Lord Best report

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post

    Commonhold would not address Stacker 's concerns.
    I don't think common hold would address the vast majority of concerns that people have about leasehold properties.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by desamax View Post
      There are far to many horror stories about leaseholders being miss treated, reform had to happen. BTL Landlords have encountered rogue landlords and P poor Man companies.
      Most Leaseholders never knew what they were getting into because of nice sales people who even let you use their solicitor to get the deal done. Landlords and their klan have ruined it for themselves. Imo the only profit made on a house or flat should come from the sale of it. Commonhold is the only way, it works in many other countries. An d we don’t see that many leaseholds abroad.
      Its a captive market where leaseholders are vulnerable to financial abuse time and time again...it if stacked against them...

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by eagle2 View Post
        Do we need a new regulator?

        Time will tell but my initial view is that agents charges will increase if and when the proposals are implemented. The cost of training and membership of the regulator will be passed on to leaseholders.

        If the regulator suggests a list of fees which may be charged and a set of tariffs, that will become the minimum and then agents are likely to provide extreme examples of those fees being inadequate which is likely to increase the charges.

        More transparency is fine but the report seems to identify the problem of identifying when the agent fails to disclose information. Is it realistic to expect solicitors and accountants to report agents who are instructing them?

        I could not find anything about enfranchisement or forfeiture and only 3 short paragraphs about commonhold.
        Secret profit commissions are a criminal offence under the Bribery Act 2010 and if an insurance broker is found to be liable, the courts may also charge the Directors and other Officers of the company. Therefore, there is an added incentive for insurance brokerage firms to tighten up their systems and controls and to encourage transparency, which would be a welcome development.
        Recovering secret profit commissions

        For those affected, there are options. When a broker lacks integrity and fails to act in the best interests of his principal by accruing secret commissions, the affected parties may have a claim for non-disclosure against the broker and potentially their Directors and Officers. Undisclosed sums may be recoverable going back as far as six years prior to the current claim, so long as secret commission payments were made throughout that period.
        A shifting of the tide
        Secret profits commissions have been a lucrative feature of the UK property insurance market for many years, however there are signs that the tide is shifting in favour of a more transparent, client focused approach, where landlords, managing agents and insurance brokers are not allowed to unduly profit from revenue-generating schemes at the expense of the client.
        In September 2014, in a landmark case, the Supreme Court held that bribes and other secret commissions received by an insurance broker are the true property of the principal and that the broker shall hold the sums 'on trust' for the principal. This decision simplified what was a very complex and unclear area of law and represents a clear shift towards transparency and client duty of care.
        In March 2016, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published its long awaited paper on 'Residential Property Management Services' concluding that a greater emphasis should be placed on transparency and integrity and recommending that property managers "disclose what is included (i) within the core management fee and rates of management charges, [IMG]file:///C:/Users/yperr/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.jpg[/IMG]administration and supplementary charges, and (iii) commissions (including commissions earned by the property manager for arranging the buildings insurance)."
        This is good news for lessees and reflects the changing tide, which insists on greater integrity from insurance brokers and an increased clarity in their disclosure to clients of all commissions received when placing business.

        Comment


          #34
          LKP have some interesting proposals on common hold, they have helped and advised leaseholders Change to common hold that indecently works far better than leasehold worldwide.
          If anyone wants to direct any concerns their way I sure they will put you in the picture.

          https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/

          Comment


            #35


            Someone will already have worked out that there are profits to be made from buying leaseholds from overly pessimistic owners at distressed prices, holding them for a couple of years and then enfranchising. I don’t think we have heard the end of the scandal yet.
            Rather, we are about to see one set of opportunists replaced with another.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by eagle2 View Post
              Michelle - please do not exaggerate, LKP is not the "true champions of leaseholders", your knowledge of the subject seems to be seriously flawed, please carry out some research and study the history.
              Could you please expand more about LKP. Leasehold Knowledge Partnership have been instrumental in the leasehold reform work.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by desamax View Post
                LKP have some interesting proposals on common hold, they have helped and advised leaseholders Change to common hold that indecently works far better than leasehold worldwide.
                If anyone wants to direct any concerns their way I sure they will put you in the picture.

