Survey on onerous ground rent data. Please fill this in if you have a leasehold house with exploitative ground rent terms
Clair Scott, a first-time buyer of a Taylor Wimpey house with doubling ground rent, pulled out of a radio interview after lawyers asked her to withdraw allegations “made to the BBC and other media”.
The demand (in full below) came from professional negligence solicitors Berrymans Lace Mawer (BLM) representing Bannister Preston Solicitors of Bolton, who handled the conveyancing of Ms Scott’s property.
“We request that Ms Scott withdraws the allegations made to the BBC and any other media,” says the letter from BML, Ms Scott
“Ms Scott is running the risk of allegations being broadcast and/or published which are untrue and may have a serious impact on our client.”
As a result of the letter Ms Scott, who gave evidence on the Taylor Wimpey ground rent scandal to the All-Party Parliamentary Group in November, declined to take part in a BBC Radio Five Live interview which also included Sebastian O’Kelly, of LKP.
Instead, the programme was broadcast on December 18 with Katie Kendrick, owner of a Bellway leasehold house in Ellesmere Port.
Mr O’Kelly wrote to David Carter Hughes, head of property at Bannister Preston Solicitors, Bolton, asking for an explanation:
“Ms Scott is obviously shaken to receive a letter of this sort, and declined to be interviewed by BBC Radio Five Live yesterday …
“It is a disturbing matter that a young first-time buyer is being intimidated from discussing matters of legitimate public concern owing to lawyers asking for the withdrawal of unspecified allegations; especially as these unspecified allegations may not be allegations at all but the “risk of allegations”.
“Can you please either suggest the wording, for publication, that you would like Ms Scott to adopt for the withdrawal of any statement that has been made to the BBC, or any other media; or, alternatively, cease this game-playing nonsense?”
Sir Peter Bottomley also asked for an explanation on the morning of December 20 before the leasehold reform debate in the Commons. In fact, he referred to the incident in his speech.
“I ask please to be informed … [of] the words that made clear that the resale value would be adversely affected by the provision that the ground rent would be doubled from the 10th anniversary, quadrupled after 20 years, eight times higher after 30, 16 times higher after 40 and 32 times higher on the fiftieth anniversary?
“Do the notes or the written advice mention the price and costs in the first two years of purchasing the freehold, or how those sums might rise in subsequent years?
“If you were now advising a first-time buyer, would you point to the dangers of the provision or would you believe the solicitor’s obligation to be limited to the words of a ground rent provision?
“I do not write as the leaseholders’ MP; I ask because I sense another injustice is being added to the unfair burden already experienced by innocent buyers.
“Members of Parliament are grateful to Clair Scott for talking to the All Party Group. We gained the impression that the value of the home is significantly lowered by the ground rent provision.
“Is that in dispute?”
Sir Peter’s email was copied to the office of Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, which asked to see the response.
Sir Peter’s specific points were not addressed, but BLM did respond.
It emerges that the words complained about were not made by Clair Scott, but were a précis of the dispute sent to Preston Bannister Solicitors for comment in an email from BBC journalist Jill McKenzie.
It said: “We’ve spoken to a woman called Clair Scott, who bought a home in Bolton in 2011, and used your firm [Bannister Preston Solicitors], as recommended by Taylor Wimpey (the housebuilder).
“She says Bannister Preston didn’t flag up the long-term cost of the leasehold contract –which included a clause stating that the ground rent doubles every 10 years (starting at £295, so by 2061 it’ll be £9,440 per year).”
Ms Scott has always made clear to LKP that Bannister Preston Solicitors had indicated the ground rent clauses in her lease before purchase.
Of the 109 responses to LKP’s survey of buyers of new build properties with onerous ground rents, 21 used the services of Bannister Preston Solicitors, which were recommended by Taylor Wimpey.
