• 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 / News / Scilly Isles leaseholders rebel against Prince Charles’s ‘feudal’ Duchy of Cornwall, in Law Commission evidence

Scilly Isles leaseholders rebel against Prince Charles’s ‘feudal’ Duchy of Cornwall, in Law Commission evidence

January 8, 2019 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

For most, the Scilly Isles are an idyllic refuge, but for a Duchy of Cornwall leaseholder (c.100), it is feudalism writ large for the benefit of Prince Charles …

A forthright submission to the Law Commission consultation on enfranchisement has been made by a leaseholder on the Isles of Scilly protesting against Prince Charles’ “feudal” Duchy of Cornwall.

Alan Davis, of The Garrison, St Mary’s, who claims about 100 homes on Scilly are affected, bought his modern and unexceptional home as a holiday home in 1983 – becoming his permanent home in 1996 – with 76 years on the lease.

While Alan Davis’s home is blameless in other respects, he concedes that it is has neither historic nor architectural noteworthiness

“At the time we discussed with the solicitor the Crown and enfranchisement, but at the time we did not qualify as it was not our permanent home. Since 1996 we have been pursuing the Duchy on enfranchisement by correspondence, petitions, the media and tribunal, to obtain the right to enfranchise.

thisisscillynews | Single Post

Latest news reports and local information from the Isles of Scilly

“We have been denied out right and with various reasons such ‘as they did not want people coming to Scilly and buying holiday homes’ to a comparison where the Duchy said, ‘they were like the National Trust’.”

Mr Davis claims that since purchasing the property, he has spent considerable sums on maintaining and improving his home.

“The Duchy have not contributed one penny and to add insult to injury, in addition to applying for planning permission, we had to seek the Duchy’s consent.”

The consent fee income, under the terms of the leases, include permission to sublet and the Duchy charges £1,600 pa for 14 weeks permission. “The Duchy do not provide any thing whatsoever in return for their permissions,” Mr Davis tells the Law Commission.

Another view of St Mary’s, in the Scilly Isles

“An unanswered question, is why does the Duchy wish to hold on the freeholds? Is it income generation from ground rents or just the fact the Duchy wish to maintain the medieval feudal system of leaseholds, whereby we are Prince Charles’s subjects and under his control?”

In answer to the Law Commission’s question whether Crown leaseholders had ”encountered any difficulties”, Mr Davis responded

“The privilege Ministers granted to the Duchy of Cornwall is being misused to perpetuate the leasehold feudal system for the Duchy of Cornwall’s own monetary benefit under the guise of a private estate, but the Duchy is a Crown entity.

“The privilege granted to the Duchy of Cornwall should be rescinded, as it has no place in a 21st century democratic society.

“The privilege granted to the Duchy of Cornwall distorts the local housing market and has a detrimental effect on the Island’s economy.”

Prince of Wales challenged on Duchy of Cornwall leases

Tenants of the Duchy of Cornwall are challenging a decision that grants the Prince of Wales rights denied to every other private landlord in Britain. The tenants want to be able to buy the freehold to properties they have leased, in some cases for decades, a right other leaseholders have had since the 1960s.

As all the Duchy’s properties on Scilly have short leases and ground rents above 0.1 per cent, they are not bought by locals with mortgages. Mr Davis says they are closer to 1 per cent, which would be considered onerous by lenders such as Nationwide.

Mr Davis says the Duchy of Cornwall claims the Scilly Isles have been part of the duchy since the 13th century, but he calls this bogus and “fake news”, with arguments about this point being heard in the 19th century.

The Duchy of Cornwall owns property in Scilly, Cornwall and in Kennington, part of Lambeth in south London.

Mr Davis’s full submission is here: ScillyIslesLawCommisionResponse

Prince of Wales in legal battle over Isle of Scilly homes

Alan Davis, secretary of the Garrison Leasehold Group, said: “We are campaigning for the same equal right to enfranchisement as other citizens. Our problem is that our landlord is the Duchy of Cornwall. “The Duchy on its website refers to itself as “a well managed private estate” whose principal activity is the sustainable and commercial management of its land and properties”.

 

Related posts:

APPG recognises efforts of Law Commission to improve enfranchisement Will Law Commission bring in the ‘seismic changes’ that leasehold needs? Law Commission meets leaseholders in Manchester Law Commission sets out how it hopes to create a better deal for leaseholders – and look at alternatives Leaseholders and the sector react to Law Commission reforms to commonhold and right to manage

Category: Latest News, Law Commission, NewsTag: Duchy of Cornwall, Law Commission, Prince Charles

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (37) ARMA (87) Bellway (30) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (70) Clive Betts MP (31) CMA (44) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (39) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (39) Grenfell cladding (55) 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: « Fury in Manchester as Lendlease wins £160m contract to refurb city hall, while dumping Grenfell cladding costs on leaseholders
Next Post: Your Housing Group shared equity retirement flat sells for £39,129.26, after three years on the market »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Stephen

    January 9, 2019 at 1:27 am

    Mr Davis feels aggrieved that he has had to spend thousands on the property with not a penny from the Duchy. But this is exactly what to be expected under the terms of the lease he took an assignment of. He paints the Duchy as being mean and money grabbing .

