Category: The Buzz

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”.

Let them know what you think!

The CMA have been investigating some of the big builders for cartel like activity around prices, incentives and anticompetitive sharing of information. They have announced that they plan to accept £100M funding towards the delivery of “affordable” housing and a promise to behave in future although of course they have done nothing wrong!

Suppose the promises are kept – how far does £100M go? 400 homes across the UK? A drop in the ocean and a small price for each builder to pay as they are clubbing together towards this effective “fine” – a small slap on the wrist in our view. One CEO’s bonus worth?

We are disappointed but not surprised that this government quango has bought into the prevailing ideology that these big corporations are needed for housing delivery, in spite of recommending less reliance on them in their own report. Subscribing to this flawed logic leads to appeasement and an outcome which is not going to offer anything to those consumers who have suffered detriment from these practices, which include miss selling of estate charges.

We say “get some teeth – break them up and compensate consumers”

There is an opportunity for us to say what we think of this proposal – it isn’t a structured consultation with set questions, and is by email with the subject “Case 51392 – Response to housebuilders proposed commitments” to housebuilders-consultation@cma.gov.uk

We would suggest you include:-

• That you are a house buyer affected by these practices
• You don’t trust that the developers will stick to their promises, they are only concerned about reputation where it may affect profitability
• The suggested sum is a tiny amount for that industry – a CEO’s retirement bonus.
• Most importantly how does the settlement help the market become less dominated by large speculative house builders as recommended in their own report of 2024?
• And how does it compensate for the inflated prices due to lack of competition?
• What is the definition of affordable housing? We think this term is too vague.
• We do not agree that £100M is a substantial sum. The estimated £8 billion extra profit from price fixing is! This estimate was calculated from UK stats on new build completions for the 10 year to end of 2024 which is just over 2 million. CMA’s study suggests large housebuilders deliver 40% and an estimated average overcharge of £10,000 per home.

Please don’t feel restricted by these suggestions, but do try to keep it polite. If you have any other things to add you would like to share, please comment on this post. Thanks!