Civil Justice Council
The CJC is an Advisory Public Body which was established under the Civil Procedure Act 1997 with responsibility for overseeing and co-ordinating the modernisation of the civil justice system. We meet at least three times a year to discuss and agree formal responses to consultation papers.
The Civil Justice Council, an advisory body chaired by master of the rolls Sir Terence Etherton, said the prohibition of leasehold sales should be a ‘last resort’ and it urged the government to find other ways to tackle abuses of the system.
The advice was made public yesterday by the Law Society Gazette.
It is extremely disappointing to see this submission (below) from the Civil Justice Council.
On ground rent increases, the response endorses linking rises to the Retail Price Index, or setting the maximum rent for new build properties at 0.1% of the property value.
‘There is no simple answer to this question,’ adds the response. ‘If leasehold properties are sold at a freehold value, then ground rents should stand at a peppercorn or nominal rate. However, if the price has been significantly reduced to reflect its leasehold status, there is nothing in principle to stop a developer charging a ground rent provided that this is not open to abuse and the property does not become unsaleable in the future.’
TheCivil Justice Council pointed out that if the proposed ban goes ahead, developers may attempt to recoup the income they lose by raising other charges.
There is no evidence of this whatsoever.
Land Registry data shows that leasehold houses have been sold at no discount compared to freehold houses, and that sales have been fuelled by taxpayer assistance through the Help To Buy scheme.
The Civil Justice Council submission is here:
cjc-response-on-tackling-unfair-practices-in-the-leasehold-market
Related posts:
69% of new houses in NW are leasehold. Many owners stuck in limbo. And ban fleecehold covenants, says Maria Eagle
Pinsent Masons believes ban on ‘almost all’ new leasehold houses to have retrospective effect
Farewell to newbuild leasehold houses?
MPs tell government consultation: End leasehold houses. Scrap new ground rents. Ignore pleas for self-regulation. Ban Help To Buy on rip-off leaseholds
Persimmon sold leasehold houses for £50,000 more than same-size freehold houses at Harrow View West
Countdown to take part in Sajid Javid’s consultation
This is disappointing at so many levels… the people who wrote it, absolutely need to come and live in leasehold managed by the corrupt puppet agents we had. Then we’d see their point of view…
They are just trying to muddy the water with this nonsense, we all know the houses have not been sold cheaper
More lies and misinformation.
If this is the case then a valuation on my home now that everybody knows the leasehold situation should be the same as the price I paid for it. Know given the fact it’s been up for sale for nearly 12 months at 4k cheaper with no interest suggests this is not the case.
These houses have not been sold cheaper, stop trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes.
The Civil Justice Council, surely a misnomer. I am aware of The Law, and I am aware of justice, the two are seldom the same. This is precisely what reformers/abolitionist are up against.
Builders, developers, solicitors, surveyors, freehold sharks, all are big and organised (all have the ear of officialdom), and all are part of the establishment. The arbiter, Government, is at the head of the establishment. And of course there have only been 3000 submissions to the consultation, those backing leasehold would have been professionally presented and the remainder from abolitionists less so. Leasehold will remain in place with a few suitable cosmetic changes.
Who exactly am I when compared to master of the rolls Sir Terence Etherton and his Civil Justice Council? I will not be modest, I am a better man than he. One doesn’t need a distinguished(?) career in our judicial system, nor a knighthood, to give judgement on leasehold, one just requires common sense and a belief in fair play. Leasehold is a gross malpractice and morally criminal, The only right action of government is abolition, but vested interests and Sir Terence Etherton will see to it that this will not happen.
David,
Excellent posting!
The only right action of government is abolition, but as you said invested interests and Sir Terence Etherton will see to it that this will not happen.
We need more action.
‘There is no simple answer to this question.’
Yes there is, if you train your mind to truly comprehending civil justice.
Mind you: ” the Council welcomes the intention to offer consumers greater protection”.
That’s nice.
Quote: “opting for leasehold as there is a discount on purchase”. Interesting to drop in this ‘fact’ in paragraph three. Any evidence of these discounts on purchase, m’lud?
You do have to smile: “What reasons are there that houses should be sold as leasehold…? …the CJC is not able to suggest any other reasons.”
Quote: ” What information can you provide on the prevalence of onerous ground rents? … We do not hold such information”
Snigger.
Quote: “What would a reasonable ground rent look like? There is no simple answer to this question…”
Really? How about a simple PV formula that exposes how much the ground rent accumulates? (As even Stephen of this manor oft suggests). Oh, do you not know of such a formula, m’lud? Yes, it is rather mathematical and not legal theology, sorry.