    He also feels aggrieved about not being able to enfranchise. He purchased in 1983 with 76 yrs left to run . The 1967 Act excluded the Duchy therefore he knew when buying there was no mandatory right and this negative aspect of the lease would be expected to be reflected in the price he paid . Then having bought it at a lower than normal price because of that exemption he accuses the Duchy of malpractice and not being honourable in helping him make a significant improvement in the capital value by extending the lease.

    He is then critical of the Duchy for seeking a £1600 fee per annum for sub letting in the summer when very substantial rents can be obtained . He wishes to sweat his asset as does the Duchy . But the Duchy seeking to sweat their assets is considered by him to be wrong

    He then says that ground rents of 1% of the value of the property are onerous . Whether a rent is onerous or not depends on the premium paid . If a property is worth £300k with a peppercorn rent but is sold for £200k with a rent of £3k per annum linked to the RPI then that rent is not onerous as the premium was less than normal . Again he wishes to be selective

    What for me comes out of all the debate about ground rent, exit fees , service charges , permission fees is that they become an issue when it comes as a surprise.

    The need for all burdens in the lease need to be clearly set out and in the case of ground rent a NPV needs to be assigned . All permission fees need to be formularised so a purchaser knows in advance what to expected and crouch their offer accordingly.

    • admin

      January 9, 2019 at 12:08 pm

      Do you think that the 1993 enfranchisement act is justified?

      Should leaseholders be able to enfranchise, when they knew that they were buying a tenancy?

      Should private citizens be able to compulsorily purchase the property of someone else, the freeholder?

      We rationalise these legal somersaults because leasehold has been so abused and is, wrongly, perpetuated in England and Wales. But you do not have to be a radical reformer to be uneasy about the implications of them.

      It is also desirable that some leases are sold without enfranchisement rights.

      • Stephen

        January 9, 2019 at 1:37 pm

        I think there are circumsatamces where enfranchisement ishiuod not apply

        A charity may want to help a particular person and grant them a lease but want the property back in a certain number of years to futurer the charities clause . If this is made patently clear at the outset and the price paid reflects this disadvantage then I see no reason why later on this should be considered unfair

        It all comes to to open clear disclosure so the buyer makes a proper informed choice before committing to the purchase.

        An onerous ground rent can never arise if the terms of the ground rent however unusual and however large or aggressive the rise may be are valued using a prescribed discount rate. Because the value of the rent will be reflected in the price paid for the lease . In many ways very large rents will be considered carefully before purchase and it is more likely that very large rents will be valued correctly and the premium paid for the lease reflects the rent . Small rents if a few hundred don’t get considered properly and that is where abuse can slip in

        • admin

          January 9, 2019 at 3:49 pm

          Do you think enfranchisement is ever justified?

        • Alan Davis

          January 16, 2019 at 8:39 pm

          Re comments by Stephen.

          I do not sweat “my” asset. I live in it.
          Does the asset belong to the landlord or the leaseholder?
          Others do sublet and the Duchy require part of the rental paid for 14 weeks. This is now £1750+for doing nothing. The owners must provide all the facilities. These fees are not in the original leases and the numbers appear to have been “picked out” of thin air. Many leases have covenants whereby you must seek permission, but rarely do they give the amounts payable. The cost of a legal challenge is more than the fee and this the Duchy are aware of. The Duchy do not pay their legal fees on challenge, the Treasury do, or more correctly, you the taxpayer.
          Finally, it is sad that Stephen has not identified himself. Is he a landlord, leaseholder (duchy?), a legal practice or other organisation?
          Alan Davis

          • stephen

            January 18, 2019 at 9:35 pm

            Alan

            You do not touch on the point that when you took an assignment of the lease it was known at that time that it fell outside the rights given by the 1967 Act and it would be reasonable to assume that as the purchase takes some time to go through that you would have reflected on that negative aspect and offered accordingly.

            You state that you live in your property so why should the sub letting fee be of concern. If the lease does not allow sub-letting without consent then why should the duchy be precluded from an enhanced investment return on their investment just as the lessee who sub lets?. Duchy have a value in the reversion and income stream, undoubtably less than the lessee but not negligible so their entitlement is, provided not excluded under the lease, fair. Without knowing the numbers and costs it is difficult to make a comment as to whether the quantum is fair.

            What I say should be the subject of interest and debate not who I am.

  2. Alan Davis

    January 23, 2019 at 11:47 am

    Stephen

    I have again read all your comments and I must assume that you are “employed” by the Duchy to present their case. Your facts are incorrect, as the Duchy took steps to hide their arrangements from public view. It took years to track down the facts and even now we do not know the whole truth behind their leasehold arrangements and their land area exemption from enfranchisement as they now have complete FOI exemption.

    The Duchy used to be a benevolent organisation who cared about their tenants, but all that changed in the 1990’s and they have become a very commercial enterprise, which they now like to call a private estate, but in fact is a Crown entity.

    Since the announcement on reform there are several groups who say they should be exempt. If indeed there is a good case, then maybe they should have full rights to lease extensions at a peppercorn ground rent and permission fees (if any) that fairly reflect the work involved in giving that permission rather than arbitrary inflated figures “picked from the air”.

    As you wish to “hide” behind your anonymity, there is little point in continuing a debate with an individual who clearly appears to favour perpetuating the feudal leasehold system and the unaccountable and secretive Duchy of Cornwall.
    Alan Davis

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