple cart? If you knew me, you’d realise that my aptitude for upsetting apple carts is almost boundless.
I’m a pragmatist. We are all salves, of sorts, even in a so-called democracy.
Sue Stuckey, the sale of houses on a leasehold basis is I believe no longer an issue. Sajid Javid has already indicated that this unconscionable money making device will end, future sales of houses will be on a freehold basis. The principle is established that homes should be fully owned by those who occupy the homes. Why should multi-occupancy buildings be any different? All of your arguments against commonhold, including pissing off the city, appear to me be ultra-conservative. Alternatively (not likely, but a possibility), you have a personal interest in maintaining the status quo.
Admin did indeed back up their “pathetic” label and what they stated in doing so was a crystal clear exposition of why leasehold should end and be replaced by commonhold.
Throw off your chains (“we are all slaves”), sister, join the revolution.
Sorry David, but you do not seem to take in a key point Sue S (and I) makes. Commonhold is no better in practice than the flat leaseholders acquiring the freehold as well, and setting up and running their own FMC.
It appears that Sue and I are both experienced shared freehold owners on (unrelated) sites where we have leasehold flats. This arrangement makes no practical difference to whether the estates are managed well, because it all comes down to who is elected onto the Board, how despotic they are or become, how manipulative the Board Directors are with Proxies and Voting Rights, and then of course the quality of the property manager who is appointed.
Commonhold for NEW developments, ok yes we agree, simple and easy to set up. But someone please answer me these questions direct:-
1) is it proposed under new legislation to COMPEL ALL the CURRENT freeholders to give up their interests?
2) who is going to compensate them?
3) who will pay the legal and Court costs of doing so?
4) how will this be better than improving the current Enfranchisement and Right of First Refusal** Laws, and reducing the costs of doing so? (ref recent Case Law)
**If the ‘dodgy’ sales and transfers to Offshore Tax Shelter Companies could be stopped, it would help hugely.
Does anyone anywhere know what this total Commonhold COMPULSION figure would be for England & Wales?
Hello Peregrine, I am somewhat embarrassed to get involved in this debate as I am not a leaseholder in a multi-occupancy building, and here I am faced with those who are. And more than that, with those who are well informed and experienced. I share LKP’s contempt for the parasites involved in leasehold, all of them from the freeholders right through to the professionals/lawyers who feed of leasehold. It offends me that anyone can defend any aspect of the current system. Is it not a worthwhile object to rid England and Wales of our leasehold laws for domestic properties of all kinds, and in so doing the worthless parasites who feed off these laws?
1/ Most all houses have shared aspects to their ownership – responsibility for boundaries is often shared. And YES there can be problems, life itself is a problem, one cannot avoid problems. With regards to property ownership, problems of various kinds arise with the ownership, often involving neighbours – my neighbour refuses to share cost of maintaining our shared boundary fences. In the face of this issue I have a number of options, a) Go to law, b) Beat my neighbour to death, c) Pay full cost of maintenance myself. I chose the last option. 2/ Why you worry your head about the detail of compensation etc is beyond me. The only thing that should concern leaseholders is ridding themselves of the moral criminals like William Waldorf Astor, the Tchenguiz brothers, and others.
Last week, a very well regarded figure in the sector told me he would rather have the duke of Westminster as his landlord than his neighbours.
Today, at an APPG on retirement housing at the Palace of Westminster, Tony Pidgely, the formidable founder of the Berkeley Group, said that the problems with ground rents and freeholds is when they become an investment asset class (well, he should know, having sold a bundle to Vincent Tchenguiz!).
We support leaseholders becoming empowered property owners with proper title to their homes. Not easy-to-shaft tenants, as at present.
Ownership and tenancy are very different.
I suspect Sue Stuckey problems are with her neighbours: particularly with neighbours who are the directors of an enfranchised block.
They can turn poachers and make life miserable for others. For example, I am aware of a site in north London of eight flats where five flats owned by two families propose to re-enfranchise and redevelop the site with a £2.5m penthouse on the roof.
Suggested compo for the three current freehold owners not in on the action: £800. It comes to court again in the autumn.
So, we are aware that leasehold laws can be used by game-playing leaseholder directors against their neighbours. But they can be toppled using company law.
It seems that Urban Owners have done their customers and leaseholders no favours in selling out to Warwick Estates. They appear to be transferred from a Blue Chip company to one which over time has given cause for concern.