One is not impressed by most of the response. I did not publish my own, carefully backed by study of case law, ye actual maths, and facts.
But I am not an advisory body.
No surprise, innit though? It pays to be rather cynical about the concept of English ‘civil rights’ generally. England seems to me to be one of the most ‘consumer abused’ countries in the Wild West.
As for, “The CJC is an Advisory Public Body”…
Who elected this “advisory body”? Of course, Brits do not elect the vast majority of quangos that run or ‘advise’ the state machine. Where would such egalitarian forms of democracy lead?
Though it does seem odd to a mere plebian that ELECTED governments can come out (as in 1998) and expressly state leasehold is feudal, fundamentally broken and unfit for the C20th let alone C21st century England and |Wales, and yet bastions of the English legal profession do not seem to blush in defending leasehold even unto defending houses that do not need it?
As to consultation, for those interested in how it works in practice regarding leasehold, here is the link to the last consultation caper…
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20060523151252/http://www.odpm.gov.uk/staging/index.asp?id=1151707
Feast your civil justice mind on the info here. Downloading pdfs not necessary. The 1998 response is link two, but they are all rather interesting as to the gestation behind the last ‘Great Reform Bill’.
Click on characterstics of those who responded. Leaseholders made up 65%, which increases to 77% with all leasehold responses. Landlords made up 3.5%. The rest are either the usual professional ‘fee earners’ attached to leasehold, or parliamentarians and non-determined.
The 2002 Act might have had a title with the word “Reform”, but in practice it did nothing to reform leasehold in a meaningful way that curtailed either landlords, or even courts’, attitudes to the leasehold caper.
You have to have the experience and ability first to comprehend civil justice to recognise when it is absence. In my humble submission M’lud.
Tower this way I take it?
My email to Sir Terence
FOR THE ATTENTION OF Sir Terence Michael Elkan Barnet Etherton (phew!)
I am writing to communicate to you my complete disgust at your verdict on leasehold laws as submitted to the government consultation. You might be Master of the Rolls, you might have a knighthood, and you might head The Civil Justice Council – and you have a mighty impressive number of Christian names, but your take on leasehold is ill-informed (example, leasehold houses are not discounted to the freehold value) and your conclusions are unsound.
You will be aware that the law and justice are two different animals, the law allows leasehold to exist so that spivs and wide boys and crooks have something to exploit, justice is fairness. It seems that you had your legal hat on when you considered leasehold despite your heading The Civil JUSTICE Council.
I don’t need to be you (with your impressive credentials) or anyone like you (with their impressive credentials) to give judgement on leasehold. All that is needed is a modicum of intelligence, being adequately informed, and above all a non attachment to vested interests – living in the 21st century and not the 11th would also be helpful. Leasehold is a feudal anachronism which has been latched on to and exploited by robber baron capitalists, ably supported by the legal profession and other professionals. There is no good reason for the continuing existence of leasehold, there are many bad and unsound reasons for its continuing existence. And your contribution joins all the bad and unsound ones contributed by highly disreputable individuals and organisations with vested interests.
To conclude, there is only one proper and correct way for government to go – ABOLITION of leasehold, and with a retrospective element.
Regards (absolutely not)
David McArthur
Judge Etherton is also President of the Property Bar with particular interests in the property tribunals where judgements seem to favour freeholders. All legal of course.
He is entrenched in the establishment and will obviously support a feudal system that works brilliantly for the powerful and established property interests.
The CJC is so conservative it thinks there is nothing wrong with leasehold houses. it beggars belief that such well educated men can not or do not want to see an end to social injustice.
Not so long ago the judiciary supported slavery, women not having the vote and locking up people for the crime of homosexuality. At least leaseholders can’t be kicked out of their homes or sent to prison on a whim of the law.
For the sake of balance the only good thing in the report was the acknowledgement of £700 million pa in 2012 service overcharging and the need for a REGULATOR for managing agents. Let’s hope Javid acts on this most important consumer abuse if he decides to keep leasehold in accordance with the wishes of the judiciary which sadly I think he will.
Joe, interesting with regards to Sir Terence. The Property Bar is (I quote) ” the professional body for Barristers in England & Wales who practise in the field of property law.” That means Sir Terence has a vested interest, much as that other rogue, Roger Southam, has. a vested interest.
He is, as you say, entrenched in the establishment, and like Southam has no right to hold the position he holds and be able to give his opinion on leasehold. Why am I not scandalised? I am not scandalised because I have seen it all before, corruption is the norm.
