• 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 / South Somerset council enters the ‘fleecehold’ racket

South Somerset council enters the ‘fleecehold’ racket

September 11, 2019 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

What are the chances that this nice old house costing £550,000 in South Cheriton, for sale through Hambledon Estate Agents, stands on a road with drains and lighting that have all been adopted by the (county) council and the surroundings kept tidy, too (district council)?

By Sebastian O’Kelly

Has South Somerset council twigged that it can make a fortune out of residents in private estates by playing the ‘fleecehold’ game?

It has set up a company called Elleston for “landscaping and horticultural work” which it hopes will make £2.2 million a year in two year’s time.

Thousands of private estates have roads, pavements and lighting that have not been adopted by the council, so the residents have to pay for them.

On top of their council tax, that is.

Whereas … more than 30 residents at Agusta Park in Yeovil wrote to Persimmon last week demanding the freeholds to their leasehold houses. These are homes for poorer people and first-timers, many of whom have bought with the taxpayers’ subsidy of Help To Buy. What’s the betting that the roads have not been adopted in Augusta Park, either? Management contracts of unadopted sites are the latest revenue-generating wheeze from our plc house builders

Developers and councils have immediately seen the advantage of this: councils save money by not doing the job that they have to do in the rest of the borough; developers have created yet another investment asset class – the management contracts – that can be traded on.

Everyone’s a winner, except the duped house buyers who did not understand the wealth-eroding nature of the management contract.

These are now traded assets, with Green Belt in Glasgow having companies worth around £200. FirstPort, the largest block manager in the country, has also hoovered up a few.

It is not clear to LKP whether South Somerset is naive or mercenary.

LibDem councillor John Clark welcomes the initiative:

LibDem councillor John Clark

“When new estates are built, developers have a choice of seeking adoption of the common public areas by the council or retaining ownership and utilising a private maintenance company.

“With many developers now choosing to take the private maintenance company route [now, why would they prefer that, do you wonder?] and charging residents for the costs, Elleston will utilise our skilled workforce and good practice to ensure that an excellent level of work is carried out.

“The council cannot use public money to maintain private land, therefore Elleston is simply meeting the market need.”

Meeting the market need? Many victims of the ‘fleecehold’ game would say that is a polite way of describing the avoiding of your responsibilities.

Elleston is open for business and here’s what you need to know | South Somerset District Council

South Somerset has set up a new landscaping and horticultural trading company called Elleston which aims to provide a better service for residents, while returning profits to the Council. Elleston has been created by SSDC in response to requests from residents as well as housing developers as there is a demand for high quality maintenance work on private developments and estate land.

Locals do not seem too happy about this, on the South Somerset Facebook page …

No one seems to be asking, why should buyers of new homes – usually for first-timers – have to pay for services which all the other residents in a borough don’t pay for?

In last week’s email dump to chief executives, around 30 outraged letters came from residents in Agusta Park, where Persimmon has been happily dumping first-time buyers into scandalous leasehold houses.

What’s the betting Agusta Park also has a management company because its roads, drains and lighting are not adopted?

It is utterly ludicrous that taxpayers are lavishly funding through Help To Buy multi-million pound bonuses for Persimmon’s executives … and a cushy income stream for the credulous and indolent South Somerset council.

South Somerset district council responds:

Thank you for your email and we would certainly welcome the opportunity to respond to the attached article, as it includes some serious misunderstandings of the role of the Council and Elleston: I would also like to provide some context which may help. South Somerset District Council has an outstanding record as a caring and compassionate council, strongly valued by the communities it serves. It is morally right that we continue to secure the best new developments we can through the planning process and the best amenities for residents.

The law around amenities in private developments

As you will be aware, the planning system does require sustainable, appropriate amenities to be provided as part of new development, but the Government does not require these amenities to be publicly owned. (In an ideal world, there would be sufficient funding available to adopt all amenities across South Somerset, but that is not reality and it is not always possible to negotiate the transfer of land through Section 106 agreements. And of course the more land the Council takes on, the higher the burden on all taxpayers and other services as resources are finite.)
When new estates are built, developers have a free choice of either
• Seeking adoption of the common public areas by the Council, or
• Retaining ownership and utilising a private maintenance company.
Adoption is not a legal requisite and the appropriate payment to cover the costs of adoption and maintenance cannot be insisted upon. Previous smaller sites taken on by the council in the past have only been viable as developers offered to secure the maintenance costs for a fixed term through what are known as Section 106 agreements but there is no legal obligation to do this and this is becoming increasingly rare.

When it has not been possible to secure an agreement for adoption, developers often set up maintenance fees for the land, and put the maintenance work out to tender by private maintenance companies: when developers decide to do this, we have concluded that by tendering for the work through Elleston, we can provide the best possible quality of work while ensuring that vital services accessed by thousands are protected.

Trading companies wholly owned by Councils

Councils are prohibited from directly trading their services and making profits, but government legislation allows them to do so through a separate wholly owned trading company. These companies can make profits that are returned to the Council as dividends, which can be used as additional revenue to improve and maintain services which benefit the whole community and mitigate the loss of funding from central government. The Council’s approach to this is transparent, and is contained within our Commercial Strategy (in the public domain on our website) and Elleston is an example of such a wholly owned company.
Elleston will compete with other commercial providers of maintenance services in tendering in the open market to private landowners. The company can make profits that are returned to the Council as dividends, which can be used as additional revenue to improve and maintain services which benefit the whole community and mitigate the loss of funding from central government.