Let’s hope it is the Urban Owners policies that prevail in the new set up.
Way back McCarthy and Stone sold out to Tchenguiz and look how that turned out.
M&S were heavily criticised for that and still are.
Perhaps one of the redeeming features is that with Warwick Estates they will come under the ARMA umbrella with all the protection they give.
CORRECTION.. With all the correction they should give but at present do not.
The above should read ” with the protection they should give but at present they do not.” And I am referring to leaseholder protection, not just protection to their members as they appear to have given to Warwick Estates in the past.
Michael, I guess you’ve seen LKP coverage of what happened when ARMA tries to regulate a member? The ARMA-appointed regulator Sally Keeble felt the need to resign – and did resign. She and ARMA gave different explanations for her resignation, ARMA saying her role had become redundant.
About the same time, a story emerged that an ARMA member (the same one that caused Sally Keeble to resign?) started legal proceedings against ARMA over a ‘disciplinary matter’. ARMA had to settle out of court with a five-figure payout, it’s said.
Money talks. ARMA wouldn’t exist if it had no members. It’s only a trade body, after all, dedicated to looking after its members with no ‘old-school’ professional loyalties.
RICS, on the other hand, is very ‘old-school’ with a strong professional and regulatory tradition that traverses the globe. It’s why Warwick Estates Property Management came before the disciplinary panel in February, being reprimanded and fined, with costs, for regulatory breaches that led to the death of a leaseholder in Bolton.
No question, then, of the member (Warwick) playing up at this hearing which was held with all the formality of an English court law. I forget the number of times that we, in the public gallery, had to rise as Panel members left the room to deliberate behind closed doors.
No chance resignations here, then; no threats, no ‘out of court’ settlement. The director under scrutiny looked squeamishly uncomfortable, contrite almost – as he should – but then he got into his stride and found it difficult to control the cocky white socks pointy shoed Essex boy within.
As the Panel Chair said, she hadn’t come across anything like this before.
RICS is best placed to regulate all managing agents, not just its AssocRICS members.
Currently, as I understand it, the Residential Service Charge Management Code published by RICS with approval of the Secretary of State, is the right instrument to be applied to the regulation of managing agents. The document covers all existing legislation relevant to leasehold.
The Code makes the Property Manager responsible for implementing the Code. What’s a pity and it came out during the recent disciplinary hearing, nobody not even RICS, takes any notice of that Code which might as well gather dust on a shelf.
Presently, the Code is voluntary, as many codes of practice are. For its implementation, it depends on a case coming before the court and the judge taking into consideration the Property Manager’s failure to observe the code.
RICS is best placed to regulate managing agents. But as we’ve heard on the news with the ICO investigating Cambridge Analytica – and with the Electoral Commission – they lack regulatory teeth.
Government should hand RICS powers of enforcement of the Code on all managing agents operating in England and Wales.
If we look at the “super group” of managing agents such as Firstport, Mainstay and Warwick Estates it can be seen that the majority of their growth came from doing deals to manage with freeholders and not leaseholders. Very few management contracts come from genuine leaseholder appointments.
As sites such as LKP increasingly highlight the failings that freeholder appointed managing agents can impose on leaseholders, some freeholders (not enough yet) are becoming wary of any such appointments. In addition more leaseholders are finally undertaking right to manage actions which serve to deplete these managing agents market share.
Thus they are seeking to maintain or increase market share by acquisition .
This strategy only works if having paid for a smaller managing agent the development remains with the company. If not(and the leaseholders walk away) Warwick Estates will have essentially paid for Urban owners management contracts only to find those contracts have been terminated.
Whatever the circumstances of the Urban Owners buyout, I am confident it will not prove to be of benefit to the leaseholders. .
.
I totally agree with ME’s comments. An excellent summary of how the market really is laid out,
In view of the massive differences of each companies ethos/business models I was shocked when I read that U Owners has been taken over by W Estates.
I hope the past business processes and customer care from U Owners will continue to be applied to its old/current clients by the W Estates management.
This has to be one of the best examples of underhand profiteering from Leaseholders. Urban Owners take blocks RTM on the premise of being a ‘man of the people’, tie the blocks in a long term management contract giving them the holy grail of corporate valuation, a contracted steady income stream, and then sell all those tied in contracts onto the very people it was profusing to not be. Unfortunately LKP fell for this hook line and sinker with the accreditation (paid for) but mostly through misplaced good intentions, helping Urban Owners old shareholders to profit substantially from unwitting leaseholders! It just goes to show what leaseholders are upagainst and that LKP must be increasingly careful of conflicts as they try and take more of an official role in the issue.