                https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/
                Desamax - did you maybe mean "invariably" lol

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by Leaseholdscandal View Post

                  Could you please expand more about LKP. Leasehold Knowledge Partnership have been instrumental in the leasehold reform work.
                  I have no objection at all to organisations representing leaseholders, on the contrary I welcome them, I am simply correcting some of the wildly exaggerated and incorrect statements which have been made on this forum.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by desamax View Post
                    LKP have some interesting proposals on common hold, they have helped and advised leaseholders Change to common hold that indecently works far better than leasehold worldwide.
                    If anyone wants to direct any concerns their way I sure they will put you in the picture.

                    https://www.leaseholdknowledge.com/
                    The idea of Commonhold is not new as some people will have you believe and seem to be claiming credit for. It was proposed in 1967 and in 1991 there was a question in the Commons “why has an idea that was generally welcomed by the profession taken so long to convince the Government?” . The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act was not introduced until 2002. Commonhold properties remain rare.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      This was a statement made in the Commons in 1992

                      “the rapacious … landlords have every reason to be apprehensive. Many hon. Members have had experience of such landlords, but their racket has been rumbled and their game is up.”

                      Does that seem familiar?

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by eagle2 View Post

                        I have no objection at all to organisations representing leaseholders, on the contrary I welcome them, I am simply correcting some of the wildly exaggerated and incorrect statements which have been made on this forum.
                        I made an error (meant LEASE- not FTT) through tiredness rather than ignorance and was grateful to Gordon for pointing this out.
                        I don't agree that I am " wildly exaggerating" about the huge, prolonged efforts LKP have made in fighting to highlight and effect change and justice for leaseholders. The fact that - to date - they have had little success in bringing this about says everything about those in power, who, for self interest want the feudal system and all it's blatant injustices to continue. It is not a reflection on LKP and it's battle for fairness and justice for leaseholders.
                        To be fair, I think it is you, not I, who need to do a little more research regarding LKP and the work they do.
                        And incidentally - who is stating that Commonhold is a new idea?

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Michelle – I think that you have advertised the LKP enough times already, please read the forum’s rules. You repeated your error regarding the LKP applying to be represented on the FTT so your explanation does not stand up. My comments relate to your statements and I am more than happy for the readers to judge for themselves.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by eagle2 View Post

                            Michelle – I think that you have advertised the LKP enough times already, please read the forum’s rules. You repeated your error regarding the LKP applying to be represented on the FTT so your explanation does not stand up. My comments relate to your statements and I am more than happy for the readers to judge for themselves.
                            I have mentioned them I think twice.
                            The other times they have been mentioned is in reply to your comments.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by eagle2 View Post
                              This was a statement made in the Commons in 1992

                              “the rapacious … landlords have every reason to be apprehensive. Many hon. Members have had experience of such landlords, but their racket has been rumbled and their game is up.”

                              Does that seem familiar?
                              1992 was a bad year for UK Government because currency speculators forced the GBP out of the ERM ( exchange rate mechanism ) linking £ to DM at 2.8 )

                              1993 Major Change : Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a lease extension. The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 gives lessees the right to surrender the existing lease and acquire a new lease on their property.

                              The new lease will be on the same terms as the existing lease except for the following:-
                              • The ‘new’ lease will be at a ‘peppercorn’ ground rent (effectively no ground rent)
                              • The new lease will be for a term expiring 90 years after the end date of the existing lease.

                              This means that if the lessee is paying £100 a year ground rent at the moment they will no longer have to pay this. If the existing lease were to have an unexpired term of 75 years the new lease would be for a term of 75 + 90 years (i.e. 165 years).

                              2002 Major Change : Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 :

                              2019 Major Change : Ending sale of houses under leasehold title.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by eagle2 View Post

                                Michelle – I think that you have advertised the LKP enough times already, please read the forum’s rules. You repeated your error regarding the LKP applying to be represented on the FTT so your explanation does not stand up. My comments relate to your statements and I am more than happy for the readers to judge for themselves.

