A fulsome denunciation of the present rip-off leasehold system has been made in the starkest Corbynista terms … by Tory MP Crispin Blunt, who represents leafy Reigate, in non-leasehold Surrey.
He says:
“Present-day “onerous ground rents” are, more likely than not, the resultant of unconscionable conduct carried out by one sector of society who have superior information flow (developers, freeholders’ funds, financiers, solicitors) at the expense of an unsuspecting and more naive part of society (consumer homebuyers).”
He adds that leasehold title property ownership is possesses “structural disadvantages to the consumer homeowner that can be avoided by legislative reform”.
He urges that leasehold houses be transferred to freehold immediately, and that leasehold flats become commonhold.
Failure to legislate that all new properties be subject to commonhold ownership “has resulted in a collective social cost”, says Mr Blunt.
Bringing it in would also help small and medium sized developers.
His comments form part of the consultation on “Tackling unfair practices in the leasehold market” and were made in September.
They are more remarkable because Mr Blunt does not represent an urban constituency and is not a member of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold and commonhold reform.
The full letter is reproduced here, but here are a few highlights:
“The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 introduced commonhold ownership and should have put an end to the problems many homeowners faced but, because this was not made mandatory by law, developers have continued with the practice of creating title instruments using the feudal system of freehold and leasehold.
“It is known that the dominant reason for developers wishing to maintain status quo of the feudal system is because there is an economic arbitrage opportunity that can be exploited by splitting a piece of land into the multiple land interest.
“Failure to legislate that all new properties be subject to commonhold ownership has resulted in a collective social cost.
“For example, increased number of leasehold disputes going through the tribunal system, as well as emotional stress and economic cost to individual homeowners who regard their dwelling as shelter for themselves and their families.
“Profit making businesses such as housing developers cannot be expected to wish to freely and voluntarily disclose their own “monetization maximization” model.
“But given the prolific growth and activity of splitting the same land into two or more property types it is self-evident the parts are economically greater than the sum.
“The arcane feudal system that remains in existence in England and Wales (unlike in Scotland where the Scottish Parliament passed the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act in 2000) is conducive to the developers maximizing the land value to the financial detriment of the consumer.
“If developers justify their play on freehold and leasehold titles as serving to plug a credit cap for otherwise would-be unaffordable houses for the average consumer, then there’s no reason why the developers should not abide by the same suite of regulation that befalls all other credit providers.
“I advocated there should not be any ground rent as property title should be either freehold or commonhold in the future.
“Titles to people’s home is demonstrative of their ownership to their home that is to serve as a physical shelter and emotional safe haven for the family. Shelter and security is a fundamental need.
“In the long run the government, by ridding the property market of the possibility of monetising and financially structuring a financial payout profile using feudal tenures, the larger developers who traditionally have been successful in capturing greater capital and liquidity will have less of a funding advantage than small and medium house builders.
“The switch to commonhold title would not only result in a fairer distribution of land wealth amongst each class of society, but it will also level the playing field for smaller housebuilders.
“Present-day “onerous ground rents” are, more likely than not, the resultant of unconscionable conduct carried out by one sector of society who have superior information flow (developers, freeholders’ funds, financiers, solicitors) at the expense of an unsuspecting and more naive part of society (consumer homebuyers).
“This relationship is not equal.
“Government can support existing leaseholders with onerous ground rents by passing legislation to unwind and nullify those payment obligations.”
The letter can be read in full here: CrispinBluntLetter
Related posts:
Tory maverick MP Crispin Blunt is urged to back Help To Buy ONLY on commonhold
Seize ‘golden opportunity’ offered by Help To Buy 2021 to end taxpayer-funded spread of toxic leasehold, urges Tory MP
Lawyers to Communities Select Committee: Stop ‘sticking plaster reforms’. End ‘draconian’ forfeiture. £10 ground rents a ‘mistake’. Make legal costs fair to leaseholders. Commonhold failed because developers make money out of leasehold …
MPs tell government consultation: End leasehold houses. Scrap new ground rents. Ignore pleas for self-regulation. Ban Help To Buy on rip-off leaseholds
MP urges Commons to condemn developers selling leasehold houses with onerous ground rents. And names Taylor Wimpey, Persimmon, Bellway and Adriatic Land …
Barclays turns down mortgage on flat where ground rent doubles every 25 years
Has the world gone mad, Crispin Blunt is the most frightful snob. But, hell, good for him, a tart (a Tory) with a heart. I will read the entire piece more thoroughly later, did he really suggest current leasehold properties be converted immediately to freehold/commonhold? If so, the man is an absolute revelation.