Blimey Joe. Only 700 million pa service charge overcharging in 2012. I thought that was just the amount I was being overcharged!!
STATUTORY REGULATION FOR MANAGING AGENTS!
REMOVAL OF RESIDENTIAL LEASEHOLD FORFEITURE FROM THE STATUTE
BOOK! NOW.
TO Administrator and Kim
How about contacting Sir Terence Etherton and the CJC to ask for advice and support in the creation of a regulator. Their support should not be ignored.
You won’t change their minds on leasehold tenure but their support for curbing service charge abuse is an easy add on for the FCA.
Overcharging consurmers in 2017 could easily have reached £1 billion pounds per annum. It makes PPI look like a minor indiscretion.
I know a little about insurance. Many tenants would be shocked to know the level of churning, ‘kickbacks’ and upto 20% of commission being paid back to managing agents.
Self regulation and codes of conduct are known as business prevention to be overcome. Remember that building insurance contracts are between managing agents and brokers. Tenants pay but are viewed as a third party.
In fact Data Protection and Treating Customers Fairly (TCF)is used to prevent tenants finding out about the policy payments. Importantly the customer for insurers is the managing agent not the tenant. Insurers are quite rightly looking after their own interests and those of their customers the managing agents. This is business not a debate about morals,ethics or even corporate social responsibility.
It is a brave tenant who goes to the Leasehold valuation tribunal. A single tenant is seen as a minor irritant and no match for powerful corporations with deep pockets and access to expert QCs on tap .
Sales people rely on meeting targets and bonuses and will do what it takes to win business. Many of these deals are done at corporate social events and conferences. Dare I say LEASE is part of this game and facilitates industry network meetings. Peter Bottomley made a great speech about the conflicted LEASE.
RDR changed the financial services business model with the ending of trail commission and a move to transparent fee paying for a service. No more kickbacks to brokers and less churning. Why are managing agents not subject to the same regulation that applies to IFAs,stockbrokers etc.
Putting leasehold on one side, well done to Sir Terence and the CJC for calling for regulation of managing agents and calling for effective consumer protection.
.
Joe, I know nothing about the issues with managing agents but I can imagine what these people get up to, and absolutely there needs to be regulation – having said that, regulation is not a cure all, but regulation is better than no regulation. As for Sir Terence and his call for regulation and effective consumer protection, and your “well done” to him. I consider the man to be wholly self interested, his call for regulation and consumer protection is a few crumbs to the masses and would, in any case, be nullified by clever use of the law.
Leasehold? The fight goes on until leasehold is abolished.
Joe good idea. I shall get on to it and email him today. Alas he won’t get my email before consultation deadline 11am today but I shall send him a ‘considered email regarding Regulation of Managing.Agents.
Alas I do know how to post the email onto this site??
Cont…. I do not know how to post an email onto this site.mi am a bit ludditey!
Joe I have written to Sir Terence.
As has been noted here before
George Bernard Shaw’s All professions are a conspiracy against the laity is a bit cynical but not devoid of truth at times, and this is one of those times. The conflict of interest here makes a complete mockery of any concept of justice, fair play, or even common decency.
What we see here is the contempt of the establishment for the ordinary taxpayer of England and Wales. Only in these countries does this feudal anachronism survive.
It is nothing less than a defence of form of legalised parasitism abolished everywhere else that inherited it from English Common Law.
Consider Shaw’s homeland, Ireland. Brutally colonised and oppressed by the English for centuries. The Irish were cleared off their own land and replaced with English planters and, if they were lucky, allowed to become tenant farmers. Leaseholders with little or no security of tenure, many of whose rents were spent in clubs and gaming houses in London.
(Have a look at this map: http://www.downsurvey.tcd.ie/religion.php to see the scale of the ethnic cleansing; Ireland was the first country in the world to be fully mapped by ordnance survey, in order that Irish land could be given to English settlers).
As we all know, the Irish finally freed themselves from this colonial oppression, to a significant extent by buying back their property. Today a freehold can be purchased in Ireland for no more than 11 times the ground rent and new leasehold tenures of the kind still prevalent in the UK are not legal. And after the Irish forcibly removed themselves the rest of the empire followed eventually in achieving independence and the abolition of leasehold.
Now the only people left to extract unjustified rents from are the English and the Welsh who can be persuaded or tricked to enter leasehold agreements that are harmful to their interests. This site has documented amply many of the iniquities of this system, how corrupt it is, how riven with conflict of interest and malpractice. It persists because vested interests pay off the Conservative Party. It really is that simple.
