barcode1966

In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act

Parallels in the movement to abolish slavery and the leasehold system today

fullsizeoutput_78dThere are far more similarities between the slave trade and the leasehold system in England and Wales than you would ever imagine. The leasehold system is a form of financial servitude where the leaseholder is forever compensating the freeholder for living on ‘their land’. Just like slavery, the leaseholders find themselves snared in this system without ever giving their consent.

Wait, you may say, the leaseholders signed the lease! Surely that is consent to them being bound by the rules of the leasehold system? Not true, leases are purposefully drafted by freeholders and their oily solicitors to obfuscate the true nature of the terms. Generally, the punitive fees demanded for licences and permissions hidden in the lease vaguely promise to be ‘reasonable’ but are usually far from that.

The real truth though is no leaseholder has ever granted their consent to be part of the actual leasehold system itself, no leaseholder wants that, they want a share of the building and land it sits on when they purchase their property. Commonhold exists and should be compulsory like it is in the rest of the world except all flats and many houses in this country are created as leasehold with no consultation with the future purchasers.

Freeholders regularly trot out the moronic excuse ‘if you don’t like leasehold, don’t buy a leasehold property, simples!’ But with 5 million leasehold properties accounting for nearly 20% of the total housing stock in a market suffering severe housing shortages, blaming a leaseholder for buying a property of this type is like blaming a starving person for eating contaminated food, they have no choice!

There is little profit to be had from arguing this point further, only freeholders and those who make their money representing them bother to deny this is true and their voices are valueless in this debate. Leasehold is an unfair, unjust system which immorally benefits a few at the expense of the many, just like slavery did. Undeniably immoral but inexplicably not illegal at all!

The slave trade in Britain in the 18th century

In the 18th century the slave trade in Britain had become one of the main sources of wealth for the British Empire and had grown into the ‘dot com’ lucrative financial bubble of its time.

It wasn’t just the slave traders that rode into villages and forced millions into a

curtailed life of servitude who profited from this trade, there were fortunes to be made by helping to finance the transportation of slaves too or even just buying a couple of slaves as a pension for old age. The slave trade was respected and so ingrained in many aspects of daily life that ending that trade seemed impossible.

In the 18th century alone British vessels were involved in the shipping of between 4-5 million slaves.

The support for the trade came from the very top of British society. Queen Elizabeth I bankrolled one of the first ever slaving expeditions, in fact the royal family and the wider aristocracy’s financial support was central to the development of the lucrative slave trade.

For example, ‘The Royal Adventures in Africa’ company had financial backing from King Charles II and his wife the Queen, seven Knights of the Realm, four barons, and a Marquis.

The Bank of England also backed the slave trade. Richard Neave was the director of the bank and was also the director of the ‘Society of West India’ merchants and his son went on to run both companies simultaneously too. It was the backing of the financial sector that really allowed the slave trade to become so established.

The slave trade also created the very first British millionaire, William Beckford, who owned more than 22,000 acres of land in Jamaica. He along with his brothers used their wealth to become MPs and subvert both political direction and public opinion in favour of the slave trade.

In fact by 1766 there were at least 40 MPs who were either planters or they made their money from the slave trade in some way or another. The abolition of slavery seemed like an impossibility, everyone was making too much money from it to ever allow it to change.

Then along came a remarkable man who decided to make it his life’s goal to do just that, bring to an end the slave trade.

The man who made slavery illegal.

Thomas Clarkson was born 1760. He was the son of a reverend and grew to be a good six inches taller than the average Britain of the time. He was bright, enjoying his education but he was seemingly destined for an unremarkable life as a priest in a sleepy country parish somewhere.

However, he entered a competition where he had to submit an essay written in Latin to win a prize. He won the prize but the contents of what he had written would change his life completely and eventually the world.

The topic of the essay was ‘Anne liceat invitos in servitutem dare?’ (‘Is it lawful to enslave the unconsenting?’)

fullsizeoutput_748Thomas was so deeply affected by the research he had done for his essay that he became consumed with wanting to find out all he could about the slave trade, he read everything he could about it and when that was not enough he went out to speak with anyone he could find who had first hand knowledge about it.

He said of that time that: “A thought came into my mind… that if the contents of the essay were true, it was time some person should see these calamities to their end.”

Thomas became that person, a man possessed. He started to scour the country looking for like-minded people he could talk with. It was said he would often ride 16 hours a day and he travelled at least 35,000 miles on horseback before he saw his dream realised.

It became the norm that people would threaten to kill him and on a stormy night in Liverpool a group of slave ship owners tried to throw him into a torrid sea.