Wow.
VERY impressed with what he said.
“Titles to people’s home is demonstrative of their ownership to their home that is to serve as a physical shelter and emotional safe haven for the family. Shelter and security is a fundamental need”
I just prey government ACT.
Gobsmacked. A Rupert ‘Lord Flashheart’ on the side of the peasants?
Move aside Squire Javid, ye maker of ambiguous speeches. Make room for the Captain of the Royal Hussars.
We sheep have a new champion. Hurrah.
Flippancy aside, Crispin Blunt’s two page response to the DCLG consultation given his politics is possibly the best sign of hope that the tide may have turned.
But why still no government announcements?
Well said Crispin Blunt! We need to get him on the APPG for leasehold reform! Sounds like he could himself have been on the receiving end of a freeholder ‘s onerous charges and treatment.
Crispin’s background shows he was educated at Sandhurst Military Academy , studied Politics at University and and later got MBA from Management School and spent 8 years on the front bench in Parliament and is well qualified even to become the next Housing Minister . .
His letter was written in support of the Response to Consultation for Leasehold Reform by the Reigate and Banstead Conservative Group Forum which shows at grass root level “members” of the local Conservative Party want Freehold and Commonhold going forward and to legislate “payment of ground rent” OUT of the residential property market and to stand up for the Consumers interests and defend the Consumers Home .
Yes , excellent understanding of leaseholders plight that needs to be corrected by legislation.
But do we have the Right Ministers to legislate when their Civil Servants are still pro “ground rent” and protecting their ” idea of keeping a fair balance between freeholder and leaseholder ” .
Crispin Blunt and the local Conservative Members in Reigate & Banstead i area are recognising that property buyers are sold property under unnecessary leasehold contract which buyers don’t understand and held captive to long term ground rents which are exploited by financial engineering at the expense of consumers.
It seems that Crispin Blunt did suggest retrospective legislation, “He urges that leasehold houses be transferred to freehold immediately, and that leasehold flats become commonhold.” – that is if I interpret this sentence correctly. Whatever, it matters enormously that a Tory of Crispin Blunt’s persuasion has made these statements. Sajid Javid is not a leader, I don’t get the impression that he is particularly principled either, he will only legislate appropriately if the ground swell of opinion makes it necessary.
As an ex-Army man, I feel sure Crispin Blunt can appreciate the effect threats made by a member of ARMA to a serving soldier whilst on active service can have and who ignored repeated requests to suspend proceedings whilst he was engaged in battle ?
that is really something. Why are the papers not interested in covering the story?
What a bunch of scumbags.
However back to Crispin Blunt. I couldn’t give a tinkers cuss what political persuasion he is. He is my man of the moment!
Don’t worry chaps, I am a rather capricious gal!!!
Well done to Crispin, an ex-soldier who knows how to lead from the front (and not be led by focus groups or vested interests) and say it as it is. It is time to abolish leasehold, and it is time for the government to show real leadership and step up to the mark and deliver.
I write as someone who grew up and was schooled within a military environment and I take my hat off to Mr Blunt and all those MPs and campaigners who have joined the fight for the liberation of leaseholders from what is an unjust, immoral and corrupt system rooted in a patronising feudal and investor mindset. Keep up the good work, and keep plugging away. The wall will come tumbling down.
I have constantly argued that the NPV (net present value) of the rent should be clearly shown on the lease next to the premium so the value of the deferred consideration can be appraised by a prospective purchaser. The discount rate to be set by the government from time to time
It is refreshing to see Crispan Blunt pick up on this point
There is nothing wrong with deferred consideration of a ground rent whose terms are shown in the lease being reduced to nil where the capitalisation rate reflects the prevailing market rates. The idea of 10 yeas purchase put forward the other day shows no real thought to the valuation process and damages the ioverall idea being put forward . In the late 1990’s a 10% discount rate may be appropriate but in today’s world of near zero interest rates lower rates need to beused to ensure that a fair balance is struck
Crispin said nothing about NPV .
