Lord Best report

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Lord Best report

    For anyone interested -

    Chapter 6 focus on Leasehold..


    Thanks for posting the link. I'll have to read the report.


      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.


        Eagle - Lord Best's report was targeted towards regulation (with teeth) and transparency.
        The Select Committee Report and Law Commission focused on the areas you mention above.
        The CMA have just closed their own consultation and have received an overwhelming amount of evidence to process.
        On another note- I see Landlords are potentially in for another hammering (controlled rents).


          We shall have to wait and see, my comment was that the FTT could have been given teeth,

          Transparency in theory exists today through the RICS code of practice, many agents are not complying with it, Detecting the connection between persons associated with agents is not easy. The report appears to recognise the difficulty.

          I think that the landlords and agents ability to introduce money making schemes has been underestimated.


            The FTT has always been skewered. It is symptomatic of the deeply embedded flawed area that is leasehold.
            That's why the true champions of leaseholders - LKP - have always been shunned. They asked to be part of the FTT for example, and were refused. There is too much at stake for too many people.
            Shared ownership/Help to Buy schemes have taken it to a whole new level of abuse.


              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.


                Really? That is not my experience. They have fought hard and campaigned hard for many years for leaseholders. I have witnessed many examples if this in the past year.
                What am I missing?


                  Originally posted by michelle230 View Post
                  Really? That is not my experience. They have fought hard and campaigned hard for many years for leaseholders. I have witnessed many examples if this in the past year.
                  What am I missing?
                  Your knowledge appears to be superficial, you have frequently raised comments as though they were new issues when the problems have existed for decades. You do not appear to have a sense of priorities.

                  Your comment that freeholders will be eager to sell their portfolios is not supported by any evidence.

                  Which Magazine estimated that leaseholders were being overcharged by £700 million per annum in 2011. The Select Committee noted that the leasehold sector is now larger and that figure is likely to be higher.

                  Freeholders and their agents are not going to give up their share of the cake overnight or anytime soon, the chances are that they will be studying new money making schemes.


                    Yes. There is a pool of people whose businesses are based on finding loopholes in the law to extract money from the public for no real service. They tent to be very good at keeping just short of criminal prosecution. As in a military situation, an attacker only has to find one weakness, whereas defenders have to envisage all possible attacks.

                    You get hints at this, but generally for one man businesses, even on the letting side of these forums, where you will find people proposing all sorts of schemes to extract money from properties (not least AirBnB based), or attempting to find holes in things like the tenant fees legislation.

                    A lot of businesses these days aren't predicated on having the skills to provide a service with money being secondary, but treat money as primary and just look for ways to obtain it, whilst keeping just within the law (or not so far out that a prosecution is likely).


                      I have no doubt that there are certain individuals who are employed full time to devise ways of pushing charges to the limit whilst ensuring that it is impossible to prove criminal activity

                      Vague comments about transparency, which cannot be enforced easily if at all and which can be circumvented, are not going to stop overcharging. It seems to be a token effort and there seems to be a general reluctance to tackle the real problem. These reports should follow the money, identify the persons who are benefitting and their connections.


                        That's actually the job of most of the head office people in any consumer facing organisation. The difference here is that there is no valid service being provided.

                        For example, supermarkets, and even franchised petrol stations with convenience shops, produce detailed plans of how products are to be arranged on the shelves. Thatt's done to psychologically tempt you into buying more than you intended, and to buy the high profit branded products.


                          At least with a supermarket or convenience shop, you have a choice, you can choose to go elsewhere.


                            I accept that transparency is better than nothing but can anyone explain how it assists a leaseholder if an agent declares that he receives say 5% commission on an insurance policy? A leaseholder is unlikely to be able to prove that the disclosure is incorrect. To have any meaning at all, someone should carry out spot checks to verify that the information is correct. I do not see that contained within the proposals.

                            Does anyone seriously think that an agent is going to admit to receiving 40% to 60% commission?


                              Carrying out spot checks would require an increase in tax payer spend. No Conservative government is going to sanction that.

                              (As I said elsewhere, I think the country has reached a point where respect for the law is in terminal decline, as a result of not funding pro-active enforcement, to keep taxes low.)


                              Latest Activity


                              • Leaseholder not paid s.20 charges
                                by Emilycarter
                                Hi, I am a co-freeholder and one of the Leaseholders
                                has not paid their charges for two sets of s.20 works. There is no dispute, managing agent has simply not received replies to emails and letters. We suspect the service charge recently issued will also remain unpaid.

                                Reading some...
                                25-02-2020, 14:10 PM
                              • Reply to Leaseholder not paid s.20 charges
                                by leaseholder64
                                As I understand it, you can start with the small claims court without FTT clearance. However, their rules say that, if the defence is based on unreasonableness, or non payability, of the charges, the court should redirect to the FTT for a decision, and only proceed if the FTT validates the claim....
                                26-02-2020, 10:21 AM
                              • Reply to RTM Service Charge Certificate
                                by leaseholder64
                                I think one of the problems with accountants is that their role of protecting the investors and customers has been replaced by one of finding ways to legally avoid providing any information to them. That may match the wants of many for profit businesses, but absolute openness should be the aim of RTMs....
                                26-02-2020, 10:15 AM
                              • RTM Service Charge Certificate
                                by chris1544

                                I live in a block of two flats. We have an RTM company in place, self managing the building. Both leaseholders are directors of the RTM company. We are approaching the close of our service charge year and the lease requires that the service charge accounts be certified. Specifically...
                                08-02-2020, 14:59 PM
                              • Reply to Variation of lease
                                by scampicat
                                Thank you all for for your very helpful and informative advice. My husband and I will mull through the options later today....
                                26-02-2020, 10:12 AM
                              • Variation of lease
                                by scampicat
                                I own a flat with a lease of 125 years starting from 2012. The ground rent is at present £150 pa, but increases as follows every ten years: £225... .£337.50.... 506.25.... 759.38.... 1139.06.... 1708.59.... 2562.89 ....3844.34. There are no more increases after eighty years. I am considering a variation...
                                25-02-2020, 08:57 AM
                              • Reply to RTM Service Charge Certificate
                                by chris1544
                                Brilliant advice, thank you both, I really appreciate it. Yes to answer your question MrSoffit we are both actively involved in running the property and make decisions jointly. In fact, the service charge account is set up so that bank transfers can only be made if we both authorise them.
                                26-02-2020, 09:37 AM
                              • Reply to Leaseholder not paid s.20 charges
                                by Emilycarter
                                Thank you all once again. The s.20's were served correctly, other Leaseholders have paid and works completed. I do hope that Jericho's view is correct. They have not disputed or commented on the s.20 at all (as far as the Managing Agent tells us). If the recent service charge also remains unpaid...
                                26-02-2020, 08:27 AM
                              • Reply to Letting lease expire on share of freehold property
                                by leaseholder64
                                That depends on the company articles or on the trust deed, if tenants on common.

                                You might continue to own the share of the freehold, even though you had no leasehold interest in the flat, and couldn't legally, have possession of it.

                                My articles say that membership of the company...
                                25-02-2020, 23:54 PM
                              • Letting lease expire on share of freehold property
                                by michelle230
                                Apologies if silly question - I`m sure there is a very simple answer...

                                I`m curious as to what would happen in the above scenario where a person had a share of freehold in a block but let their lease expire. Would the flat then revert in ownership to the other shareholders, including the...
                                25-02-2020, 19:00 PM