Bottomley and Fitzpatrick defend LKP in Commons and insist on co-operation with Leasehold Advisory Service
Commons debate, July 11 2019
By Sebastian O’Kelly
Some of the contributions to the Commons leasehold debate on July 11 of both Sir Peter Bottomley and Jim Fitzpatrick would have been lost on almost everyone in the chamber, but not the housing minister.
Heather Wheeler would have been aware of a disastrous meeting on April 25 between Wanda Goldwag, the interim chair of the Leasehold Advisory Service, and Sir Peter, myself and Martin Boyd of LKP, and Joanne Darbyshire, of the National Leasehold Campaign.
What was supposed to be an attempt to co-operate more closely – to share tribunal case information was my hope – turned into a swearing, vituperative attack on Martin, as well as more generally on LKP.
It prompted Martin to offer to resign from LKP – declined – and a written formal complaint by me to the Secretary of State and permanent secretary at MHCLG saying an apology was due.
Meeting at Portcullis House
This was supposed to be a semi-formal meeting at Portcullis House, the MPs’ offices at Westminster, to which Joanne Darbyshire had travelled from Bolton.
Wanda Goldwag ignored the agenda to which she had contributed and instead accused Martin of:
“targeting” individual members of the LEASE staff;
said that some had become so distressed that they have cried in meetings with her;
that the modestly paid staff operate in a regime of anxiety in the belief that LKP, and / or Martin might initiate test phone calls to check on the quality of the advice they give out;
and that the distress was so bad that a counselling policy has had to be introduced.
The only evidence offered for this was a series of tweets (below), none of them going beyond criticisms of LEASE that have long been published on this website.
Alone of all participants Wanda Goldwag deployed swearing, once directly at Mr Boyd: who for many years has been the unpaid, volunteer chair of our charity, while Ms Goldwag, a former BA air miles marketing executive, is a career quangocrat with public earnings (we estimate) of around £150,000 a year.
It was an ugly scene, which shocked all who attended the meeting.
Twice I had to urge Wanda Goldwag to behave with more self-discipline, and immediately after the meeting I wrote to her suggesting she reconsider her conduct.
MPs raise the incident in the Commons
It was this unfortunate bust-up that explains why Jim Fitzpatrick asked the minister:
“when the APPG’s officers might receive a response to our request for an apology to our secretariat”.
Sir Peter told the debate on July 11:
“We have to realise that until we can get LKP to be respected by the present chair of LEASE we will only get half as far as we can, because while that sore is still there the Government cannot expect to get the full benefit that LEASE should give and that LKP is trying to give.
“I make this suggestion, which is not for the Minister to answer today. Invite—and if she will not do it, instruct—the chair of LEASE to invite the chair of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership to come to the LEASE office, and meet the LEASE staff. If there are problems, they can then be resolved quietly, and we will know that we can go on co-operating. That seems the simplest way of dealing with that problem.”
I have no idea what were the motives of Wanda Goldwag to behave in the way she did.
It has been suggested by one of those present that she may have been jealous of Martin Boyd, who is well informed and widely respected among those attempting to reform the sector.
It may have been an attempt to provoke a rift between LKP and its MP supporters. In which case it was a catastrophic misjudgement of both us and Sir Peter, who has seen off operators of more consequence than Wanda Goldwag.
The best interpretation that can be said about it was that Wanda Goldwag was speaking up for the staff of the Leasehold Advisory Service who, she felt, were being wronged by LKP’s criticisms.
This would have been more persuasive if Wanda Goldwag actually knew who they were: the name of the services’s respected senior solicitor was unknown to her.
LKP argues that the Leasehold Advisory Service should be closed
LKP accepts that it has been strongly critical of the Leasehold Advisory Service – we argue that it should be closed down and its resources better deployed among different voluntary organisations.
We do not believe that a government quango should swim in these shark infested waters.
We accept that this conclusion may be demoralising for the service’s staff.
But leaving aside the organisation’s succession of dud chairs – of her predecessors, one was not reappointed and another resigned because of his track record serving the interests of freehold investors – we have never criticised the LEASE staff nor have we identified them.
Our criticisms are forcible, but they are not out of line with the conclusions of other organisations.
Former housing minister, Select Committee, London mayor’s office and National Leasehold Campaign also critical of LEASE
The Communities Select Committee reported that leaseholders found the taxpayer-funded service “appalling” and working for the commercial interests in the sector not leaseholders. These criticisms were put to the LEASE chief executive Anthony Essien: the only witness at the Select Committee who was questioned alone.
