Author: admin

Posted on

Enhanced Protections Response

It’s important to respond to consultations – we believe the positive outcome of the CMA market study in identifying lack of adoption as the underlying problem might have been very different if a record number of 250 individual responses had not been submitted. It is vital that government gets grass roots responses. Industry have whole departments dedicated to lobbying, we do not, so we have decided to produce an email template/guidance document for you to personalise. We hope that this helps more people to respond and give an opportunity to share more individual perspectives. If you do decide to respond this way email to: protectinghomeowners@communities.gov.uk

this is our suggestion for you to adapt:

Response to enhanced protections consultation

I live on a new build/ex council/ex MOD development subject to estate maintenance charges due to lack of local authority adoption. I am a freeholder/leaseholder/shared ownership/housing association owner/tenant. My experience is that managing agents do exploit me via this system, but that this is an effect of underlying lack of adoption and not the root cause of my unfair treatment.

[here you could insert a paragraph describing your estate and its unadopted areas. If you were a freehold purchaser were they as described when you were looking to buy?]

I have read through the consultation and agree that many of the detailed measures to regulate agents and repeal the rent charge remedies would be excellent and provide solutions for truly private gated estates with no public amenities, but in my situation only adoption will put things right.

Self management of the surrounding estate is not something ordinary residents wish to take on, nor are qualified to do so. Support from a government quango like LEASE will not suffice and would not be necessary if estates are adopted. In my opinion privately managed public estates are unnecessary, expensive, harm community cohesion and the built environment. The last being due to low standards of maintenance and construction.

I am very worried that mandating adoption for future estates but merely regulating agents for existing ones will create a two tier system devaluing my property and allowing further blight on my estate. In addition, self management and agent regulation will still leave me picking up the tab for an unlimited liability. Lots of things can go wrong with land which need expensive remediation, for example sink holes and collapsing retaining walls. I am concerned that any extra management costs arising from the regulations will be passed on to residents.

Increased flood risks due to climate change in future ought to lead government to ensure water drainage infrastructure is not left in private hands. I believe it is a scandalously irresponsible that section 3 of the 2010 Flood and Water Act has not been implemented in England. SUDs are not being well maintained by most private managers, who are not accountable to the whole local community for flood prevention.

I strongly urge you to refocus on abolishing private management rather than propping up a system which is inappropriate and unjust for estates with public infrastructure. The measures discussed in the consultation will be beneficial for residents of private gated communities, but not for me and my neighbours.

We intend to produce guidance on the second consultation which is about more adoption very shortly. Watch this space!


Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Posted on

Self Defence Again

Around 2020, a few of us on our estate became more active in dealing with our Property Management Company and the Developer following an increase in our service charges.

With the backing of all residents (there are only 22 properties) we formed a committee of three and had meetings with the property management company, but after a number of mis-management issues, we contacted the Developer to ask if we could leave the PMC they had appointed.

The Developer agreed to this and also let us appoint our own Directors (of which I am one of two) to the Resident Management Company even though the managed land had yet to be handed over. They retain one Director position but basically leave us to manage things direct with the new PMC that we picked who are local to our estate.

There was a £360 setting up fee with the new PMC which we persuaded the Developer to pay, but there was also a £360 “cancellation” fee charged by the old PMC which we weren’t made aware of until we received the final balance. I understand these charges are pretty standard, so if anyone is lucky enough to change PMC, they will be charged £720 for the pleasure in doing so!


This all took place in 2024 and we are now 18 months into this new arrangement. As Directors we can now choose local contractors ourselves, set budgets, agree accounts etc. This does take work (unpaid) admittedly and our new PMC have made mistakes but as we are so close to everything, we can sort these out quickly. Things are far from ideal, we pay a huge fee (£2400pa) to the PMC and our Service Charges pay for the upkeep of a playground which anyone in the village or anywhere else for that matter, can use. After 13 years, our road remains unadopted but when a fence needed replacing recently, we managed to get the Developer to pay the cost.


I believe our situation was only possible because of the small size of our Estate and so liaison with neighbours has been easy and we have been very single-minded in our contacts with the Developer having the direct emails and mobile phone numbers of the people who deal with the RMC and Estate adoption.


These charges are still very wrong and we feel strongly about paying for a playground that anyone can use when we also pay council tax but having wrenched control from the Developer and their original PMC at least we have more control over how our money is spent.


Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Posted on

Consultation Season Open Now

As you will know, the LAFRA (Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act) passed its first stage well over a year ago. since then the government have been working on the detail of this mainly leasehold legislation against strong opposition from the property and financial sectors. Unfortunately for us, privately managed unadopted estates have been lumped in with leasehold legislation.

We do welcome abolition of section 121 and 122 draconian measures to forfeit our homes in the event of a small debt and tight regulation of agents is a good stop gap measure along with a right to manage. Our major concern is that these measures will become the permanent solution, resulting in a two tier system. For this reason we argue that adoption of all estates with public areas should take place, existing and future. It is the only measure to bring fairness and resolve all of the issues arising from private management.

We feel the focus on rogue agents has caused the government to miss the point – it is the lack of adoption as confirmed by the CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) in its 2024 Housebuilding Market survey. 250 individuals responded to their consultation and we know it made a huge difference to the authorities understanding of our situation, so PLEASE overcome any consultation fatigue you have and do this first quick survey for the scrutiny committee of back bench MPs looking critically at what the government is proposing at survey

In the unlikely event of you being short of words, we suggest answers along the lines of:

4) Estate charges on privately managed estates are often mislabelled as a leasehold problem, but they are not about tenure at all. They affect everyone who lives on the estate, freeholders, leaseholders, social housing tenants, shared ownership residents and renters because the charges arise from the failure to adopt roads, lighting, drainage and green spaces as public amenities. Developers build estates, councils approve them through planning, but adoption is avoided, leaving private management companies in control and residents paying indefinitely for infrastructure that would normally be publicly maintained. Leasehold reform alone cannot fix this; the real issue is a planning and governance failure that requires separate legislation to mandate adoption, including retrospective adoption, and to end the default reliance on private estate management.

7) – Other We need the government to legislate for retrospective universal adoption as it is the only way tackle the injustice of privately managed estates

8) Estate charges for privately managed estates require new legislation to abolish them for estates with public access. Regulation isn’t an appropriate remedy 

There are two consultations from the MHCLG to respond to which will inform the government directly. We have also published our initial top level responses to these here

The consultations are long, and it is proving an uphill task to create any usable template, but we encourage you to complete them using your own situation as evidence. Just answer the questions relevant to you. Even if you feel you don’t have much to contribute, every voice IS counted.

The exploitative nature of managing agents is well known and addressed in the LAFRA. It would help if you can talk about the effects of lack of adoption on you and your estate/local community. If you have any ideas about moving existing estates towards adoption, please share. We think a right to manage with land ownership could be a stepping stone so that residents can then negotiate with their councils. Ideas for funding adoption will be very important in getting over treasury objections.

Reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements this asks about adoption arrangements. If you have any ideas about or experience of retrospective adoption, please share here. This is where we can argue for adoption of all public spaces and amenities.

Enhanced protections for homeowners on freehold estates this one is about regulating agents and possible RTM. Remember that all this does is defend against exploitation by agents. you still have an open ended liability for the upkeep of public amenities on estates.

We feel that responding to this one in detail will not communicate our message efficiently and that an email response will be sufficient. the address is:-protectinghomeowners@communities.gov.uk It appears to be a dedicated mailbox, but advisable to include “Enhanced protections for homeowners on freehold estates”in the subject line. We may shortly produce a template to assist you.


Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail