This has been a long campaign and we are finally making progress. It has only been possible because YOU have kept up the pressure, writing to your MPs and engaging with government and CMA consultations. Thanks to you most MPs have heard of the problems of privately managed estates and there is pressure in parliament for change.
Halima was at Westminster on 17th June to give evidence to the MHCLG select committee on property agents and was successful in bringing the issue of adoption to the fore as well.
After the meeting she was able to network with some of the many supportive MPs from all parties. Special thanks to Charlie Dewhirst’s team for organising the get together and those MPs who were able to attend.
With Helen Whatley MP From left to right: Gideon Amos MP for Taunton and Wellington, Sarah Dyke MP for Glastonbury and Somerton, Pam Cox MP for Colchester, Chris Hinchcliffe MP for North East Hertfordshire, Charlie Dewhirst MP for Bridlington and The Wolds, Alison Bennett MP for Mid Sussex, Dr Roz Savage MP for South CotswoldsWith Charlie Dewhirst MP From left to right: Gideon Amos MP for Taunton and Wellington, Sarah Dyke MP for Glastonbury and Somerton, Pam Cox MP for Colchester, Chris Hinchcliffe MP for North East Hertfordshire, Charlie Dewhirst MP for Bridlington and The Wolds, Alison Bennett MP for Mid Sussex, Dr Roz Savage MP for South Cotswolds
Today HorNets were represented by Halima Ali at the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government select committee examining regulation of property managers. Whilst they were looking at the whole area to include estate agents, landlords agents, leasehold managers and commonhold managers there was a strong focus on estate management, possibly because of the complete absence of regulation in this area.
Halima gave evidence concerning the lack of accountability and transparency but also the lack of choice of manager and the need for adoption of estates with public areas – the commonest scenario in our experience. She was able to quote from our data and from the experiences of our many supporters. She explained that the presence of an estate charge adversely affects saleability and resale value of a home burdened with an estate charge, and the concern HorNet has that a two tier system will develop if nothing is done for existing estates to get them adopted. She proposed that RTM could be a stepping stone towards adoption of existing privately managed estates.
Other panel members supported all she had to say and more about the need for adoption and also regulation “with teeth”. Such regulation would benefit leaseholders and other groups as well.
Lord Best admitted his report of 6 years ago didn’t really have anything specific about estate management, but that it should be included now.
The CMA representative outlined their recommendations to government again, regarding more adoption and better regulation. Councillor Carys Thomas urged mandatory adoption and building estates to adoption standards in any event – no more cutting corners to increase return on the site.
The committee members (made up of MPs) indicated they hear about the problems of privately managed estates frequently – it is clear the problems are well known and that the government needs to start examining solutions at speed.
We are delighted that the idea of estate charges being a separate and different issue from leasehold matters has finally made it into parliamentary thinking. We will continue to press for the changes needed to end private management of public estates, and for regulation and redress for truly private estates.
The hearing was in two parts and it is worth listening to both as the second part had a lot more about estate charges in many ways.
HorNet has recently supported a bid to become an intervener in the case of big freehold interests suing the government over key measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which they claim are infringing upon their human rights and causing them financial losses. We believe this to be a cynical attempt to block reform by wealthy property owners.
Several groups led by grassroots campaign Free Leaseholders secured pro bono legal help and petitioned the court to intervene in the case in support of the government. These groups represent people who would be directly affected by the outcome of this case unlike the government who are supposed to represent us. The other groups were SHAC, the Federation of Private Residents’ Associations, and the Brighton Hove and District Leaseholders Association.
Our short submission statement was : –
“We are proud to support this initiative by Free Leaseholders. While our campaign is focused on privately managed unadopted estates, our supporters will suffer if the freeholders in this case win their claim. Our aim is abolition of this model which would threaten the income stream of investors and managing agents who could then bring an action on similar grounds if a precedent is set.
We have discovered that these estates are becoming a new asset class – ‘son of leasehold’ – to be traded like any other commodity. A significant number of homeowners are trapped into a monopoly management provider because they are embedded in the transfer deeds. Often it is the same managing agents which exploit leaseholders that equally fleece estate residents via unregulated estate charges. We do have a strong interest in the outcome of this case.”
At its case management hearing on Friday 23rd May the court rejected the application on grounds that the government represented our interests and also for some reason they didn’t approve of us having free legal representation! To add to the courtroom drama, Michael Gove, now Lord Gove, the previous secretary of state, threw his weight behind the Free Leaseholders’ coalition intervener application with the offer of a written witness statement, something also rejected by the court. We will publish the hearing transcript when it becomes available.
It is typical of the rich to use any technical legal loophole they can to continue to exploit ordinary folk, and this case seems to fit that bill. It is before the courts now as a judicial review to see if there is a case to answer. The full judicial review will be held in July. The government will have to use taxpayers money to defend this frivolous and vexatious complaint from the freehold owners. Let’s hope common sense prevails here. On what planet do corporations have HUMAN rights? And what about leaseholders human rights? Their right to property ownership has been denied by the leasehold system.
Surely human rights over property apply to individual human beings, not corporations/companies – it is a human right, not a corporate one in our view. These arrogant organisations treat ordinary people with such contempt – we are not so stupid we can’t see what you are up to, and we will continue to resist! We have lost this battle but our fight is far from over. Together as grassroots campaigns, we have shown we are a formidable force.
Harry Scoffin of Free Leaseholders was interviewed by LBC after the verdict.