BLM’s letter is attached:
Related posts:
Bannister Preston and Cohen Filippini Solicitors ‘errors’ over ground rents, says BBC
Bottomley tells Taylor Wimpey to explain ‘sharp practice’ ground rents – and asks for names of directors who approved them
I had to spend £14,000 to change double ground rent to RPI at Ausden Place. But will I get compo from Taylor Wimpey?
Taylor Wimpey ground rent explanation ‘not true’, BBC is told
Taylor Wimpey more greedy than the ground rent ‘Mr Smallweeds’ (and so are other plc housebuilders)
Well, goodbye 2016
It was my understanding that Taylor Wimpey were meeting with their aggrieved customers befor Christmas in order to understand their problem and come to a fair solution. That is what they stated.
If that has been done then maybe there is no need for all the nonsense described above and the immediate problem can be resolved.
The next issue will then be to sort out what happens to all the other leaseholders who have not complained, and to what extent Taylor Wimpey and the the Solicitors who acted for both parties are culpable.
Also of course is the question of any independent Solicitors chosen by the buyers who may not have informed their client of the horrendous Grount Rent conditions
Michael, with respect you seem to seem banging the same drum. When will you wake up and smell the coffee? Taylor Wimpey in all probability are not the honourable bunch you might assume them to be. It seems your ‘ Understanding was misplaced. The leaseholders have been shafted and only a very big stick will FORCE these individuals to right a wrong. Forget the carrot. And before you reply with ‘” well whats your solution”? Here it is- Sackings, loss of pension and imprisoment where applicable!
.
Well Kim, I have little more to add to that. Spot on..
Are Taylor Wimpey, and the other builders involved, actually going to do anything “meaningful” to help all the many many leaseholders with these unacceptable/immoral leases
Kim, my efforts on this LKP website have been with the intention of persuading TW to come to a fair and reasonable solution with their customers. That is the immediate problem.
The question of what punishment should be dished out can be resolved by others later. Perhaps yourself or Judge Jeffries.
I think it is a bit early to give up hope of a fair settlement and I shall continue.
I hope that the Taylor Wimpey leaseholders will keep us informed of progress and I would invite TW themselves to come on here to explain their intentions.
Michael, it seems that your efforts to “Persuade TW ” etc have so far amounted to Zero. The road to hell is paved with ‘Good Intention.I am aware that you do a lot of research for this superb website but that does make you immune to criticism. I believe that the highly renumerated individuals at TW will only act when threatened with sackings, loss of pension and imprisonment where there is evidence of fraud….. The punishment will of course be meted out by the appropriate authorities- not by a fictional Judge or myself. ( Hardly Oscar Wilde wit!)
It is inconceivable that Taylor Wimpey would be persuaded by a lowly individual like myself. But if we all pull together ( one of the old Taylor Woodrow quotes) then we might have more influence.
It is my opinion that threats of sacking, loss of pension or inprisonment will not solve the immediate situation.
Loss of company reputation resulting in a reduction of future sales, will I think have more affect.
By the way Judge Jeffrey’s was not fictional.
He died in the Tower of London in 1689 whilst being imprisoned for his own safety.
Michael, with respect I wholly disagree with you. I believe that the Individuals concerned will recompense the leaseholders shafted by them and their compliant solicitors if threatened with the aforementioned. I of course corrected my previous post re ‘Mr Judge’! I was so overcome by your sarcasm that I read ‘ Judge deede’ who is a fictional character…… Happy New Year Michael. Let’s ‘ Drain the Swamp.
Might I add that any Solicitor acting for TW who is found to have acted Fraudulently should be charged and dealt with by the courts, I of course meant a ‘deceased’ Judge NOT a fictional one. Same message still applies!
How about having a specific section on this site solely for House Leaseholders to post up their real word experiences of what is actually being done for them. The section could be “Tailored” to their needs.
Or even better, why not a specific web site like “About Peverel” has..