Remember, 72 Conservative MPs voted against an amendment to the last housing bill which proposed making it illegal to rent property unfit for human habitation. The house builders who have ripped ordinary taxpayers with leasehold houses and “virtual freeholds” have given hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Conservatives even as they have profited hugely from help to buy schemes (in effect, donating a few crumbs of the taxpayer’s largesse, bribing the party with your money). The family trust of the notorious Mr Vincent Tchenguiz, owner of thousands of UK freeholds, has donated six figure sums to the Conservatives. One of his apprentices is Samantha Cameron’s brother, now busy emulating his monetising techniques for his Chinese financiers, helping wealth Chinese do to the English and Welsh what the English “nobility” did to the Irish in the past.
Make no mistake, it is a Conservative problem and always has been. This site has documented how most of the retirement homes run by Firstport (formerly, Peverel, the notoriously corrupt Tchenguiz controlled company) are in Conservative constituencies.
Now consider that the Conservatives claim to be the party in favour of a country that works for the many, not the selected few.
In Ireland it was not uncommon to address the knighted landowner as “Sor”. It is the Irish word for a flea. The freeholder was usually too busy in London to be unknowingly insulted in person. Jonathan Swift’s observation
is germane, because the bloodsucking can only happen with the connivance of others — those allowed to keep a share in return for their facilitation. In today’s terms that’s the army of crooked solicitors, valuers and others. The experts in the use of British Virgin Islands companies, non-transparency, and loopholes of every kind all have one thing in common. They’re Conservative!
Mrs Thatcher was too. She said “There is no prouder word in our history than freeholder.” I wonder who she meant? This is a party still to decide if it’s on the side of the entitled who sneered at “the grocer’s daughter” or the grocer’s customers.
Paul Joseph, You win the prize for by far the best post on this subject, top notch contribution – and they thought we were all illiterate, uneducated, and naïve.
I am still shaking my head, but not gobsmacked, .that Sir Terence Etherton (Master of the Rolls and second highest legal officer in the land) could be so brazen to pose as an independent opinion and use his position as head of the Civil Justice Council to defend leasehold despite his professional and business vested interests. But of course that is what we are up against.
The fight must go on until the fight is won.
David McArthur and Paul Joseph,
This is by far the best posting ever on LKP,
Paul Joseph, You win the prize for by far the best post on this subject, top notch contribution – and they thought we were all illiterate, uneducated, and naïve.
Who asked Sir Terry to produce his biased opinion, were they aware he would provide his opinion using his position as head of the Civil Justice Council (CJC) to defend leasehold despite his professional and business vested interests.
This is why we as leaseholders are now prepared for the fight having spent the last 8 years up against government indifference.
Well done all and keep posting. (chas).
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01974197
CONFLICT OF INTERESTS YET AGAIN …
Unbelievable!!
Good job tracking this down. Though at least the man himself has the company in his name rather obscured through puppet directors – widespread practice.
Well done Katie. The London address of the company Sir Terence is a director of is a mail forwarding address (a post box?). The company who own my freehold and to whom I pay ground rent have a post box address. Likely that Sir Terence is not just “operating of own leasehold real estate” but a freeholder, the post box suggests so.
Whatever, without question he has a deep vested interest in leasehold…
Omg no wonder he does not want leasehold banning. He is a director of a lease real estate company called Rivemoor Ltd. Unbelievable
Fleecehold is like living in a horror film
Is this the same Terence Michael Elken Barnet Etherton who is married to Andrew Howard Stone.
Together they run Rivemoor Ltd a real estate company.
Andrew was once a director of Consolidated Real Estate Management Services Ltd.
No doubt they are already planning how to recoup the monies they may lose if Leasedhold is banned. After all that is what the Judges statement says.
Curiouser and Curiouser….. Cannot wait for the response ( If any) to Davids very pointed emails. I’ll bet ‘Sir Terry’ spat his cappuccino out this morning having received the aforementioned email.
Ha!
This is Scandalous’ . Sir Terry’ should be made to explain exactly why he believes banning leasehold houses should be the “Last Resort”?
If it carries on like this I believe leaseholders will start storming the barricades! Figuratively speaking of course…..