Crispin supports ending the ground rent and service charge payments for 99 years or more because nobody can live as long .to the full term in the lease.
Your thinking is locked in the last century as no one can live long enough to pay all the ground rent and service over the 125 years lease. These leases are void contracts with unfair contract terms from the start.
Yes he did……, third line down on the second page of his letter
Stephen, you do seem to rather filter all experience to meet your own world view?
Contrary to your assertion as to ‘refreshing’, Crispin Blunt in reality demolishes the logical implication of developers’ claims (and yours?) that they act as “quasi-financiers’ and shoulder the cost of the freehold “differential” themselves by selling leases at a discount, and do this by projecting net present value when modelling the value.
Furthermore, he says he “doubts such a phenomenon exists” as a leasehold discount, seeing what all those of us who see factual reality as it is (In other words show us evidence) and not as we wish to see it.
He applies a logical argument that developers seem to claim to be acting as credit providers, selling at a discount to await deferred payments. All tosh and balderdash.
Meanwhile neither you, sir, nor any of those who make the claim that the NPV of the GR is somehow factored into the sale of a lease ever show any evidence. It is mere theology and smoke and mirrors.
In reality, when leases are sold at disgusting short terms for full market value achievable, within very short order the leaseholder must offer the freeholder (who probably bought at down to 1%) yet another carve out profit to extend the lease a wee bit more, only to find that the so-called “freehold differential” is theologically added again for good measure to hike the marriage value cut.
It is, sir, all scam in my opinion. Sadly it seems a legal one, perhaps because the poor quality of our legislators have previously bought hook and line into the ‘Lord of the land’ argument.
No you miss my point
I am suggesting go forward that the NPV of the ground rent should be shown next to the premium paid so the purchaser before signing up to the lease knows exactly what the ground rent terms are and what the cost implications are so they can factor it into their negotiations. The government to set the discount rate
In a lease extension if the statutory cost is say £15,000 but the freeholder offers a premium of £5,000 with a new ground rent of say £300 per annum rising by say average earning earnings then the purchaser can make an informed choice.
If the purchasers costs of raising capital or opportunity cost is greater than 3% then maybe the lower premium and higher ground rent may be a better opportunity.
Stephen dear, mummy has a warm milky drink ready for you. Now be a good boy and **** ***.
Mummy’s here my sweet baby child…..Oooh, and a mint julep for Mummy.
No Stephen you miss the point.
As Crispin said there should be no ground rent, only freehold and commonhold.
No more feudal relationships, no more gaming and absurd financial complexities about NPV,discount rates,tribunals,forfeiture and deferred misery.
The law should be protecting homes where people live. Not companies with sophisticated business models based in tax havens finding ways to squeeze leaseholders til their pips squeak.
Dear Paddy,
Pearls before swine.
Curved ball time, my friends!
Could it be that the whole house leasehold scandal was born out of a desire by developers to make new builds less profitable for them?
We know leasehold is less valuable then freehold. this applies to both building and land.
So if we take Stephen’s assertion that purchasing a leasehold is cheaper than freehold at face value, the same should hold true of any land a property is built on.
It also must mean that unlike freehold land, a developer is liable to pay ground rent and only has use of the land for a fixed term.
This must mean the asset value as well as profitability is diminished..
Why would they do this (as well as what has Michael been drinking) I hear you cry?”
Think about building “affordable housing” which developers are required to build?
To proceed with any development, developers are required to build around 20% affordable housing on the proposed development.
Of course developers would rather build no affordable homes as it eats into their profits.
But developers know, that they can reduce the number of affordable homes they are forced to build if they can show that by meeting the 20% target the viability of the project will be effected, they will do everything they can to give the appearance that profits have been reduced..
