Sir Peter Bottomley, newly re-elected for Worthing West, told the BBC this morning that he will fight as hard as he can for leaseholders who have been ripped off.
The interview on Brighton-based BBC Sussex also featured the retirement site Oakland Court where residents won a court case involving £137,000 paid in rent for the house manager’s flat over 25 years.
The case reported here involved the freeholder deploying every legal stratagem to frustrate the Worthing pensioners getting justice.
Sir Peter again referred to the “legal torture” that was involved.
John Fenwick, who led the residents to spectacular victory, was also interviewed. Oakland Court settled the case at £68,500 with the freeholders, a pension fund of the builder’s family.
Sir Peter said of ARMA-Q, the new ethical scheme for managing agents, that “it should have been brought in decades ago”.
“The majority of freeholders and managing agents are honest and respectable, but some aren’t,” said Sir Peter, but he also referred to criminality in the sector.
“We will fight as hard as we can for leaseholders who have been ripped off.”
The interviews can be heard here and were broadcast at 07.05.
The broadcast also featured interviews with Michelle Banks, of ARMA, and Sebastian O’Kelly, LKP.
O’Kelly made the points that ARMA supports statutory regulation of managing agents and some of the largest property managers in the country have not signed up to ARMA-Q, its new tougher ethical scheme.
Sir Peter said ARMA-Q should have been introduced “decades ago”.
The CMA estimates that £3.5 billion of service charges are paid every year.
Related posts:
Sort out LVTs and keep on exposing leasehold ‘legal torture’, Sir Peter Bottomley tells the Commons
Stop taking money from Benjamin Mire, Bottomley tells Leasehold Advisory Service
Bottomley meets Joseph Gurvits and Israel Moskovitz over leasehold right to manage disputes at Plymouth retirement developments – but residents are determined to fight it out
Freeholders must not get away with ‘abusing’ leaseholders, says Bottomley in Budget debate
Hurray! Clarion leaseholders fight £32,000 major works bills
DCLG to reform recognised residents association rules
PAST THE TIME FOR RADICAL CHANGE
As the non-freehold retirement sector expands in line with an ageing population and escalating housing costs, so this attracts the wealth and influence that dictates the future of a multi-billion pound industry that has abandoned all ethical considerations and focuses on profit and exploitations of the frequently vulnerable. Abetted by the nonchalance of successive Governments and the evasions of those directly responsible for the administration of the housing sector, the need for the LKP organisation is increasingly essential to the highlighting of what is wholly unacceptable in what purports to be society that protects the elderly, within a justice system that far too frequently dismally fails to acknowledge the impact upon the victims.
Radical change is essential in all non-freehold housing sectors . The market needs addressing from scratch, the Justice system needs to be brought into the current century and afford better access, the banking industry which funds rogue and criminal landlords needs to be held to account under its token ethical lending policies and the protective agencies need to live up to their titles.
It is past the time for radical change and I urge all of influence to support the objectives of the LKP in any way they can.
Tony Turner,
So broken and so not fit for purpose is the current system, that a director of one of the largest retirement development freeholders, felt confident enough to describe residents a “dribbling geriatrics”
Eventually, however long it takes, leasehold will change for the better. Currently, no serious minded individual could justify the existence of leasehold as it now operates.
In the short term changes could and should be brought in.
First and foremost, leaseholds should be granted for 999 years.
Tripartite leases which include managing agents should be banned.
Where a developer appoints a managing agent, that contract should be for a maximum of 3 years, with residents (even without a RTM) having the right to either re-appoint the managing agent or appoint a new company.
Service charge trust accounts must be completely independent of any other development accounts. They must have a unique bank account, and must never be part of a wider “super account”
Even if costs are increased, no pooling of service provider charges. That way, every invoice is development specific..
Managing Agents, should be bonded (as is the case with holiday companies )
Anyone else have any ideas?
Yes! Michael
I think you have an effective and workable plan to redress the balance of power in favour of leaseholders:
– 999-year leases
– remove managing agents from tripartite leases, crafty sods (in the current arrangement neither the freeholder, the managing agent nor the leaseholder/directors will take responsibility – it’s impossible to pin any of them down)
– limit MA contracts to 3 years
– ban super accounts. One ‘prominent managing agent’ with an”income from service charges of £100 million+. managing 35,000 units ‘ etc etc cheerfully admits to placing all of these funds in a super account before separating the funds into the separate client accounts. When asked for how long the money is held in the super account, a director would only say ‘for a short period of time’.
How do you work out the interest due to a client account on money held in a super account where there is a constant inflow and outflow of funds?
I say, put service charge funds into the name of the management company ultimately responsible for collecting them, with the directors and manager (where appointed) being held accountable. What nonsense to allow the managing agent full control of client money.
Waiting to see leasehold reform ! Is the new government doing anything, or are we going to continue being treated like medieval fiefdoms…