Kim, my email to Sajid Javid
Hello,
The President of the Civil Justice Council, Sir Terence Etherton, made a representation to the above consultation on behalf of the Council. I understand he recommended retaining leasehold laws, and was against abolition. Leasehold MUST be abolished (and the legislation MUST have a retrospective element), Sir Terence’s representation MUST be disregarded. Below is a copy of my email to Sir Terence Etherton, it is only too apparent that he should not have been allowed to have an opinion on this issue.
to chambers
FOR THE ATTENTION OF Sir Terence Michael Elkan Barnet Etherton.
Hello Sir Terence,
I communicated with you yesterday protesting at your representation to the government consultation on leasehold, you suggested that leasehold laws should remain in place and not be abolished. You made this representation as head of the Civil Justice Council.
Two matters of fact have since been drawn to my attention, 1/ You are President of the Property Bar which represents barristers practising in property law, a conflict of interest? 2/ You are a director of Rivemoor a company operating own leasehold real estate, a conflict of interest?
That you have both a professional interest and a business interest in leasehold is sufficient to make it grossly inappropriate for you to contribute, without prejudice, to the government consultation. But I am interested to know exactly how deep is your business attachment to leasehold, does Rivemoor own any freeholds of residential properties? This would be the icing on the cake if Rivemoor did indeed own such freeholds.
I am copying in Sajid Javid to make him aware that it is now public knowledge who exactly the President of the Civil Justice Council is, and his professional and business interests
David your email to The Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP is excellent ditto your email to ‘Sir Terry’!
I am immensely cheered by your proactiveness. Bravo!
Can we have copies of this email because I’d like to join in? We cannot expect to clear the Aegean stables without help. We should send it to the daily mail…
And also the gaurdian.
Damn spell check.
“Guardian”
Leaseholdreform, I sent an email to Sir Terence yesterday (copy above) and a second one to him today, and then one to Sajid Javid enclosing copy of my second email to Sir Terence (see my post of today, above).
It is clearly wrong that Sir Terence – the second highest legal figure in the land with his position as Master of the Rolls – should use his position as head of the Civil Justice Council to make a representation to the consultation on leasehold due to his professional and business vested interests. Somehow I think that Sebastian and company are delving even more fully into Etherton. Expect an article in due course on this site. The Daily Mail, The Guardian? Again look to Sebastian, he has the contacts in the newspaper world, I am sure he will make use of them.
David what email address did you use for Milord? I am going to write him a letter ( sent by email) attaching my ‘paper ‘ on. STAUTORY REGULATION OF MANAGING AGENTS sent to the DCLG as part of my contribution to the consultation.
I have looked for contact of CJC and email is : civil justice council
Does that sound correct? I’d rather use the one you used.
Kim, I sent my email to his Chambers, “chambers@wilberforce.co.uk”. Very likely that my emails will go unread by Sir Terence, some flunky will cast a glance and delete. I think, as you are raising a worthy issue (regulation of managing agents),an issue that the CJC would consider worth attention, best to use “civiljusticecouncil”.
David I sent it via – Graham.hutchens@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk
Graham has emailed me to confirm the letter has been emailed to ‘Master of the rolls’ secretary.
Hi David,, for clarification the email address was – graham.hutchens@judiciary.gsi.gov.uk
Why not resend your emails to that address with a considered cover note?
In a democratic process EVERYONE should have the right to put forward their views.
Your suggestion that because he holds various interests this should preclude him from commenting is absurd
Hello Stephen, I had a bet that you would pop up on this issue before 10pm today. Thanks for your welcome input. I ‘won’ a bottle of Waitrose finest Prosecco. Not bad I’m sure but I’m more a Vintage Krug gal.
Cest la vie!!
Kim, You are smarter (and more thorough) than me, it appears you sent your email to a suitable address to reach Sir Terence. Further, you are raising an issue – regulation of managing agents – which will receive serious attention.. Earlier I received an email from Sir Terence’s FORMER Chambers informing me that after being promoted to the High Court he ceased to be at this Chamber.
I have communicated my unease to Sajid Javid about Sir Terence using the cover of CJC to make representation regarding leasehold without declaring his personal and business interest in leasehold. That will suffice I think..
The Master of the Rolls has been given the chance to put his views to the Government Consultation and they have also been published on this website.
It is important for everyone to know why he would have these views, the same as we are aware why thousands of Leaseholders have theirs.
On one side we have those who wish to keep leasehold going for financial gain, against those who want it abolished,many to prevent financial ruin.
For over seven years this Government have supported the former, but thanks to recent greater exposure of the situation the majority will be hoping for a big change.
,
Awww schucks David! Yes indeed, I believed eve that Milord is no longer practising, possibly die to his elevated role as ‘ Master of the Rolls” or summat like that!