                                Eagle 2. Nothing wrong discussing LKP in this forum and discussing is NOT advertising . . LKP are not a trading company and does not breach the forum rules.

                                You said in post #40 :

                                This was a statement made in the Commons in 1992

                                “the rapacious … landlords have every reason to be apprehensive. Many hon. Members have had experience of such landlords, but their racket has been rumbled and their game is up.”

                                LKP has been putting the "1992 statement " into action in 2019 by exposing the abuse under the leasehold property system and campaigning at MP level for changes to UK laws for Leasehold to be replaced by Commonhold.


                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                • Priorities for Leasehold Reform
                                  eagle2
                                  In no particular order
                                  All service charge monies must be held in a separate client bank account, someone eg the regulator should carry out random checks that it is being held correctly
                                  All reserve fund monies must be held in a separate client bank deposit account, monies paid in immediately...
                                  25-07-2019, 09:20 AM
                                • Reply to Priorities for Leasehold Reform
                                  eagle2
                                  I do not hate everything leasehold at all, I just want a fair deal for leaseholders.

                                  At present, there is much which is wrong, which needs to be addressed. The vultures who abuse the system by inflating costs for their own benefit at the expense of leaseholders need to be stopped. The vultures...
                                  23-08-2019, 08:30 AM
                                • are online surveys allowed to be used to poll / vote in RMC / RTM?
                                  Fred22
                                  My flats have people i'm sure who live away. Neighbours can't confirm who is renting or leaseholder. It's a RMC. It got me thinking about votes of the members and how to get them. An online survey seemed practical (we do it at work). Has anyone know if a survey can be used as a way of voting for things,...
                                  22-08-2019, 19:11 PM
                                • Reply to are online surveys allowed to be used to poll / vote in RMC / RTM?
                                  eagle2
                                  I agree that everyone must be allowed to participate and that is the problem, not everyone has access to online facilities .Some people actually prefer the old fashioned idea of meeting and speaking to members.
                                  23-08-2019, 07:44 AM
                                • Reply to Priorities for Leasehold Reform
                                  ram
                                  Putting aside your utter hate of anything leasehold.

                                  Directors of ANY Limited company, are there to make the decisions.
                                  If you want all leaseholders to decide on things, you make them all directors ( and don't come back saying they can all vote as leaseholders at a meeting convened
                                  ...
                                  23-08-2019, 07:40 AM
                                • Reply to are online surveys allowed to be used to poll / vote in RMC / RTM?
                                  AndrewDod
                                  Well, maybe sort of. For example shareholders do not have to accept E-mail as an address for service.

                                  Questioning of decisions by companies has nothing at all to do with whether everyone has the opportunity to participate. It is rule/law based....
                                  23-08-2019, 06:33 AM
                                • Fire escape
                                  Paulsen
                                  The freeholder and their managing agent have neglected the wooden fire escape which now needs major repairs. I have emailed them several times during the past two years including pictures. My flat is a leasehold first floor flat in a converted house where the ground floor flat comes with the freehold....
                                  22-08-2019, 15:35 PM
                                • Reply to Fire escape
                                  Section20z
                                  Sounds like your property is lacking H&S & Fire inspections, request managing agent complies with legislation or ask you local authority housing standards department to intervene or the fire brigade. I doubt it can be removed.
                                  23-08-2019, 06:17 AM
                                • Reply to are online surveys allowed to be used to poll / vote in RMC / RTM?
                                  Section20z
                                  There's nothing to stop you having online meetings (if not prohibited by your constitution - which is unlikely for an RMC) so you can teleconference on whatsapp or similar.
                                  You just need to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to participate so decisions can't be questioned subsequentl...
                                  23-08-2019, 06:10 AM
                                • Reply to are online surveys allowed to be used to poll / vote in RMC / RTM?
                                  eagle2
                                  Regarding formal meetings of members. you can send out and receive proxy forms by email, as long as the notice of the meeting states that is an option. You should keep a written record of decisions made by members so the proxy forms should be retained so that they may be produced if necessary,
                                  ...
                                  23-08-2019, 05:48 AM
                                Working...
                                X