Here’s a short presentation which brings together the major issues we have found from talking to home buyers and residents about estate charges over the last 8 years.
What’s the Problem?
Why Regulation Doesn’t Work
Here is a perfect example of regulation NOT being the answer for estate residents. The properties are on an ex MOD site in NE Scotland. Managing agents known as factors ARE regulated under Scottish law. Redundant MOD estates are unadopted and sold to developers to refurbish and market. Prices paid are low and the residents mostly are on low incomes. they know they have a factor, but are unaware of the extent of their liability for land maintenance.
The recent article in the local press is here:- https://www.forres-gazette.co.uk/news/we-still-don-t-know-how-much-this-is-going-to-cost-us-re-421183/
if you can’t read it here is a pdf copy:-
We feel that examples like this could be quoted in arguments for adoption rather than merely regulating agents in the Westminster governments upcoming consultations.
Hornet Responses
Slow but sure or too little too late?
The government have just announced two consultations. one on adoption instead of private management and another on improving rights of existing estate dwellers with estate charges. Along with these the secretary of state, Matthew Pennycook, has also announced that the draconian remedies in the Law of Property act 1925 (section 121 and 122) are to be repealed.
We welcome the opportunity to respond and the generous time given for response (12 weeks) we will provide guidance to our supporters to help them consider how to respond early in the new year.
We are pleased to read that the government are working towards the two main CMA recommendations of :
1) more LA adoption
2) giving more rights to those on existing estates
Our initial response is qualified by the following major points:
1) We have a continuing concern that a two tier system is developing, thus devaluing homes on existing privately managed estates. There is a need for greater speed of action to stop this gap growing ever wider. Buyers will always go for a home on an adopted estate, all else being equal.
2) As we have been saying for years now, regulating agents and/or self management does not remove the liability for a sub set of local residents to pay for the upkeep of public amenities. This fundamental unfairness must be stopped, especially as construction standards are low and there is no quality control process at handover. To stop the rot – adopt the lot!
3) We are disappointed that government persist in erroneously calling this a freehold problem. Again, we have repeatedly tried to convey the message that where estate charges exist on mixed estates they are levied on leaseholders, businesses and on social housing tenants via their rents. Whilst freehold home owners may be in the majority and are making the most noise, there are other groups trapped in this model, some of them much more vulnerable.
Here is a video from 12 Jan 2026 where the housing minister shows he is stuck in the groove of “freehold”estates and managing agent regulation when answering Mary Foy MP.
On a brighter note we welcome the governments proposal to repeal the draconian remedies under section 121 and 122 of the Law of Property act 1925, which have enabled rent charge owners to force unreasonable payments. Its an important step which would never have been needed if successive governments had not ignored the problems of lack of adoption years ago. As a campaign group we have our tenth anniversary in April 2026!
The Meaning of Injustice
In a recent Prime Ministers Questions session, Kier Starmer repeated the exact wording of the party manifesto on fleecehold. Not promising to get rid of it, but merely to address the injustice of it!
Here is the clip:
Just what does the government mean by ”the injustice” of fleecehold? We hold that the fundamental injustice is privately managed public spaces and amenities on which we, the estate dwellers, pay uncapped upkeep costs. We have most commonly been hoodwinked into taking on this liability at the sales offices of the big builders. Conveyancers have failed to warn us, but the material facts were withheld at the point of sale by the vendors.
In spite of the Competition and Markets Authority recommending more adoption (the only just solution in our view), the government appears to be full steam ahead in Titanic fashion towards the iceberg of regulating agents and greater transparency. Whilst this may reduce the excesses of overcharging for poor or no service, it does nothing to remove the unfair burden on estate dwellers with obligations to pay for estate upkeep.
We campaign to STOP THE ROT ADOPT THE LOT- please keep the pressure up on your MPs by asking them to consider that only adoption would properly address “the injustice of fleecehold”.