It could be titled “About Leasehold House Builders”
(Footnote; I hope the Housing Minister and other bodies involved will absolutely ensure that all these “villages” etc that are to be built around the country will be 1000% Freehold)
Good Idea. A website ‘About Westbury Residental ‘ formerly County Estate Management who was Peverels baby and is now buying up ground tents at the rate of knots would be someyhing to keep an eye on. Delve into Stonehaven property. They are building lots of properties and do I believe have a connection with Westbury/ Peverel.
Michael Hollands:
You are correct in “your understanding that Taylor Wimpey were meeting with their aggrieved customers before Christmas”
This has in fact been done but I can assure you the immediate problem is far from resolved and the people who Taylor Wimpey have met with are not happy with their response. I am somewhat concerned that you refer to our “highlighting” of the issues that affect us as “nonsense”.
Taylor Wimpey continue to justify that this practice is normal and reasonable and the sale of leasehold houses in the North West is because the practice is embedded in the market. Does this make it right ? of course not.
As I’m sure you are aware this debate is currently being held in parliament and on the 20th December the Gavin Barwell MP (Minister of State, housing) stated “There is a widespread problem here that needs addressing. These practices are not illegal but it seems to be one of those cases where there is a gulf between the letter of the law and our sense of what is right”.
The issue regarding taking legal action against using their recommended solicitors is another battle and people will be advised to seek legal advice regarding pursuing a professional negligence claim against the solicitor that represented you. There may be a case here that solicitors have failed to undertake due diligence and adequately advise.
Katie, when I mentioned “nonsense” it was intended to mean that the situation where Ms Scott received Solicitors threatening letters was nonsensical. As TW should have by then been in the process of finding a fair solution. Thus avoiding any further legal expense to their customers.
I am sorry if my statement appeared negative.
It is very disappointing, if as you say TW are trying to justify their ridiculous ground rent conditions.
As a lifelong employee of Taylor Woodrow, their forerunner, this situation has shocked me, and I will do what little I can to persuade them to resolve it in a fair and reasonable way.
Can you please keep this website posted .
Hi Michael. I do apologise that I miss understood what u were referring to when u made reference to “nonsense”.
This situation we are currently forced to be In is alarming. Moving forward on a positive note Taylor Wimpey have agreed to stop selling leasehold houses from January 2017 however they have failed to acknowledge what they are going to do to make the situation ‘right’ for the homeowners who have been left in this situation. Infact they continue to insist they have infact done nothing wrong.
My developer Bellway have been extremely rude in their response to myself and a friend for highlighting our dissatisfaction with the situation we r forced to be in.
I am not going to give up fighting this issue. This is my home my future that has been sold onto give investors an endless income stream.
Katie, sorry to hear the way Bellway are treating you.
Do not give up.
I have just been looking at some of the quotes on Bellways website. Their Sales Pitch.
1 Over the years we have earned an enviable reputation built on pillars of quality, service and trust.
2 Customers are treated with the same high level of service during the buying process and once they have moved in.
3 Buying a new home is the most important financial decision you will ever make.
It sounds as if the financial benefit was all in their favour, I hope they see sense and balance the situation out.
Otherwise the claims they make above are just meaningless.
Katie, for the record, I do not think there is any need whatsoever for you to apologise. I read the statement you refer to exactly as you do.
It is good to hear what really is happening out there in the real world, with facts and not just what someone expects, or thought was happening..
Please post up any information you are able to..
This has not been done TW have not made one effort to contact me or my PM !!!!
Linda, yourself and any other victims need to keep this website posted.
Linda, you need to keep this website posted..
As do any other victims
MH, Linda has kept this site posted and advised what has been done for her – nothing.
What would you advise that she should do now. You, and LKP, should surely know the procedure Linda, and others, should follow
Anyone wish to give any odds on any remedy for the victims of the Taylor Wimpey leasehold scam will include a confidentiality clause?
ME, CCs crossed my mind ages ago.
If possible I think any CCs should be totally rejected. It all needs to come out in the open so that the people of this country can actually see the true results.