Stephen, You are correct that everyone is entitled to put forward their views.
But It would have been far more open and transparent if in his submission he had declared his interests.
Why do you suppose he didn’t?
????? That is the question Master Epstein. Whether ”tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or take arms against a sea of troubles… that’s quite enough Ed
Or indeed the ‘Grauniad!!!
Meant ” Master of the Rolls” Office.
This rant was written in a non-linear order so probably comes across as crazy. I hope you can stick with it and please question me. Because half of it won’t make sense.
Not banning leasehold houses is not a choice. No one would buy them after the publicity created by the LKP. From what I have seen, there is little difference in value the housebuilders are asking for freehold vs leasehold. Unless they sell leasehold houses say 50% cheaper to make them an attractive alternative to assured shorthold tenancies. Ha! Unlikely.
But let’s talk about flats, as they’re everywhere. It’s a nice little money spinner to developer more properties on less land.
For years, I don’t think I have ever heard anyone say that leasehold flat is a good thing. Infact everyone I know that has bought a leasehold flat as a small cheap starter home has one goal… To sell and move on up. Why? Aside from the lack of Garden, the biased leasehold terms and the concept of a landlord make them so unappealing.
But this isn’t about consumer choice is it!? It’s about controlling us plebs. After all, if you’re buying a flat you’re probably desperate or a city dweller.
When I bought my new flat (in a block of 6) and challenged some of the terms I was told to accept it or not to buy and loose my fees. There was no negotiation. Just totalitarian control on the housebuilders part. What was I supposed to do? Carry on living in unaffordable 6-month assured shorthold tenancies? I certainly couldn’t afford anything else. So a leasehold flat was my only option in my area. I just greased up and bent over for them.
Thinking about how we’re developing new homes for the future. Imagine a world where properties with communal areas and flats were appealing to buy and owned by the people that lived in them! Maybe the areas would be well maintained. Maybe new build estates would have an actual community spirit. Maybe housebuilders would sell more. Maybe more homes would bring prices down to affordable prices increasing their target audience. That would just leave the island problem of lack of land to solve.
Anyway. If nothing changes in the next 5 years and I can’t get rid of the flat, I’ll probably abandon my flat and leave the UK. I’m too young to settle for a dystopian soceity! We certainly have the foundations for one.
I had to abandon my flat, I sold it actually to the’ mis” -managing’ agents (who had their beady eyes on it, as a nice little earner for their buy-to-let collection.). I now live in another flat which is share of freehold and self managed. Its not as nice a flat, Smaller and not as good area, but there is only so much fleecing and doffing ones cap, I could take,..
Brad, good and sensible and rational post. But have a heart, there are so very few outlets left for entrepreneurs today, outlaw leasehold and another means of earning a (dis)honest crust has gone for these (in)worthy individuals Seriously, due to those who trespassed on Kinder Scout we now have the right to roam – those who did trespass were jailed. There is entrenched .social injustice still alive and thriving in many areas in modern day UK, leasehold is but one. That it is but one matters not, it is a live issue at this very moment in time, all of our efforts need to be targeting this feudal and wicked system of tenure. I will say it again, there is only one correct and proper action from government, ABOLITION of leasehold. All houses should be sold freehold, and all apartments common hold with only apartment owners having an interest in the freehold. It will happen one day, lets try and make it happen today.
Joe, I have written to Sir Terence but don’t know how to post my letter on LKP site. However it went something like this-
Dear Sir Terence
As a result of your councils recent activity on Statutory Regulation et etc It is clear to me that you should be aware of my keenesss to see formal reg of modern day Agents, together with proper controls necessary to ensure fit and proper people undertake this work etc.
I also attachéd my ‘Paper’ explaining why I believe strict Reg of Agents is an impaerative along with a letter I had sent to Sajid Javid MP .
I have sent a copy of my letter admin so im not telling porkies!!
Hey Brad, change is coming. Just you wait and see!
Oooops – Imperative!!
Well done Kim for emailing CJC. It will be interesting to see if any of us receives the curtesy of a reply.
Perhaps my words ‘well done’ to Sir Terence were over the top. However, when I read the penultimate paragraph supporting compulsory regulation of Property Managing Agents I was amazed to read something I agreed with ! They may be crumbs from the rich man’s table but at least it is one positive.
I would give a penny for the inner thoughts of Philip Rainey QC on this report and what hold the judiciary has on Javid.
Expect to see the Deep State adopt the language of ‘consumer protection’ in the pretence that they govern for everyone.