Imagine a development of 200 homes selling at £300,000 each. 20 homes have to be sold at £200,000.(a discount of £100,000 a net loss of £2,000,000)
Factor in.the artificially created leasehold effect and the development becomes less viable. So the planning authority reduces the number of required affordable homes from 20 to 5. So now the developer only has a “loss” of £500,000.
He can now sell the freeholds on for £5,000 per house.(a cool million pounds) All this requires is for “connected companies” to own different parts and the scam is in place!
You feel unable to put forward any constructive critic of my observation and rather then remain silent both of you descend into immature behaviour hiding of course (as people like you do) behind the anonymity afforded by this web site
Are you really suggesting that when a purchaser of lease goes through the convetancing process that the obligation to pay say £250 per annum is not taken into consideration when buying.. and because of that legislation should be enacted to remove the obligation to pay or the compensation to the landlord should be based on a discount rate which bears no reality to the market rate
What about cases where there is clear evidence that the landlord takes less for a higher ground rent
Kim, this guys balls have dropped, you want a street fight? Or should I take him on?
David,
He’s yours. I play with the big boys!
Slap on the back of the legs for those sniggering.
Really!!!
Stephen dear, what does this mean “What about cases where there is clear evidence that the landlord takes less for a higher ground rent”?
If a lease extentsion under the Act is £15,000 but the landlord offer a 125 year lease instead for a premium of £5,000 and a ground rent of £300 per annum linked to the RPI (or I think better these days linked to the rise and fall in average earnings) then it is clear that the ground rent is deffered consideration.
It would be hardly be fair for the lessee who accepts the second option to later cry foul that the lease terms are unfair.
Provided there is complete transparency with the valuation of the deferred consideration being shown I see nothing wrong. deferred consideration should like consumer credit be subject to controls and disclosure
It is in the failure to disclose the NPV of the ground rent reserved which has caused all of the problems surrounding ground rents, and yet it is so easy to resolve going forward
My point about the deferred consideration being controlled rather like defffered payment terms i.e. the Consumer Credit Act are made by Crispin Blunt
“If developers justify their play on freehold and leasehold titles as serving to plug a credit cap for otherwise would-be unaffordable houses for the average consumer, then there’s no reason why the developers should not abide by the same suite of regulation that befalls all other credit providers”
Stephen, Crispin Blunt made a contribution to Sajid Javid’s consultation on leasehold, quite naturally – but perhaps unfortunately and unnecessarily, he gave a commentary on the situation. That he did so has allowed unscrupulous and unprincipled scoundrels (twats would be more suitable but I go to the gutter too often. I must use the nuclear option more sparingly) to cherry pick and take bits out of context. Crispin’s conclusion was, ” He urges that leasehold houses be transferred to freehold immediately, and that leasehold flats become commonhold”. Which part of that do you not understand?
This much I am certain of, Crispin Blunt wants legislation from government making freehold and commonhold the forms of sale when people buy their homes. I think Crispin goes further still, if I understand the above quote correctly, he is wanting government to legislate retrospectively. It appears Crispin believes it appropriate that all existing leaseholders should be GIFTED their freehold. Might I say, that is exactly what I believe should happen, I think government should go yet further still and declare leasehold a miss selling. In those circumstances twats (oops scoundrels) like the outfit you work for would not only lose future sources of income, they would pay out vast sums of money to those they have cheated.
Talk of deferred consideration, monetisation, and all the other jargon of the leasehold industry, is suddenly defunct. Stephen, charities are a nice little earner, you would do well in that industry with your grounding in leasehold. Go for it now before you are made redundant.
Stephern?
I found this report about forward purchasing on page 6 and collusion between developer and investor :
:http://www.cbre.eu/portal/pls/portal/res_rep.show_report?report_id=2854
Ollie
What a brilliant spot by you! It spells out oh so clearly why Katie Kendrick and everyone like her are in the situation they are. An absolute disgrace and again all the evidence the Gov should need to reverse the situation.
Great news that Crispin Blunt has gone public with a simple message that ground rent should be abolished and leasehold replaced by common hold. Easy to understand.