If necessary someone like the Housing Minister should be involved/oversee it. Comprise a complete file, Total number of properties with unacceptable leases against total number that have been resolved to acceptable lease to date.
Even leases that rise by RPI are unacceptable to me. Leases never used to rise every few years, so why now, yet another scam
Linda, I urge you and your fellow leaseholders to picket outside the offices of TW ( peacefully) Make them listen to you. They are dishonourable. If the good men,women and their children ,dogs are shown on TV News demonstrating it won’t look good….. TW will have to act! Tell LKP and I am sure they have contacts in the media.
Solicitors who use any type of intimidating technique should be reported to SRA and be investigated. Otherwise what sort of world are we living in when we are afraid to speak out?
Also ‘pointing out’ onerous ground rent terms to first time buyers is not enough. A responsible solicitor should advise their client to steer away until proper legislation is in place to protect leaseholders. This is not ‘interventionist’ – it is essential.
As far as I am aware, any statement made provided it is genuinely believed to be correct and there is cause to believe it is correct is not subject to a libel action, even if the information contained in the statement is wrong..
Even then for a libel action to succeed, the intention to damage the reputation of the party that has been traduced must be proved and crucially it must also be proved that reputational damage has been caused.
For example it would not be libelous if I accused a property management company of fraud, as i could easily argue that an admission of collusive tendering is cause enough for me to believe they are guilty of fraud . If I mistakenly said this fraud extended to over 100 developments, when I could only prove it was 65, that again would not be libelous, as that has no bearing on the reputation of the company. Don’t be bullied by the legalese of those trying to protect their vested interests.
Trickery, intimidation and adroit legal maneuvering in leasehold in the UK is par for the course.
http://opinion.premiumtimesng.com/2017/01/06/ibori-london-cesspool-stolen-monies-ken-tadaferua/
Wow, brilliant, its just been reported on “News at Ten”. They actually named Taylor Wimpey.
Taylor Wimpey said they have stopped selling leasehold houses – ha, so that’s ok then is it TW.
News at Ten said “that does not help the people involved with the unacceptable leases”
Tell the world – “Do not even buy a brand new TW house in the future, even if it is now freehold”
Whoopee!!The thousands of Leaseholders with unacceptable leases should organise a March to be held in London ( More Media Coverage) and demonstrate to right this wrong. TW must recompense these leaseholders. Think of it as your ‘Poll Tax’ March- that certainly had a positive outcome. Picket the offices and ‘Village’ Show Homes’ of these individuals who are knowingly shafting innocent purchasers. The Rachmanist days are NO MORE!!
The antiquated Leasehold should be abolished. It is not only House owners but the flat leasehold owners too are being treated like second class citizens. Why then this antiquated rip off system has been allowed to carry on for hundred of years. Only now when the House owners are been ripped off there is a huge interest by the media. There shouldn’t be any difference between the Leaseholders regardless house or flat leases.
One only have to read these stories and anybody can see it is not acceptable to treat ordinary people in the 21st or any century.
Thank you LKP, Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation and About Peverel Home. Please keep on your good work helping and supporting the Leaseholders.
Totally agree with you Mystified. Make your voice heard and demonstrate!!! Get together with the House owners who have been ripped off, MAKE SOME NOISE!! We are all supporting you.
The Consumer Code for Home Builders contains the following:
“2.5 Pre-contract information
Requirement:
Home Builders must advise Home Buyers to appoint a professional legal adviser to carry out the legal formalities of buying the Home and to represent their interests.
Guidance:
You should advise Home Buyers to choose and appoint an independent professional legal adviser when they Reserve a Home, to look after their interests in all aspects of the transaction. You should not restrict the Home Buyer’s choice of legal representative.”
Furthermore, the buyers of new houses are protected by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (`CPR’s’).
These prohibit “unfair commercial practices”, and one type of unfair commercial practice is an “aggressive practice”.
