• 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
    • JB Leitch
    • 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
      • JB Leitch
      • 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 / Shared ‘ownership’ is NOT ownership. It’s the ‘pay-day loan’ of housing and most regret having bought, London Assembly told

Shared ‘ownership’ is NOT ownership. It’s the ‘pay-day loan’ of housing and most regret having bought, London Assembly told

November 5, 2019 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

London Assembly members seemed to be aghast by what they were hearing from the victims of housing associations’ predatory shared ‘ownership’ game-playing last night

By Sebastian O’Kelly

Shared “ownership” leaseholders gave devastating testimony to the London Assembly last night, with the overwhelming majority – in a show of hands – deeply regretting their decision to enter the scheme.

One of the 30-odd participants at the event described shared ownership as the “pay day loan of housing”, which is being used to deceive those who dream of owning their own home.

The meeting was held by Labour Assembly Members Tom Copley and Nicky Gavron and Conservative Andrew Boff. They are tasked with producing a report on shared “ownership” for the London Assembly.

The Assembly Members were aghast that half the government housing grant to the London Assembly goes to housing associations but “there is no accountability”.

The picture that emerged last night was of a well-intentioned scheme to spread home-ownership – to those who can only afford it in part – being used to ramp up profits for housing associations and their well-remunerated senior executives.

Some share “ownership” tenants feel so strongly about the gap between housing associations’ advertising and the stressful reality that they have twice complained to the Advertising Standards Authority:

Advertising Standards Authority rules against Notting Hill Genesis on over-egged shared ownership adverts

It seems as though the ample monetising opportunities of leasehold tenure are being used to the detriment of shared “ownership” tenants.

Why are on earth are housing associations selling leases at 99 years or 125 years – except to game leasehold’s opportunities with extra income from lease extensions?

This would only apply to the minority of shared “ownership” tenants who actually have staircased to 100% ownership: widely believed to be only 7% of the total.

Why are leases not 999 years, except to gain extra income? None at the meeting had a lease longer than 125 years. Why?

The financial implications of shared “ownership” are complex enough, without leasehold games being added to the mix.

Why are housing associations – funded by taxpayers – demanding expensive lease extensions based on bogus mathematical models commissioned by the Grovesnor Estate and other commercial landlords that apply to private leasehold housing?

There is nothing objective or substantive to these models – presently being examined by the Law Commission – so why are housing associations using them?

Why are housing associations using controversial long-term qualifying agreements with commercial service companies, rather than offering section 20 major works out to tender and thus keeping costs down?

These agreements have been highly controversial, with the director of housing of Exeter sent to prison for fiddling them:

LKP is DELUGED by leaseholders caught out in local authority major works schemes …

Why has Notting Hill Genesis offered for sale a flat with £200 doubling ground rent every 25 years only LAST YEAR? This is long after the scandal of ground rents erupted in autumn 2016? The property is here: http://auctions.savills.co.uk/Auctions/LotDetails?pid=0decbb3d-4bdd-4417-ace5-4905983a24f6

Why are there 3% monopoly estate agency charges?

Indeed, why are they seeking to racket up fees when the whole idea is to get people onto the housing ladder, and thus participants in our property owning democracy?

One attendee, who has staircased up to 100% ownership has a lease of 78 years.

“I concentrated on owning the whole flat: that is where I put my savings,” she told the London Assembly members.

“Now my housing association wants £24,000 to extend the lease – plus the £3,000 of its legal and surveying costs and another £3,000 for my own. This lease extension would have cost £2,000 when I first bought the flat.

“Buying in increments to staircase up to 100% ownership has been hugely expensive, and now I have this on top.”

£250 permission fees for new bathrooms and kitchens shocked the panel, along with £150 to re-mortgage. Notting Hill Genesis’s permission fee prices are given here: https://www.genesisha.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-09/NHG-Leasehold%20Management%20Admin%20Fees%202018-19_0.pdf

The scandal of shared ownership schemes

Getting the keys to a home of your own is a moment no one ever forgets. Yet for Alex Tan, buying his first flat has become memorable for all the wrong reasons.

Tenants will be allowed to buy tiny shares of their homes every year

New plans will allow renters to purchase 1 per cent a year of value of property Housing secretary says the changes will make it easier for those trying to buy But MP Sarah Jones says tinkering with shared ownership details is ‘meaningless’ Tenants will be able to buy tiny shares of their homes every year under plans announced by ministers to help thousands step onto the housing ladder.