The key words for me were that homes should give physical security and be an emotional safe haven. Evidence suggests tenants suffer emotional distress,don’t have a clue about complexities like deferred consideration and are pawns sacrificed to financial gaming.
Why is it that our Housing Minister Alok Sharma has said nothing about tenancies and regulation to protect consumers. Let’s hope he’s not another Grant Shapps if that’s his real name.
I can understand MPs with vested property interests staying quiet but why do the other MPs not join the APPG and openly discuss the problems. There are large numbers of votes at stake which are being ignored, just like young people were ignored at the last election.
As a consumer protection issue, what can be more important in these times of hardship.
David
Crispen Blunt in his last sentence of his letter states that the Government should take steps to help unwind those ground rent terms that are onerous.
If his stance was that all leaseholders be gifted a wipe out of all ground rent terms his comments on onerous rents would not have been required
A lease with a ground rent of say £250 per annum doubling day every 33 years is not unreasonable . The lessee would have had it explained to them during the conveyancing process lasting several weeks.
Now having agreed to the lease terms the lessee now cry’s foul and wants to be released of that obligation to pay for free.
Presumably a buyer of a 15 year lease in Mayfair should expect to convert to comminhold for free
The idea of gifting is wholly unreasonable and was not the point made by Crispin Blunt
” He urges that leasehold houses be transferred to freehold immediately, and that leasehold flats become commonhold”, this quote is open to different interpretations. Only Crispin Blunt can say what he means by it, I will send an email to him and ask for clarification. Gifting of existing freeholds to leaseholders is wholly reasonable whether or not Crispin Blunt advocates this. I made the point that the sale of homes on a leasehold basis is so unreasonable a miss selling should be declared, with serious financial consequences for ALL of those involved in the great leasehold scam. That leasehold is a miss selling there is no doubt, it follows that freeholds should then be gifted to leaseholders.
Your post is full of the usual shit advocacy of the status quo, and not worthy of a response.
Dear Stephen
What is unreasonable is the maintenance of a system in England and Wales which denies leaseholders their freeholds . People who buy property in Scotland and Northern Ireland have superior rights than property buyers in England and Wales. As a leaseholder in my opinion the only reason !leasehold continues to survive is because of the vast sums of money involved. This money does not justify the inequality or make the current system legitimate. Progress has to be made to advance the rights of the individual and allow them to own their own home.
David
You are spot on.. Any eejit with a low level grade in macrame will have understood that my bestie ( for now) Crispin is pro abolition of Leasehold and to legislate retrospectively. HURRAH.
The individuals, nee parasites whose raison d’etre is Building “ Ground rent portfolios” are going to have to find another source of easy revenue. What could that be?
I know- How about these spivs rip the winter coat off a child’s back and then demand the hard up mother pay X YZ to have it returned to the now shivering little child’s back?
Either that or they could just shoot fish in a barrel?
Kim, I am staggered by Crispin Blunt’s contribution, not the content because the content is absolutely correct and proper and RIGHT. But from whom it came, Crispin Blunt. I have dashed off an email and asked him to clarify what he meant about immediate transfer of leaseholds to freehold and commonhold. Hope to get a reply.
There are plenty of openings for scum, I wouldn’t worry your head too much about them, they will survive – unfortunately.
And, Kim, this from Crisping Blunt’s letter, “Leaseholders are often taken advantage of by unscrupulous freeholders and RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY MANAGERS. And I consider regulation in this area is a matter of priority”.
Who hooo!,, Crispin is on my Christmas Card list this year.
Excellent idea for you to have emailed asking for clarification re other matter.
I am soooooooo thrilled that the rogue Agents ( The many not the few) will be Strictly Regulated. ( They will be)
I don’t need to bang on about my experience with what I believe is a rogue agent of the worst kind , suffice to say that if I didn’t have my wits about me and wasn’t a strong gal than I would have been in a heap of despair on the floor, and I am fully aware that there are thousands upon thousands of vulnerable and aged leaseholders who are intimated , threatened and the royally shafted by these ghastly individuals and who do end up in heap of despair on the floor.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
David, Kim and STEPHEN
Have a look at the link posted by Ollie above. Everything explained as to how the builders and there hoppos have been dreaming up their disgusting plans and until now getting away with it!!