The London mayor’s office has declared the Leasehold Advisory Service “not fit for purpose”, and has published its own advice to leaseholders.
The National Leasehold Campaign has had no dealings with LEASE at all and is also strongly critical.
The vehemence of these criticisms is easy to understand.
The Leasehold Advisory Service has done precisely nothing to bring ministers’ or the wider public’s attention to the various leasehold scandals that are now occupying the efforts of government, Opposition, Parliament and the Law Commission.
Indeed, its former chair of the organisation told the BBC that this was not its job. This is in spite of the quango receiving nearly £2 million in public money.
If there are leasehold reforms, they will most definitely not be because of any effort by LEASE.
It was the then housing minister Gavin Barwell in 2017 who had to tell the Leasehold Advisory Service that it had to be solely on the side of leaseholders.
Martin Paine trained by LEASE
He did this at LEASE’s last annual conferences, a trade show packed with lawyers, freeholders and assorted trade representatives whose incomes and private school fees are ultimately paid for by leaseholders.
One figure present at this conference was the sector game-player Martin Paine, who Sir Peter described in the Commons as a “crook turning the sleaze of leases into an art form”.
It is surely unsurprising that LKP is sharply critical of a taxpayer-funded organisation helping to train such unappetising figures to shaft leaseholders?
In the July 11 debate, Sir Peter was, as ever, generous in his praise for LKP, Martin and myself – and included LKP trustee Bob Bessell, founder of retirement housebuilder Retirement Security.
Bob believes there is no place for ground rents in modern housing, as he has never included them in his leases. In contrast, Wanda Goldwag declined to urge zero ground rents in a BBC R4 You and Yours interview, the policy now of both government and opposition:
New LEASE chair declines to endorse peppercorn ground rents on BBC
But in an unusual departure, Sir Peter also thanked Martin’s wife, Lynn.
She is livid and indignant that her husband has had his character trashed in a meeting with Wanda Goldwag.
For years she has put up with him working ludicrous hours, unpaid, for the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership in this peculiar, not entirely rational endeavour that both he and I have set in train.
He has done so out of a sense of social duty, sharing the knowledge he has acquired steering Charter Quay – a £250 million riverside mixed-use site at Kingston, Surrey – into enfranchised self-governance.
That has been invaluable to thousands of leaseholders.
LKP has saved leaseholders millions of pounds – FirstPort collusive tendering; Taylor Wimpey’s £130m; £200m for Grenfell cladding removal: would they have happened without LKP?. We have also taken up numerous individual cases of hardship, resulting in either success or at least the avoidance of disaster, forfeiture and ruin.
The division of our labours is vague, but Martin is primarily responsible for the revived interest in commonhold.
And the two Westminster meetings – the only two anyone has bothered to organise – for leaseholders caught up in the Grenfell cladding disaster were initiated by him.
The only reward for him in all this is seeing the efforts of LKP result in public and political awareness of scandals and injustices, and legislative efforts to put things right.
My complaint to the department has not been seriously considered, and indeed the senior civil servant who responded attempted a smear in the circulated correspondence by suggesting LKP should moderate its “unfair” criticism of the Leasehold Advisory Service.
Fortunately, MPs are intending to debate the quango in Parliament in the autumn. This can only be a good thing as it requires further scrutiny and then others can decide whether this is fair or not.
Wanda Goldwag, for whatever motive, acted very badly.
She knows it, and should apologise and it should not have taken since April for her to do so.
Chris
Easy to resolve this matter….. Abolish leasehold. Let’s stop the arguments by making sure houses are freehold and flats are commonhold. Keeping leasehold like this just upsets everyone.
Simon
Martin is a true champion for leasehold reform, with huge knowledge of the law. Invaluable to the cause.
When Ms Goldwag arrived at Lease, she promised to put 6 million leaseholders interests first and foremost. She needs to apologise to Martin and do what she promised.
Paul Joseph
A small testimonial: I have attended quite a few meetings with Martin Boyd in his various capacities over time (CQRA chair through to his LKP role). I always found him to be a gentleman and someone with a rare commitment to the public interest.
He knows, and quite a few know, of non-disclosure agreements that others agreed to intended to protect those out to fleece leaseholders (to allow them to continue their predatory and corrupt behaviour, such as looting reserves to pay the service charges of defaulters). Repeatedly, I have seen well-off leaseholders settle for getting refunds on money owed to them and getting on with their comfortable lives, indifferent to the effect on the less privileged of the business model being allowed to continue unchallenged.