The 1% tiny increment proposal to staircase into 100% ownership was not well regarded by the audience: they knew the fees housing associations would levy for each and every increment


One attendee said: “I have got a PhD, and I feel a complete idiot. All I have bought is a share of a wasting asset. Those considering shared ownership need to be warned.”

Assembly Member Nicky Gavron said: “I was going to ask whether you feel like home owners – but obviously not!”

A number of housing associations were named in the most unflattering terms, including Genesis Notting Hill, A2 Dominion, London and Quadrant, Metropolitan and Catalyst.

A group of four shared “ownership” activists has formed, one of who asked why housing associations are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act?

“There is a complete lack of transparency in this whole sector,” said one

“Those considering shared ‘ownership’ need to consider all the implications and be far better informed.”

Only one attendee – who had worked for a housing association – spoke up for shared ownership, but he had no intention of staircasing his 50% share.

“It is not ideal, but with no social housing available it is better than nothing and cheaper than renting.”


Shared “ownership” activists have prepared the following “Explanatory information for new buyers”, which was presented to the London Assembly

The explanatory information is misleading at best, and in many cases is so inaccurate it borders on mis-selling. The reason for this mis-selling is that if people knew what shared ownership actually involved, they wouldn’t touch it with a pole.

Facts of shared ownership that are not disclosed during the sales process include:

1. Buyers are told they will own their share. This is NOT true. All you have is an assured tenancy for the duration of the lease. This means that if you get into rent or service charge arrears, the housing association can repossess your property without buying back the share that you bought from them, either at the market rate at the time of the repossession, or even just giving you back the money you gave them for it.

2. The issue of lease duration and marriage value is not mentioned at all – the value of any leasehold property decreases as the length of the lease goes down, and if it gets to 80 years it becomes virtually impossible to sell unless you extend the lease

3. There is no legal right to lease extension of shared ownership properties, and if a housing association grants you an extension you can face bills of between 5k – 20k or more for the privilege.

4. Much is made of staircasing, but the fact is that unless and until you staircase to 100% all you have is an assured tenancy for the duration of the lease. There are no centrally held figures regarding the number of shared ownership tenants who have staircased to 100% but the best estimate is 7%. This means that 93% of shared ownership tenants never reach the goal of full ownership of their shared ownership property.

5. The implications of service charge and its interminable increases in the face of ever decreasing levels of service are likewise never explained. We are told we will have to pay service charge. We are left to find out what that actually means in real terms after we have signed the contract.

6. Selling is another issue. Tenants have to pay 100% of the HAs fees for selling their property (usually around 3% of the total value) regardless of the share that they own. They have no choice in using the HA, and often have to use their valuation, too.

Related posts:

shared ownership price fallsTelegraph reports plummeting value of shared ownership flats Notting Hill Genesis housing association pulls shared ownership leasehold advert after complaints Giles Peaker shared ownershipShared ownership: a misnomer that can be worse than renting and worse than leasehold, says solicitor Advertising Standards Authority rules against Notting Hill Genesis on over-egged shared ownership adverts Get commonhold done, London Assembly tells government

Category: Latest News, News, Shared ownershipTag: Andrew Boff, Housing associations, London Assembly, Nicky Gavron, Shared ownership, Tom Copley

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 (45) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (41) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (42) 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 (67) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Long Harbour (48) 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 (201) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (31) Vincent Tchenguiz (43) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « ARMA: prepare for a regulated leasehold management world
Next Post: Reform laws on track for ‘second half of 2020’, Martin Boyd tells Property Week Martin Boyd»

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. EH-B

    November 6, 2019 at 9:11 pm

    Even murkier, have a look at pre-emption rights retained on 100% staircased shared ownership leases (in particular by councils e.g Islington) yet these properties are still being sold at full market rate. Most solicitors are OK with Right of First Refusal, but many aren’t and that can collapse a sale = Russian roulette. The council of mortgage lenders also makes clear in their handbook that pre-emption rights are to be regarded as a restriction that require special consideration on a case by case basis. This means that anyone who owns one of these leases cannot engage in the property market as a regular participant and therefore the property surely cannot be considered at full market value. The government issued model leases in 2016 that specifically advised removal of pre-emption rights by councils and HAs, yet many chose to ignore the advice, again take Islington council as an example. It is a complete grey area and needs to be addressed properly as it can ruin people’s lives.

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