About Elleston

Elleston has actually been created by SSDC in response to requests from residents as well as housing developers, as there is a demand for high quality maintenance work on private developments and estate land. We believe that developers and residents will receive a better quality service than otherwise might be available. Clearly we need to do this in a commercial way, given the financial pressures we are under, so this is not a cost to the taxpayer.

In addition to land management, Elleston offers a wide range of landscaping and horticulture services, including sports field management, arborist work, fencing and street cleansing. Elleston has been set up by SSDC to ensure a high standard of work for private developments and estate land, not publicly owned land/roads that the council already maintains.

As Elleston tenders in the open market for commercial contracts, some of its operational data is commercially sensitive and remains confidential. However, the overriding aim of Elleston is to meet a need identified with residents.

Some important factual errors and misunderstandings

The article comments on the “hope” that Elleston will achieve £2.2m in profit. The figure referred to is the annual target for income generation from our investments in property and environmental projects, and is nothing to do with the trading companies

It’s worth emphasising that SSDC does not make profits. On some operations we generate more revenue than cost but this goes into supporting other services for residents. This has always been the case even before the Commercial Strategy.

The opening caption in the article refers speculatively to a property in South Cheriton and comments on the adoption of drains, lighting and roads, none of which would be with the remit of a district council.

The article refers to SSDC joining the “fleecehold racket” and avoiding its responsibilities, language which we would strongly dispute.

Related posts:

Milton Keynes cracks down on ‘fleecehold’ scams by housebuilders ‘Fleecehold’ petition launched to stop housebuilders creating YET ANOTHER revenue stream from their customers Labour MP Helen Goodman fights ‘fleecehold’ rip-offs with Private Members’ Bill Welsh government grapples with ‘fleecehold’ woes, issues call for evidence closing April 3 We are being ripped off by private estate charges by developers and property predators just like leaseholders, says HORnet

Category: Fleecehold, Latest News, News, PersimmonTag: Augusta Park, Fleasehold, Fleecehold, Persimmon, South Somerset

Sign up to the LKP newsletter

Fill in the link here

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (44) ARMA (91) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (33) CMA (46) Commonhold (56) Competition and Markets Authority (42) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (55) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (55) Israel Moskovitz (32) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (36) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (31) Justin Bates (41) Justin Madders MP (75) Katie Kendrick (40) Law Commission (61) LEASE (68) Leasehold Advisory Service (65) Leasehold houses (32) Liam Spender (39) Long Harbour (51) Lord Greenhalgh (32) Martin Boyd (87) McCarthy and Stone (43) National Leasehold Campaign (42) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Retirement (38) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (67) Sir Peter Bottomley (211) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (34) Vincent Tchenguiz (45) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « Barratt evacuates Grenfell cladding site Citiscape
Next Post: LKP meets Competition and Markets Authority over leasehold house mis-selling »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Chris Cooke

    September 11, 2019 at 1:00 pm

    We do indeed pay a service charge. It’s very strange, Persimmon say they are handing over the land for adoption, a local councillor tells me they are not… I have arranged a meeting with Persimmon to discuss the POS adoption however the Councillor from SSDC publicly refused to meet saying he represents everyone in the area not just 7 of us and also he is far too busy to meet its a government and legal matter not a council matter.

    • admin

      September 11, 2019 at 2:04 pm

      That’s flimsy. We have contacted South Somerset inviting a statement, and copied in assorted MPs. Including Sir Ed Davey.

  2. chas

    September 11, 2019 at 1:42 pm

    When Central Government refuse to properly financially fund Local Authorities (LA) the result is they cut back on what was their responsibility The refusal to adopting the estate infrastructure along with hard and soft landscaping means the LA can still charge Council Tax and another company can make money as well.

    The developers now have an estate that the LA has refused to maintain, possibly with both Leasehold and Freehold Housing. Now both Leaseholder and freeholder will pay a levy for the Management of the Estate.

    The developer now has another Income Stream:-

    1. Sale of the housing Leasehold/Freehold.
    2. Sale of the Freehold in the first 2 years to a company from the same group
    3. Sale of the lease to maintain the estate to another company from the same group

    What have the governments done to prevent these scams?

    Set up the toothless OFT and the SFO who arrested a couple of Tchenguiz Brothers then let them go with payment for wrongful arrest and circa £3 million pounds each in compensation.

    Typically these Estate Managers such as Firstport Property Services Ltd undertake the maintenance and send out the Management Fees to each residential home. When maintenance fails to be undertaken and the area falls into disrepair resident ask questions. They then are informed they are not entitled to see the accounts and the areas covered by the Transfer Contract.

    Recently residents are fighting back and exposing these Estate Managers and they are now grouping together and the fan has been switched on.

    Now the LAs have seen the potential of this Income Stream and have jumped on the bandwagon by setting up a private company to undertake what they should have done by adopting and then charging not only Council Tax but also Management Fees so being paid twice.

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.

Barry Passmore

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 © 2025 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