Hi Lesley
I shall read with interest after doing the Ironing and before the Rugby this afternoon. My friends son is on the bench and has been capped twice already.
Come on England!!!
Not a Rugby fan myself Kim but switching between the Darts and Snooker whilst finally completing my lengthy response to the ‘Call for Evidence’. Just hoping someone will actually bother to read it!!!
Dear Lesley
I have read and printed off Ollies link.
My gob is once again smacked!!!
I have a question?????? When ground rents are reduced to peppercorn or zero as promised by a Sajid Javid, does that mean that the GR portfolio merchants investments are worth nowt and they and their families will have to live in penury?
It’s enough to bring a tear to a glass eye……..
In addition to my previous post.
I am fully aware the the ABOLITION OF LEASEHOLD is the only way forward however reducing GR to zero or peppercorn can be done subito!!!!
Hi Kim,
Don’t really know the answer to your question but our properties were built in 1963 and have always had what I guess is a peppercorn ground rent of £20 year. Out of the 22 properties there are only about 6 of us who have not extended the lease. When we took over RTM management in 2010 our solicitor wrote to the freeholder suggesting they transfer the freehold to us as it would be almost worthless to them.
The usual response was received i.e. no response! Then sometime later our solicitor received a letter from the previous managing agent (to whom the original letter had been forwarded) asking for a fee of £1,000 to do a survey and a further fee of £3,400 if we went ahead with the purchase of the freehold. At this point we were not prepared to give any money whatsoever to said managing agent and without knowledge of likely cost for freehold could not proceed.
Those who extended their leases up to about 2005 only paid around £2,000 but now we are being asked in excess of £20,000!! I have included all this information to ‘call for evidence’ but what good it will do who knows?
All the best for tomorrow Kim look forward to hearing the outcome!!
Dear Lesley.
I reckon your freeholder is “ avin a larf”. £20,000 for extending the lease. In their dreams, The times they are a changing. NO MORE SHAFTING OF LEASEHOLDERS.
Thanks for your comment re my debut at Court tomorrow. I shall be tres interested to see what the deputy judge thinks of this utter travesty. I shall keep you all posted of events.
I hope the claim is struck out, else the big guns are going to have to be employed. So tiresome but necessary.
Here it is again- discloses “forward selling” of the captive leaseholders’ future life time savings .
https://www.adls.org.nz/for-the-profession/news-and-opinion/2014/9/26/a-rose-by-any-other-name-%E2%80%93-sham-trust-finding/
Sorry posting wrong link. DELETE and see below :
About forward selling of captive leaseholders future lifetime savings..
http://www.cbre.eu/portal/pls/portal/res_rep.show_report?report_id=2854
Will the governments new proposals deal with cases where vendors “tosh” our the house to get the highest price for the property where the costs of the makeover are far less than the increase in value.
The point I am making is that if a developer imposes a ground rent to maximise his price it is to be expected in a free market economy. If they are greedy then that are no more greedy than every homeowner in the land who tries to get the maximum price for the property notwithstanding they may have paid a fraction of the price many years ago
Provided he value of the commitment ie it’s NPV is clearly shown next to the premium paid the purchaser can make an informed choice
Hello Stephen old boy, I have made observations previously about your appalling communication skills, this post is another glorious example. You are like the Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland who stated “Words mean exactly what I intend them to mean”. Your grammar is quite shocking, choice of words equally so, and the end result requires immense diligence on the part of the reader to achieve any understanding at all. By the way Oxford English dictionary defines “tosh” as “rubbish” – entirely the opposite of your intent.
Talking of “tosh”, another meaning of the word is “nonsense”, a suitable word to use regarding this post of yours. The very idea that government can legislate in the area you suggested – when a vendor has overpriced their enhanced house due to overvaluing the enhancement – defies belief. Mummy should stop putting the magic mushroom concoction in your hot milky drinks before you go to bed.
Chalk and cheese, to compare ordinary people selling their houses and trying to achieve the highest price with a powerful morally criminal cabal of developers, freeholders, and professionals is like comparing a naughty boy with Adolf Hitler.