I can’t wait to see whose side Javid is on. Is it vested interests and political paymasters or the many..
Hey Joe, you weren’t going ” over the top” re your “well done” to Sir Terence”. C’mon sometimes we have to cling to a bit of hope. You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar! Let’s wait and see what gives…. We can always ‘Storm the barricades’ if we are taken for schumcks! Figuritively speaking of course…….
Hi Brad,
I had the same experience when buying a new build leasehold flat many years ago. .
Developer’s conveyancing solicitor said all of the leases have to be kept the same on the estate and NO change to the terms of lease would be allowed .
Dear Sir Terence,
Of course it is entirely appropriate that in your role as a member of the Civil Justice Council you have an input into the leasehold inquiry.
That you appear to have not disclosed your connection with the Property Bar Council, or directorships of freeholding property companies is rather unfortunate.
This is especially disappointing since it has often been claimed(particularly by freeholders/ managing agents, solicitors and developers that “many of the problems with leasehold are down to poor communication and lack of transparency”. Et Tu Sir Terence?
Never anxious to venture into personal lives, I will if I may?
You, Sir Terence are currently in a same sex marriage. And that is great! finally after years of discrimination couples are allowed the right to marry who ever they wish to, irrespective of gender? Had it not been for campaigners who for many years fought against the “establishment” to establish this fundamental freedom, you would not have been allowed to marry? Worse still, you might still have had a criminal record for loving someone of the same gender. You would still be oppressed.
Leaseholders are similarly oppressed. they are fighting an “establishment” that are denying them their freedoms, their right to enjoy a home that they own. An Englishman’s Home is someone else’s castle!
I put it to you, Sir Terence, that you are on the wrong side of the argument and that you are on the wrong side of history.
You of all people should understand this?
A nice angle Michael., a very nice angle.
Fantastico Maestro Michael!!! I actually experienced goosebumps when I read your post. As David commented ” Very nice angle”. BRILLIANT!
However I trust you sent it to the correct email address???
For the attention of Sir Terence Michael Elkan Barnet Etherton
Hello Sir Terence,
You are, I understand Master of the Rolls – the second highest legal figure in the land, and chairman of the Civil Justice Council. Your remit at the CJC is “To consider how to make the civil justice system more accessible, fair and efficient”; essentially you are an advisory body and make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor regarding proposed changes to the civil justice system. Clearly the CJC, and you as its chairman, must be (as the law must always be) impartial and not be influenced by professional, nor personal interests. You recently, in your (dis)guise as chairman of the CJC, made a representation to the government’s consultation on leasehold and you suggested that leasehold laws should only be abolished as a last resort. You went on to say that government should find other ways to tackle abuses of the current system.
In the face of all the evidence against leasehold laws, mounting disquiet, and near catastrophic consequences for many people due to leasehold, your impartial judgement is that leasehold should remain in place. Impartial? Are you not Honorary President of the Property Bar which represents barristers engaged in property law? Are you not a director of Rivemoor, a company which operates its own leasehold real estate? Is not your partner also a director of Rivemoor? Was not your partner once a director of Consolidated Real Estate Management Services Limited?
Not only must Ceasar’s wife be above suspicion, our law Lords must also be above suspicion. Ceasar divorced his wife at the faintest whiff, the merest hint of impropriety against her. It is customary for judges to make final conclusions, you are a judge, I leave you to (consider and) conclude.
I have just been re- reading all the posts relating to Sir Terence’s submission to the leasehold reform consultation. Cor, there are some real crackers.
I don’t think I realised just how conflicted Sir Terence’s position is and I entirely agree with Mr E that ‘Sir’ should have been “open” and “transparent ” when proffering his submission on behalf of the CJC. It really is quite shocking that he did not see fit to declare his interest in the property market. Very shocking indeed.!
My defence for not realising the utter ‘wrongness’ of ‘Sirs’ submisson is this:
I was soooo delighted that ‘Sir’ was pro Regulating Managing Agents that I think I became a bit one eyed and as Joe poetically said in a previous post ‘ I was grateful for crumbs from a rich mans table”. I hang my head in shame…………shut up ed!!!
STATUTORY REGULATION OF MANAGING AGENTS IS IMPERATIVE
so is ABOLITION OF LEASEHOLD.
I feel the tectonic plates shifting regarding this leasehold malarkey.
Leaseholders have “risen like lions after slumber: In unvanquishable number! Shaken their chains to earth like dew: Leaseholders are many Freeholders few!!!!!!
