Category: The Buzz

Reports are coming in thick and fast of mortgage lenders finally wanting to think about protecting their freehold interest in homes subject to a rent charge. Recent reports in the media include the trigger article by Mortgage Solutions on 19th November 2019.

This was then followed up on BBC Radio 4 You and Yours and Money Box Live later in that week.

What’s the problem?? We think there must have been a case somewhere in the country (it was briefly touched upon in the Money Box item) where a lease has been taken on a supposedly freehold home by the rent charge owner. We know the Council of Mortgage lenders had asked the government to amend the law to remove this draconian penalty for non payment of the rent charge as long ago as 2016. At that time the risk was academic, but a case makes it a reality.

We have had a trickle of reports from our own supporters of sales falling through because their buyers lender insisted on a deed to protect them against this measure. It appears the developers who wrote the original deeds are not always willing to do this, or the delay causes the chain of buyers/sellers to collapse.

What do we say?? We have lobbied for change in this area for a couple of years, and do welcome recognition and protection for new home owners in future, we have grave concerns about the situation of those who have a rent charge and no protection. Government needs to act quickly and repeal section 121 of the Law of Property Act so that non payment of rent charges can only be pursued in the county courts, like any other debt. This will let us out of “mortgage prison” and obviate the need for individual deeds of variation.

“But there is no government” I hear you say – agreed and all the more reason to challenge your own parliamentary candidates on the issue before you vote for/against them….

Produced in response mainly to the Housing Minister, Kit Malthouse, following his contribution to the Westminster Hall Debate on 22nd January 2019. We are getting similar messages in reply to our own representations from the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government. These defend the status quo on voluntary adoption and local 106 agreements passing the buck back to Local Authorities and disregarding the role of their own National Planning Policy Framework. There is also a reluctance to rise to the challenge of creating legislation to cover estate charges, although we do note that recently there has been a slight shift towards talking about a legal framework rather than simply access to the First Tier Property Tribunal. We have reports of two cases where the FtT has been unable to hear freehold estate charge cases due to the lack of legislation.

Read the statement …….

It is true to say that when we first began, we knew what we did not want. Gradually it has become much clearer what we do want:

What we want for all new build estates:

1. Those with public open space to be constructed to adoption standards, inspected and adopted by the Local Authority compulsorily.
2. Those smaller developments which have no public open space to be constructed to adoption standards, independently inspected, and conveyed to the residents under common hold with a proper regulatory framework.
3. A ban on estate residents having to fund the maintenance of adjacent existing green space in perpetuity as part of planning agreements. If developers wish to “donate” these services instead of providing green open space on their site, then they should pay the local authority a commuted sum for maintenance.
4. Abolition of estate rent charges for residential property – retained for commercial property if necessary.

What to do about Existing Sub- standard estates?

Whilst we DO want to drive up estate quality and give future home owners a fair deal with true freehold, we DO NOT want a whole (very large) group of residents on existing estates being left on run down, expensively maintained estates with devalued properties. Whatever is done, must address the plight of current estate residents who are caught unwittingly in this trap.

The Law Commission is recommending Government look at enfranchisement (that is residents having the right to purchase the freehold of the estate and run it themselves), and whilst this sounds better than the existing arrangements, there are serious snags. The sub-standard construction leading to “un-remedied liabilities” being the biggest obstacle. We would also argue that most people want to enjoy their homes in peace and not have further, possibly onerous, responsibilities placed upon them and the risk of falling out over costs.

So we say it could be a two stage process. Enact enfranchisement, with peppercorn cost for the land and indemnities against defects. Require Local Authorities to adopt these estates at no cost to residents if they as the new land owner ask for the estate to be adopted.  Local Authorities can adopt sub-standard now, but are unlikely to do so unless compelled. If this seems unfair on Local Authorities, then do remember that they agreed to the current arrangements with the developers.