Category: Older Posts

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.

Human Rights only for the rich and powerful?

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.

The general election campaign is well underway and HorNets are still working away contacting their local candidates with many positive responses. The issue of private estate charges has always been considered cross party, and so far we have the Labour Party Manifesto promising “We will act to bring the injustice of ‘fleecehold’ private housing estates and unfair maintenance costs to an end.” and George Galloway has made personal contact with the residents of Rochdale via our co-ordinator who is a constituent. This has resulted in his backing of our campaign for the ending of “fleecehold”.

We encourage all of our supporters to press their candidates of any party or none to pledge support for the ending of privately managed public spaces on estates in favour of universal adoption.

Keep it up HorNets – great work so far!

Don’t forget you can use our policy briefing to inform your discussion with the candidates.