Stephen old boy. Crispin Blunt (a Conservative MP no less) was excoriating about the leasehold industry, absolutely damning. But you keep on churning out the same old, barely intelligible, rubbish. Time for you to change tack, let us suppose God said leasehold should be abolished, would you listen then?
David.
Now don’t you be chiding the little honey chile!
Mamas gonna have to buy the sweet baby chile a mockingbird. You hush now…
I have got to get out more!! ????
Just thinking the same thing, Kim, and am about to do so.
I am not by nature a bully nor do I seek to diminish people with mockery, and Stephen is an unfair target anyway, he is merely an employee of a satanic ground rent company. I would much prefer his employer appeared here to defend his indefensible and unconscionable trade. But these guys hide in the shadows, do they not.
David,
.Yes, these “ Guys do hide in the shadows”.
However through the sterling efforts of LKP et al , The old “game girl” that is LEASEHOLD has had her skirts lifted and the stench is pretty foul.
Decent Folks are holding their noses and retching at the stench.
The end is coming for these chancers and they cant believe that the party that is called “shaft the leaseholder” will soon be at an end.
Bring a tear to glass eye……
It was Humpty Dumpty, not The Mad Hatter who spoke of words meaning what he intends them to mean. Thought it necessary to correct this error, such an error might lead people to think I am not well read – I have you know I am half way through a learned and erudite tomb by Roger Southam, “Deferred Consideration, Modern Ground Rents, Monetisation, and Other Scams The Mafia Wouldn’t Touch Due to Unnecessary Concerns for Their Reputation”..
‘Typo’ in your post as there was in Stephen’s earlier contribution. ‘Tosh’ rather than ‘Posh’. Keys are next to each other on my phone. However I will restrain myself and give you both the degree of respect you deserve, whatever that may be!
Stephen, the “normal” homeowner buys a property aided by a mortgage and hopefully his property will appreciate in value over the years giving the homeowner a worthwhile asset.
What they do not do is borrow way in excess of the value of the home, create an artificial leasehold and monetise every possible source of income that can be derived from the creation of such a lease.
And the “normal” homeowner typically takes out a mortgage over a 25 year period (sometimes extended by a few years) They do not take a mortgage out over a 150 year period as was the custom of the totally discredited Vincent Tchenguiz and his acolytes who are now deservedly reaping what they sowed.
Master E
Well said. You know of what you speak.
Stephen’s postings and his connections with Tchenguiz and the GRIF trust are great examples of the ‘unconscionable’ cheaters of the naive.
Being naive is not a crime but rip ping off homeowners is a costly moral crime made all the worse because it is legal and funded by the taxpayer through Help to Buy.
The DCLG and HCA act like Pontius Pilate when they hand over all this taxpayers’ money to developers. They have nothing to say about the feudal content of lease agreements.
Thank you MP Blunt. Please spare a thought for suffering owners of houses on estates with same unreasonable Service charges levied on my fellow leaseholders. Firstport JB Leitch and their fellow scums using section 121 notice to bully me because I am classified as a trouble maker for showing my neighbours where Firstport is reaping us off big time. We have nothing to show for what we have paid in a decade. I shall be writing to MP Blunt as my MP is not interested.
Email
Mer C
Have you signed the online petition ABOLISH LEASEHOLD and introduce STRICT REGULATION OF MANAGING AGENTS.started by Katie Kendrick the founder of NLC?
If not please locate it on Facebook / Twitter sign it and SHARE IT. I am sure all your neighbours will sign too.
There are far too many dishonest individuals operating in Residential Management. Help us to rid ourselves of these rogues.
Thanks Kim
I will do straight away as I am busy trying to get these vultures off my back.
Excellent Mer C.
Sign and share that petition. We are all on the same side. Strength in numbers.
Your supporters will help you getting the “ Vultures” off your back. Have no fear!
Dear Mer C
You stand strong. DO NOT allow yourself to be bullied or intimated and if you feel that the solicitor is behaving inappropriately then report them to the SRA. Remember-
It is better to die on your feet then live on your knees.
You will have much support from contributors to the site. You are not alone.