Why are National Trust leaseholders in uproar over ‘modern ground rents’?
Chi Onwurah addressed the issue of the the Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust in her Newcastle constituency again yesterday as a parliamentary question.
“The Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust is a charity that is refusing to allow its leaseholders to extend their leases, in a wholly uncharitable way”.
The question was asked by junior minister Heather Wheeler, who said that the trust had offered some leaseholders their freeholds, but that some had found the price prohibitive.
In full here: https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-05/debates/DD406C82-B577-43F2-8A89-6AD368255126/LeaseholdChanges
Related posts:
MailOnline reports blighted houses of St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust
MP attacks ‘charity’ residential freehold owners gaming the leasehold system and cites the Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust
Sir Roger’s quest for the Holy Grail … (or any other metaphor that helps his cosy leasehold world remain the same)
Informal lease extensions are pure poison!
The dirty tricks played with formal lease extensions
Brokenshire wrongly says freeholders have paid for Grenfell cladding removal
Under the 1967 Act lessees whose freeholder is a charity are not able to enfranchise.
If a lessee bought the lease after 1967 then presumably the price they paid for the property reflected this negative condition.and this should have been reflected in the price paid. The same goes for National Trust Properties
The finger of blame is pointed at the charity when it should either be pointed at the lessee who wishes to forget about the terms that existed when they made the offer for the property or to the professional advisors who should have made it clear the disadvantages of holding a lease from a charity and ensuring he price paid reflected those terms
I
Stephen
I’m very surprised that an individual who likes to refer to contract law who has a somewhat questionable attitude towards morality (or fair or just behaviour except, whereby a freeholders advantageous position is questions) that your basing your comments on presumption!!
WHERE IS THE YOUR EVIDENCE, JUST LIKE WHEN YOU PREVIOUS CLAIMED A LEASEHOLDER PAYS £20 GROUND RENT IN MAYFAIR ….EVIDENCE STEPHEN.
Stephen
I’m very surprised that an individual who likes to refer to contract law who has a somewhat questionable attitude towards morality (or fair or just behaviour except, whereby a freeholders advantageous position is questions) that your basing your comments on presumption!!
WHERE IS THE FACTS/YOUR EVIDENCE, JUST LIKE WHEN YOU PREVIOUS CLAIMED A LEASEHOLDER PAYS £20 GROUND RENT IN MAYFAIR ….EVIDENCE STEPHEN.
The article specifically states that both the individuals complaining about their plight bought post 1967 so knew or should have known that their properties are excluded from the right to enfranchise . It is not the charity in this case who is at fault
If these individuals did not know that there lease fell outside the rights of the 1967 Act then it is their professional advisors who have let them down – not the charity
Rather than honouring the terms of the lease they took an assignment of and let the house eventually revert back to the charity they would want to also support Mr Madders proposal and offer 10 times the ground rent (ie a few hundred pounds) and thus deprive the beneficiaries of the charity (the most needy in that area) of resources to help them
Stephen
Such statement of depriving freeholders and “…the most needy” is highly debatable, however, NO FREEHOLDER that I have ever meets such a description, but you keep believing that…as your fooling no one, otherthan yoyrself!
You have misread what I wrote
The Charity clearly needs the assets to support its charitable work and takes a very long term view. Therefore if lessees enfranchise the charity’s assets are depleted and that will have an impact on their activities. Its is the the needy people the charity tries to help that will be impacted upon if the freehold interest held by the charity is taken away by a compulsory enfranchisement
The two lessees highlighted bought after the 1967 Act and should have known or been advised that they do not have a mandatory right to extend the lease. I fail to see where the injustice is in this case
Stephen.
Your definition of “…needy people..” and my definition are different ends of the spectrum! The majority of charities getting involved in the purchase of freeholds are looking after self interest (e.g
their highly inflated and unjustifiable salaries) prior to the needs of “..needy people”.
I find it hilarious that YOU are now attempting to portray yourself as a good Samaritan , who is concerned about others!
If, your sooo concerned about charity, How much have you donates to reputable charities and organisations..otherthan family, friends and business associates, Mr chariable??
You fail to address the points raised in my post and instead try to drag the argument into a side show and make personal insults hiding behind the anominity afforded by this site
No, you failed to answer the points I raised.
I think someone is getting a little frustrated at their desperate attempts to portray themselves in a particular light, which really is not the reality.
You make various claims (e.g providing an example of a leaseholder paying £20 ground rent in Mayfair in your previous calculation),yet when your asked for evidence you fail to provide such evidence.
You claim that Madders proposed method of calculation for the purchase of a freehold, is unjust or unfair to freeholders. Yet when your provided with at least 5 examples of the unjust system that heavily favours freeholder, that seems to be acceptable to you OR you attempt to turn the situation around.
Yet, when asked to conduct investigation into an alternative method of calculation for what you consider to be a fair & just alternative …you fail to do so.
You claim to have the interest of charity at heart, yet when your asked to prove your acclaimed interest you can’t.