It seems to be a difficult situation to avoid. LKP quite rightly award their accreditation to well performing, generally small companies. These companies then win custom from underperforming,, generally larger companies on the strength of their performance and LKP accreditation.
They then become very attractive buyouts to the very companies from whom they have taken business.
So these larger underperforming companies will get their custom back and more. And the unfortunate customers ( in this case the Leaseholders ) are back with the type of company that they escaped from in the first place.
Maybe this type of takeover should be vetted by some responsible body, but in this case it could not be ARMA.
As this time it is one of their members who is taking over a popular accredited non member.
Some online reviews give urban owners 5 stars and glowing endorsement and some give 1 star and a terrible review. I totally agree with Hugh S. The road to hell is paved with good intention. Leaseholders should expect all managing agencies to rip them off and sell them down the river. I think what UO have done is very disappointing for leaseholders. Very poor show and supposed integrity in tatters.
1-stars are genuine reviews. You can tell because the level of detail could only be known to a genuine reviewer. The 5-stars come from companies wanting to balance out their average. As soon as a 1-star is posted, a 5-star comes along – short and sweet rubbing it in how good they are.
I’ve seen this with Warwick on TrustPilot. After the RICS’ hearing, someone posted the details. Warwick, whose been known to fake the details of its own post, complained that this post contravened TrustPilot rules. Ingeniously, it claimed the reviewer was a member of staff. Untrue but the post was removed.
Again more recently, a review (Superheroes or comic strip?) that includes an potentially embarrassing analysis of Warwick’s shakey financial position (and its likely impact on our service charge accounts) was countered almost immediately with a post from Joanna, a leaseholder, singing the praises of Warwick’s ‘perfect’ accounting for service charge. About 8 hours later, Joanna’s post was deleted. I did wonder if Joanna was the same Joanna Claire who is a Warwick director.
These reviews can be misleading.
Sue, you come across as an extremely able leaseholder who has walked the walk and not just talked the talk. If you ever feel that you need someone to stand shoulder to shoulder with you in order to get agents Regulated then ask admin for my details. Both x email addresses. I too have now looked at trust pilot and agree with you that the 5 star reviews could well be suspect.
My experiences with Warwick Estates Property Management Limited would tell a different story. On acquiring Cotswold Property Management Services late 2014 they took over management of our development.
Their management fees are high for the level of service they provide.
In my opinion they show little regard for the lease when it comes to the management of the development, less regard is given to the Residents’ Management Company and its members and none to the L&TA 1985.
Also in my opinion is that If I lived on a development associated in anyway with Urban Owners I would be keeping a very close eye on how the change to Warwick Estates is going to impact on them.
Peregrine. I fully agree that shared Freehold if elected directors are despotic , ignore the lease and collude with the appointed Agent in order to land fellow leaseholders with the costs for demised items / lessees liabilities, m then there is a huge problem that commonhold will not solve. Common-hold in itself will not solve this problem, only statutory regulation of agents and enforcement of exsisting laws will bring about real change although that might not be a sexy grandstanding , headlining view. In my view you, Sue and Hugh are on the money.
Kim,
You now seem to be posting as Johnathan Swift/ Leaseholder/ A Leaseholder/Sometimes observer.
Could we ask you to aviod the nom de guerre’s
Damn Martin, I did not expect you to blow my cover!! What happened to confidentiality? Am I not allowed a nom de guerre? I was / am very interested in this topic and wanted to make comment but avoid causing a febrile flurry by using my own name Kim or is that really my own name??????
In light of the opprobrium currently being heaped on Facebook founders I am surprised that you have taken this step to “ OUT” me ( thank goodness you don’t know about my sexual proclivities!! ) and thereby show that trust is perhaps an issue. Blimey bad move Martin. …
I shall continue to support the fight to abolish Leasehold ( not on LKP) but at this juncture I am more aligned with Sue Stuckey in that Regulation of Managing Agents is paramount.
Martin you stated in an email that regulation “ WILL BE INTRODUCED” when?
Lastly, You are a very naughty boy for “ outing” Kim and I suspect others will be slightly more wary of posting on LKP. Terrible breach of trust although probably no worse than your pet Managing Agents “ Urban Owners”.