Martin struck me as a beacon of integrity & of altruism in his opting not to simply look the other way but to address the root cause of the evils of leasehold property tenure.
At a time when public life is about as degraded as any of us can remember the moral example of those behind LKP is something that I, for one, take hope from. It is the very essence of “working for everyone, not the selected fewc (to coin a phrase).
And on a personal note, I can say that Martin’s advice, long before he joined LKP, was immensely useful to our residents’ association in a) sharing information about the endless scams and conflicts of interest to which we were subjected and, b) getting rid of our incompetent and corrupt managing agent (controlled by our freeholder).
I have done what I can to help others, paying forward that help. And I will continue to do so.
I have had some interactions with LEASE, and while it has some good staff it has a morally compromised mission and is unfit for purpose for reasons that have been set out by LKP.
Denise Clark
For me personally to hear many other’s experiences of LEASE’s appallingly bad ‘advice’ confirmed my feeling that our personal advice was indeed very poor. I was able to submit written evidence to the select committee’s investigation on the LeaseholdScandal of this. In a time of extreme anxiety and feeling of impending doom, the very last thing a leaseholder needs is dodgy advice ! Being a government/tax payer funded organisation automatically gives the public a sense of security. I just feel I need to do my best to warn leaseholders that LEASE is in fact not their best bet of first port of call for help. Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and National Leasehold Campaign is.
Margaret G
Where is the transcription of the conversation during which the alleged swearing occurred? The evidence has to be presented in such an article.
Chris
I think the fact that Sir Peter Bottomley MP witnessed the verbal attack and made reference to it in the Commons is testament to it.
Bryan Wildman
I recently required advice and went straight to Martin Boyd. It never crossed my mind to contact LEASE.
Paddy
The shame is that the theory of Lease is good – that a leaseholder can ring ‘experts’ and get legal advice tailored to their problem.
In practice it is of little use because even well informed and well meant legal advice not supported by direct in person advocacy at tribunal still sends an amateur before a court to face an experienced barrister that the amateur is probably paying for.
The fact that it needs a dedicated country wide court system to arbitrate endlessly on a daily basis on the basics of a housing tenure that has existed since before Noah bought his first chisel tells you that residential long leasehold is broken and can’t be fixed.
Jo D
I attended this meeting and can attest that this article reflects the meeting accurately. I was shocked and saddened to see Martin subjected to such an attack. This gent, who has helped so many leaseholders for no financial reward, did not deserve such treatment.
As a leaseholder stuck in this leasehold scandal I had hoped that LKP and LEASE, post Southam, could work together for the benefit of leaseholders, but I fear that cannot happen. I do understand that a Government funded body such as LEASE is not a campaign and LKP as a charity can be much more pragmatic when giving support and advice. Just think what LKP could achieve given the same funding as LEASE?!
I have such huge respect for Seb & Martin. The National Leasehold Campaign and leasehold reform would not be where it is today without them. True altruism and one day I hope their efforts are truly rewarded.
Alec
Since 2005, I have on numerous occasions sought advice from LEASE by telephone and have also attended LEASE gatherings where staff members were available for face to face meetings.. Either way, they took copious notes – but that was all – no feedback; no reaction ; no action. The most that was ever available was a pamphlet hand out, and you were then sent on your way.
I finally determined to get through on the telephone to a higher authority than adviser staff and after much effort was put through to an individual who was described as the LEASE authority on the subject (right of first refusal) This mighty guru inquired why I was telephoning him – was I not aware that LEASE handled approximately 40,000 calls per annum and were very busy! And as for my inquiry, he suggested I contact a solicitor!
I told all this to Bob Blackman MP at the select committee Leaseholder meeting and have been very pleased to note his ongoing efforts in the House of Commons on behalf of leaseholders. Along with Sir Peter Bottomley, Jim Fitzpatrick, Justin Madders MP, and Sebastian and Martin from LKP,, I do have confidence we are nearing an end to all of this, as there is now a clear all party agreement for change. No matter what the political future may hold, there is no future for the medieval shackles of leasehold. – including existing onerous leaseholds in flats.
With the report from the CMA and the Law Commission-13th Programme Law Reform: Leasehold due,, the first order of business post Brexit, must be leasehold reform ( and maybe with Ollie’s urging, Justin Madders will move his ten minute bill).
And LEASE can simply face away. .
David McArthur
“fade away”, or did you mean foreign office?
Joe Baker
Deplorable behaviour by Wanda Goldwag, of course she should apologise. I have written to her to say so and I hope many others will do the same.
LKP is a lone voice doing an important job helping the weak to defend themselves against the wolves.