Regulation 7 states as follows:
“7. (1) A commercial practice is aggressive if, in its factual context, taking account of all of its features and circumstances—
(a) it significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and
(b) it thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.”
The National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team published updated guidance in September last year – http://www.nfopp-regulation.co.uk/media/1043356/ntseat-guidance-on-property-sales.pdf It’s heavy going, but the key point is on page 24, where it states:
“4.18 Here are some illustrative examples of aggressive practices.
When you market property
Pressurising a potential buyer to use associated services, for example to take out a mortgage through the in-house mortgage advisor or to use a particular firm of solicitors or licensed conveyancers.”
And at paragraph 5.46:
“Ensure that you do not pressurise potential buyers into agreeing to receive services such as a mortgage or conveyancing work from you or a person connected to you.”
It is 110% clear that builders are indeed pressurising potential buyers to use solicitors that are nominated by the builders. This is usually done by directing them to one of their `panel’ solicitors.
So in summary builders that do pressurise buyers to use mortgage advisers or solicitors on their `panel’ are acting illegally, and in breach of the CPR’s. Anyone who objects to such conduct should report the builder to their local authority Trading Standards department with a request that the builder be prosecuted.
Incidentally, the term `panel solicitor’ is grossly inappropriate, but says a lot.
A panel of solicitors is normally maintained by a company that instructs those solicitors itself. For example, all mortgage lenders have a panel of solicitors that they will instruct to protect their interests when lending money. Large companies like BT or Shell will have a panel of solicitors from whom they will seek advice.
But in the case of builders the solicitors are supposed to be acting for the other side – the buyers.
The very use of the term panel is an effective admission that the builders are controlling a supply of work to the solicitors on the panel.
This is an absolutely classic conflict of interest. The solicitor may only see the buyer for the one transaction and make a few hundred quid out of them. But on a large development they could receive hundreds of referrals at a few hundred quid each.
So if an argument crops up during the purchase or they see something that’s a bit dodgy it doesn’t take a lot of thought to work out who they’re going to favour? If they upset their `client’ they may lose a few hundred quid, but if they upset the builder they’re off the panel and their losses could be many tens of thousands.
In the particular cases mentioned I note that the letter from BLM states:
“Those documents show that Ms Scott was explicitly advised in writing and in a face-to-face meeting that the ground rent will double on each successive 10-year anniversary of the lease.”
Of course I’ve not seen exactly what the advice was, but as a (now retired) solicitor with 35 years of conveyancing experience I am quite clear that merely sending a client a report mentioning this or telling them in a meeting without providing any advice as to its acceptability would be wholly inadequate.
The reason it’s inadequate is that when a solicitor is acting for the buyer of a property his duty is not simply to summarise the provisions of a lease. His duty is to protect his client against signing a lease that contains any unfair or onerous conditions.
Lay people have little or no understanding of leases or ground rent – why should they? And even if a person in this specific situation did bother to work out the figures it wouldn’t necessarily ring any alarm bells simply because they have no knowledge at all of the effects of such a ground rent on the value of the house.
They would also take the view that it must be OK if all the other houses were the same and the solicitor – who is, after all, being paid to protect their interests – wasn’t bothered about it.
But a lease where the ground rent doubles every 10 years is so grossly unfair and onerous that in my opinion no truly independent solicitor would ever advise a client to sign it.
And if – as occasionally happens – the client insisted on going ahead despite being advised against it that solicitor would provide in writing a very strong and specific warning that to do so was very unwise and could cause serious problems when the client came to sell the house.
They would also normally insist that the client countersigned the warning to acknowledge that they were proceeding against the solicitor’s advice.
But it seems painfully clear that no such steps were taken in these cases. Of course if the solicitors had given such a warning any buyer with an ounce of sense would have pulled out. And where would that have left the solicitors vis a vis the builders? Struck off the panel, that’s where, with the loss of lots of lucrative referrals, not just from this development but all future ones as well.
Enough is enough. The Law Society / SRA should specifically prohibit this practice for the protection of the public.