Whoa! Do we yet know whether Rivemoor Ltd or associated companies manage leasehold HOMES, rather than Inns of Court chambers, offices, and the like?
Personally I would not antagonise the learned judge by jumping to such conclusions without more evidence. He would not have gained his present and past senior roles if he were not suitably fair-minded and extremely capable, surely?
Rivemoor, “Other lettings and operating of own or leased real estate”. Consolidated Real Estate Management Services Ltd, “Management of real estate on a fee or contract basis” – a managing agent?
Nothing damning, nor conclusive from the above. But who suggested that Sir Terence was engaged in residential leasehold? However he has an interest in leasehold, both professionally and personally. The legal profession are one of the chief professions who gain from the existence of leasehold laws. Is it not reasonable to ask Sir Terence to disclose exactly what his leasehold interest are?
Sussex lessee. Please say you are being Ironic when you imply that an Individual who is NOT fair minded cannot and does not gain a positions of seniority? Please be aware that this in no way implies that Sir Terence is such an individual or that he is anything other than an impartial, fair minded chap.
Cont…
Incidentally. fair minded , impartial judges or others should / would never allow themselves to be ” Antagonised. Would they?
Not unreasonable to ask, no. But not good to post implied or express allegations, as some have above, that the man is corrupt; or to bring the man’s private life into this unrelated public debate.
I do not (so far) see any evidence that the judge has a ‘personal’ involvement (that he should have declared) any more than the rest of us has. We are all contributing to the consultation, most of us making our involvement in leasehold clear when we do that.
Why would a senior judge on £220,000 or more p.a. have the slightest personal interest in RESIDENTIAL leasehold? And if he had such an interest, why would he jeopardise such a salary, and reputation and responsible position, by not declaring it?
Sussex Lessee. You are either feigning ignorance or are a wannabe ‘ Agent Provocateur . I mean take a good look at what you stated in your post – ” Why would a senior Judge on £220,00pa have the slightest personal interest in RESIDENTIAL Leasehold”? Are you an eegit or just an eejit?
I mean please just take a moment and a few deep breaths to think about your comment.
I suppose you are of a mind that ‘ Men / women of the cloth ” couldn’t possibly be guilty any wrong doing because they would not have reached senior positions unless they were’ fair- minded and extremely capable” .
Sussex lessee, I shall leave you to join the dots!
Oops I meant to add and Moral and looked after the welfare of fellow humans , paticularly children in their care.
Oh, and said prayers to the baby Jesus every night. How could these men and women of the cloth possibly be maligned? I mean, they have reached positions of seniority and probably earn in excess of £150,000 pa. HOW dare anybody questioning their probity. Shocking!
One might wonder why a national “TV celebrity” earning hundreds of thousands of pounds a year would risk his reputation and income by sexually exploiting children, but at least one did so., and got away with it.
It’s the getting away with it that encourages others.
Whether it’s abusers in a care home mistreating vulnerable people; workers in a car factory sleeping in a concealed dormitory while getting paid (one I remember from the 70s), bankers giving LIBOR a nudge, or landlords dreaming up new scams to monetise freeholds.
The moral compass moves little by little, each compromise enabling the next “innovation” and the emulation.
In many walks of life the nudges and conspiracies that subsequently became headline news were accomplished with a wink and nod by those in the know. Only in the area of leasehold do we have professionally organized meetings in which professionals openly share information on how to rip laypeople off. I’m referring to the govt funded organisation LEASE which has had coaching sessions on how to do exactly that. Not a few suggestions between wide boys in the bar, but Powerpoints on shafting leaseholders by ostensibly respectable laywers and other professionals. Isn’t “free enterprise” wonderful?
Except, of course, in this case it’s not free enterprise at all. Just unregulated predatory capitalism; the kind that in recent years has crashed economies, destroyed livelihoods, annihilated life savings, sent retired pensioners back to work, made people homeless, and perpetuated and increased inequality. (The UK is the most persistently unequal society in the EU.)
What is somehow astonishing is the coexistence of the NHS alongside this dystopian shambles. How can it be that a society that appears to value fairness in healthcare can tolerate the kind of market rigging and unfairness that blights the UK leasehold property market?
Sir Terence deserves the response “He would say that wouldn’t he”; likewise Roger Southam, chairman of LEASE; likewise the board of ARMA, and indeed all the rest of those dining out at leaseholder’s expense.
If the Conservatives are smart (they aren’t) they’ll be prepared for a data leak that will make the expenses scandal look like a picnic. Their best defence will be to have brought leasehold to an end already.