Gaming the new ground rents ban by introducing them at the last possible minute was damaging to the entire retirement housing sector and “we need this like a hole in the head”, said the Association of Retirement Community Operators at its annual conference yesterday.
Michael Voges, ARCO chief executive, deplored bad practices in retirement housing and rebutted criticisms of the media for reporting them, which were expressed at the conference.
“Unfortunately, these stories are largely true,” he said.
Many of them either originate with or quote LKP / BetterRetirementHousing.com, which have been campaigning for an improved retirement housing sector for since 2012.
Mr Voges did not did not name the housebuilder, but it was reported in April on LKP and www.BetterRetirementHousing.com that Churchill Retirement had issued new leases on March 31 with ground rents of £625pa. This was a pointed message to government by the privately-owned company as it was the day before its new ground rents ban came into effect on April 1.
Full report on BetterRetirementHousing.com here:
Related posts:
Anti-ground rent trade body ARCO snubbed at retirement housing conference … (along with us, less surprisingly)
Please exempt retirement housebuilders from ground rent ban, pleads Sir Desmond Swayne
APPG July 11: Retirement event fees ‘align interests of buyers and operators’, Michael Voges tells meeting
ARCO snubs McCarthy and Stone / Churchill by saying there is no need for ground rents
Still hope for zero ground rents, says Brokenshire. Please end them for retirement too, says LKP
Court of Appeal backs rights of 200,000 shared ownership leaseholders after right to manage duel with Israel Moskovitz
It’s good to hear the ARCO CEO accepts there is a problem.
Are McCarthy and Stone and Churchill Retirement both members of ARCO.
It would seem to me that its not just the poor old Leaseholder who is sick of being “ripped off” by way of the archaic feudal leasehold / freehold racket, But now includes many respectable firms who are now prepared to publicly air their legitimate concerns about Leasehold in general terms, etc, and their frustration about the way specific firms conduct their business.
In my view this industry is “toxic” it is largely unregulated, and what legal protections exist are not “Policed” and corrective action to compel wrong doers to put matters right is almost non existent.
In my humble opinion the total abolition of Leasehold / Freehold is the only viable solution to the present shambles. Commonhold is the way forward for this industry and the sooner it is made available to those that wish to adopt it the better.
The publicity generated by LKP and many other campaign groups has been instrumental to bringing about real change, and I welcome Industry insiders publicly voicing their concerns about the present system or lack of it, now the question is what to do about it?
I believe that the introduction of Commonhold would be better all round for All concerned. All firms are in business to make a fair profit, very few reasonable persons would disagree with that. Many Leaseholders are sick to the back teeth with rip off service charges and the exploitation that often is associated with it. The present system is bad for business and will not improve any time soon without radical reform.
To true service charges
Gone up £££££ this year
As pensioners it’s a nightmare
😢 Anchor / Hanover are ours .
As a Chartered Surveyor in the Enfranchisement business my only concern about Commonhold is this… there is no guarantee that commonholder incompetence or malice won’t lead to just as many bad management outcomes as freeholder greed and dishonesty does. A big part of the solution IMHO is a properly regulated property management industry and a very cheap and simple way of leaseholders or commonholders getting the management of the property into the hands of a competent regulated firm and out of the hands of a bad property manager (or freeholder, or idiot commonholder who is dominating management etc etc).
As for the retirement home industry… I would consider buying a derelict house or a non-standard construction house… I would never buy new build or a retirement property, and I’d burn my money rather than buy new build retirement.
We purchased the Lease to our our apartment a little over five Years ago, the Lease stipulates that our home is for the over 60’s, no where in my Lease does it refer to my home being a retirement property. I believe that the term “retirement property” is an invention by others to mislead potential purchasers into believing they are buying a property with some thing of value added to justify the sale price especially on new builds.
I had next to no knowledge of Leasehold / Freehold at the time of purchase but quickly began to understand the cost implications and pitfalls of those industry’s.
We are now in the second Year of our Right to Manage Company, the service charge has reduced by more than 39% when compared to the former Managing Agent last issued service charge. The reserve fund or sinking fund has increased substantially and according to the information on our Monthly electric bill we have halved electrical consumption in the communal areas. To the best of my knowledge and belief we are fully compliant with the terms of the Lease, etc.
We have a vested interest in the upkeep of this residential apartment block that was purpose built for the over 60’s, It is in all our interests to keep our home (communal areas) in good order especially with external and internal repairs, renewals and replacements.
I would strongly recommend going down the Right to Manage road, we found it cost less than £ 100 per apartment to achieve and is a one off cost. Carry out due diligence when selecting a MA of your choice the short term benefits can be substantial. There are quality Managing Agents out their who would value you as a customer and provide value for money in return for a reasonable fee.
I purchased a ground floor one bedroomed apartment in a Churchill Lodge in 2020. The service charge seemed reasonable, but I did not really take in the ground rent charge of 600£ a year. Once I did realise, some time later, (my husband had recently died when I bought the flat) I wrote at once querying this enormous amount but received only information ‘that the ground rent helped pay for the community areas’. As the flats were then 12 years old, the building costs of the communal areas must have been long since paid for! Today Churchlll charge me 800£ for which I receive exactly nothing. Churchill do not redecorrate the communal areas, nor do any repairs needed. We, the residents, do, out of our service charge. Churchill do not pay for decoration or repairs of the building, we, the residents, do, out of our service charge. !! I would love to contact someone to complain, but the management company say they do not use the ground rent, they just send it on,: I am still trying to find out who gets the money. We beleive it is Aviva, but my emails have received no response. Please can someone advise me who I can protest to?
Our RTM seem to think that our 6 flat property is ripe for a ripoff by the self appointed RTM. The management company they hired has a new property person who is supposed to visit the house and was gone a month later. Can’t fire Warwick Estates because rtm big noise won’t arrange meetings or see reason. Fees through the roof – which is leaking for 8 years! Any advice would be gratefully received !