I will believe any claim that is made from anyone with supporting evidence that is permitted to be scrutinised….it is not a personal insult.
I have absolutely no reason to hide, behind anything.
My proposed method of valuing the cost of a lease extentsion or purchasing the freehold would be on the basis that the ground rent, reversion and marriage value are all discounted using prescribed figures derived from the thousands of decided cases. To value the flat I am suggesting that for leases over 60 years that the value is derived from the council tax banding which would be reviewed say every 3 months
The abuses you claim that lessees suffer can be removed by the imposition of an RTM company so why should a freeholder have to suffer financially if he has not committed any wrongs
Justin Madders proposal fails to value the reversion and therefore I feel fails to address the interests of the various parties
With regard to the case concerning the charity my point is that the lessees knew or should have known that the lease cannot be extended prior to purchase and therefore that cannot blame the charity for not agreeing to extend the lease. What is your view on that?
Stephen
I respect your views and appreciate the fact that thought & consideration to possible solutions has been applied.
However, I don’t genuinely think we are ever going to agree (which, is not meant with malice), but is not simply based upon our differing legal positions.
I’m a responsible landlord who owns a few leasehold & freehold (houses) properties. However, despite inheriting 2 tenants in property purchases, I felt that their rental contracts were unfair & unjust e.g. annual rental price increases by 10%, £150 for late payment acknowledgement letter (plus interest on the outstanding payment), legally I could apply such terms & conditions, but morally I felt it would be wrong. Therefore, new contracts were provided which was brought inline with all other contracts & was 100% to the benefit of the tenants. I treat my tenants with respect & they treat me with respect…with one of my original tenant residing at the same property for over 16 years.
Lets be honest, whether a property is managed (services sourced) by tenants or managed (services sourced) by the freeholder, is not the issue. The real issue is ownership/control….which freeholders have abused such position of trust PLUS exploited leaseholders financially over a substantial period of time. The whole intention that a freeholder, wishes to retain such position, is to continue to reap continuous financial benefits over leaseholders.
Freeholders provide absolute no service or goods in exchange for the payment of ground rent….and therefore there is absolutely no justification for receiving ground rent.
Can you think of any other role/professiwhereby, you receive a payment for nothing??
I note your point in relation to pre existing contracts held (by a charity) however I feel that it is only fair & just at the end of such contract that a leaseholder is compensated (under the same Human Rights Act applied by freeholders) for 50% of the loss of their property & 100% of improvement value made (e.g. if single glazed windows were replaced with double glazed windows etc).
Hence, I’m totally against Charities being able to re issue further/new leasehold contracts on the same restrictive lease basis. Too many organisations set up as charities, receive the benefits, tax breaks etc..but should be held to a higher level of morality than non charitable organisations.
This just shows the 1967 Act is unfit for purpose or justice, and needs to be removed by Parliament. The National Trust have abused leaseholders as well using this part of leasehold law. Stephen, just because the law allows this to happen now does not mean that a freeholder has to take full advantage of it to the detriment of leaseholders.
Lets quote Stephen (Tchenguiz) “…if lessees enfranchise the charity’s assets are depleted…”.
Nope, not at all. They’ve been compensated from the monetary value of enfranchisement. Money is an liquid asset is it not? They can invest it in something more ethical, especially if you are a charity. They`ve benefited from the myriad of other fees during the life of the fleecehold. In some cases, some several hundred years of this feudal nonsense.
The fact that a new, just, enfranchisement calculation law will stop a succession of laws and judgements that were originally designed in the first instance, solely to weigh in the favour of the freeholder through unfair contracts.
Imagine the furore Stephen and his freeholder buddies would create if they had a contract terms where they had to pay the leaseholder legal fees where the leaseholder defaulted on a payment!
Like all things related to power and money, people get greedy and this leasehold uprising is the result. The unfortunate Grenfell tragedy and Leasehold Houses scandal have conspired to bring the feudal nonsense to the media and highlight its failings. Thank god really. We are organised, we have a cause, we have great communication and are getting good legal counsel now.
However, these watered down reforms are just the start. A footing. Total abolition is where this is heading and with the right political will and public demand this is going to happen. Maybe not under this shower of sh*t at the moment but its coming. What better in the new direction of this country that it is the `will of the people` to own the land where they live and there is no better way of empowerment to the masses in this country!
Of course well will get the threats and counter arguments like the loss to pensions…blah blah blah. Let`s debunk that nonsense. Pension funds do not put all their funds in one investment. Each fund is exposed minimally in each investment portfolio. Enfranchisement allows them to transfer those funds to other investments. Maybe ethical investments. The enfranchised spend their money, maybe put more into their pension fund? Or elsewhere in the economy The money doesn’t disappear it gets relocated. We heard these same arguments in equal pay, minimum wage etc. Every major dip in the economy was never a result in equal pay or minimum wage…rather poor economic management or policy, as in 2008.
The tide has changed Stephen, you, the speculators, titled gentry are dinosaurs in your thinking and soon to become extinct. After all this is 2018, not 1066.