Numbers Growing and Working Away

To all members new and old, this is to bring you up to speed with our activities.

There are now nearly 1,200 FaceBook group members and many others who have joined our private forum and been in contact by email. Networking has proved a tremendous success and members UK wide shared experiences confirm the common concerns which are:

Pressure of time and misleading information during the purchase process.

Promotion of builder recommended solicitors who are not informing purchasers of the implications of their covenants.

High costs, especially for managing the companies, and poor value for money.

No choice of provider, and no alternative dispute resolution process.

No consumer rights. Small claims courts being used to force payment in dispute.

Both leasehold and freehold properties are affected by establishment of an estate rent charge and associated covenants in the deeds.

The law in Scotland is different, but the issues similar.

Nearly all new build estates over the past 10 years are affected by this – estimated at 1 million homes.

Our conclusion is that the law must to changed – this positively feudal set up is not fit for purpose in the 21st century.

What we are doing:

Members are contacting their MPs and there are indications we will find two or three who will sponsor our campaign to change the law. The election is both a challenge and an opportunity and members are asking at the hustings what parties intend to do for us.

We are in discussions with a legal firm to develop a model for challenging the monopoly aspect of this exploitative set up. Also we are exploring the case for group actions against solicitors and vendors for negligence and misrepresentation. In Scotland there may be a further challenge at the Lands Tribunal – see this post.

We have submitted a written briefing paper to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Leasehold and Common Hold Reform and hope to make more representations for a change in the law to protect us when it reconvenes after the election.

We continue to raise the profile of our issues at every opportunity we can, and are building a collection of useful press contacts. At the moment our problems are overshadowed by the leasehold scandal which has had considerable press coverage, but we plan to build on that by pointing out the many similarities in the two situations e.g. the same players are exploiting new home owners, not being truthful about the implications of buying their houses, using feudal land law to their advantage, retention of assets to make more money and generally behaving in an unethical and immoral fashion.

 

 


Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

RoS Chickens out in Scotland

Following the success of the Marriot case in late 2015 where the burdens were declared invalid due to lack of certainty (i.e. not sufficiently complete or detailed to show what land was being paid far), other home owners on that development applied to RoS (keeper of the land register) and had their burdens removed as well. They no longer had to pay a charge, but Greenbelt still owned the open spaces. At first they refused to maintain it, but the land has to be maintained because of the planning agreements with the council. Then they started selling off parcels of land to unsuspecting small developers who hope to build one or two houses there.

The next stage involved many Scottish home owners on other estates managed by Greenbelt also applying to have their burdens removed, initially with success, but recently RoS appears to have responded to industry pressure and is refusing to use the Marriot case as a precedent.

RoS now expect home owners to reach agreement with Greenbelt (pigs might fly!) or each take a case to the Lands Tribunal.

This turn of events is disappointing, but predictable – the establishment will fight back. Home owners know the more resistance they encounter, the more seriously their campaign is being taken. There are plans to organise a group action in response to the RoS stance on this. More details will be posted as things develop.


Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Public or Private – The Debate

We conducted a survey of 100 HorNet Members in January 2017. Here is a summary:

Only 10% of people felt they were fully informed prior to purchase. This means 90% did not know what they were getting into.

Problems encountered and reported as individual comments:

Monopoly – no choice. Only 7% responded that there was an arrangement to switch management company.

Premature charging on unfinished estates

Lack of proper preparation by developer leading to greater expense down the line

Very common problem of play parks being unsafe and not built to standard

Errors in charging (usually overcharging – one of duplicate charging when a home was sold)

High costs for work done – poor value for money.

Disproportionate costs for administration.

Minimal or no response to concerns or queries.

Bullying tactics to recover “debt” which was often with held payment due to dissatisfaction.

Passing the buck for problems on the estate between management companies, developers and sometimes the council – can’t get anything fixed because no one will take responsibility.

Antisocial behaviour and vandalism on the amenity land.

We also ran a FaceBook group poll in December 2016

The Choices:

1. Forced adoption 39 votes

2. Common hold 6 votes

3. Regulation and choice in the current model 0 votes

Where does that leave us? Are these votes are truly representative?

If the government implements measures from the white paper the All Party Parliamentary Group on Leasehold and Common Hold is likely to contain we would have regulation, right to manage and some redress within the current system.

However, the issues arising from private ownership of public open space and the unfairness of one small group paying for its maintenance are not addressed. We should not oppose a change which will give us more rights, but it will not fundamentally change the model.

Is there an argument for bringing open space into public ownership through community trusts? This looks to be the way parks are going to be managed in future.

What other workable solutions can you suggest?

Please comment with your views (public on the web site) – you may also email or join our forum to post in private. You can discuss with others in our FaceBook Group.


Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail