HorNet – Stop the Rot! Adopt the Lot!

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.

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.

A local HorNet group in Telford are defending themselves in court. It isn’t about bad debt but the principle. Home owners have been hoodwinked into signing deeds which are then used as a blunt instrument to extract payment for maintaining land which isn’t theirs and which gives them no special benefit as it is open to the general public.

This is what they say:

 

We are behind you 100%!