To get his message out even further he translated his essay into English and distributed it across the country, as well as igniting sentiment it also acted as an introduction to other anti-slavers and soon a body of resistance had formed. This angered those at the very head of the establishment as well as those who made their fat living from slaves.

However loudly Thomas’s voice would decry the inhumanity of slavery the establishment would shout as loudly back declaring slaves were simply being saved from a life of savagery and were being given a chance to become ‘good’ Christians. They argued that contrary to what Clarkson asserted, slaves were generally treated well by their masters except of course for the odd ‘bad apple’.

Thomas knew he would have to raise his game considerably if he were to drown out the white noise of the establishment’s pro-slavery PR campaign.

He started to display the tools of the slave trade which were openly on sale in most port towns. He had handcuffs, leg shackles, thumb screws and surgical instruments with a screw device called a ‘speculum oris’ which were used to pry open the mouth of any slaves refusing to eat, who figured being dead was better than the life awaiting them, so they could force feed them and the slave owner would not lose their investment.

He also displayed fine art work and crafts produced by the slaves to show they were in no way ‘savages’ and no different from any other human being.

People power and politics

He also knew he would need political support if his campaign stood any chance of success. He first met William Wilberforce, the man who would eventually get all the credit for the abolition of slavery, in 1787. After a long and animated discussion between the two men Wilberforce agreed to raise the issue in Parliament for the first time.

Clarkson’s campaign started to gather pace quickly and by 1788, 103 petitions for the abolition of slavery had been signed by around 80,000 people and presented to Parliament and Wilberforce did manage to raise the issue of the slave trade in the House of Commons.

Although the abolition movement had gained considerable public support it was the political influence of the slavers in Government that was hard to shake. Lobby groups went into Parliament to argue their side of the debate. They cranked up their PR campaign another notch, even claiming that the time slaves spent on the slave transportation ships being ‘carried to their new adventure’ were the “happiest part of the Negros life”.

The efforts of these slavers in Parliament turned the abolition battle into a war of attrition with many debates on the subject in the house becoming nothing more than hot-air.

Clarkson realised that continuing to call for the abolition of slavery as an all-or-nothing event was futile, there were too many vested interests standing in the way.

He needed something that would sway public opinion so firmly in his favour that it would sweep away the political opposition and he came up with an idea that was pure genius.

A picture paints a thousand words

fullsizeoutput_745He decided to commission a true life accurately scaled drawing of the conditions slaves were actually transported in. He used the exact measurements from an actual ship which carried anywhere from 697 to 740 slaves. The picture painted a truly dire picture of the conditions the slaves were transported in, it shocked the nation and the effect of that picture was like a bomb going off.

Once printed, it began to appear in pamphlets, newspaper articles, magazines and books. Also 7000 copies were produced which were hung on the walls of homes and pubs throughout the country.

This picture was one of the most important instruments used to turn public opinion against the slave trade once and for all and would create a swell of public anger that would sweep away the political posturing.

The picture was important for two reasons, firstly it made ludicrous the slavers claims that being transported in this manner could be the best days of anyone’s life. More importantly though, it humanised slaves as people just like us. It forced people to see slaves as fellow human beings who had the same feelings and dreams that we did and were not just revenue generating units for the rich to grow richer by exploiting them.

It proved decisive.

The end of slavery and the biggest compensation pay-off in history

An unavoidable momentum gathered pace and as we know the slave trade was eventually abolished in 1833. The story doesn’t end there though.

The Government was forced to compensate all the slave traders and owners and it became the biggest compensation pay-out ever made and still, to this day the total amount paid out has never been beaten.

The British government’s paid out a total of 20 million pounds to compensate some 3000 families for the loss of their ‘property’ the slaves. This equates to about 18 billion pounds in today’s value.

The list of those who received compensation was far reaching and showed how this trade had become part of the fabric of life. There were also many notable names too like the families of David Cameron, Douglas Hogg, Graham Greene, George Orwell and the Earl of Harewood who all received considerable compensation when slavery was abolished. John Gladstone the father of the 19th century prime minister William Gladstone received compensation of £106,769 which is worth around 83 million pounds today for 2508 slaves he ‘owned’.

Not one slave though ever received a single penny compensation from the Government to compensate them for what they went through.

Let’s look at the leasehold system today and look at the many similarities.

The history of freeholders in 200 words

The very first freeholder was the Crown. William the conqueror took all the land in country by force which the Crown still, technically, owns and have managed to cling onto for nearly 1,000 years. Some of this land was then dished out in a feudal stylee to aristocracy and nobility in exchange for funds and military support and they too still own huge swathes of the country as well as many of the most lucrative freeholds.

The industrial revolution and a steep rise in the population happened as the aristocracy declined so the new freeholders were wealthy individuals who hoovered up ground rents as fast as they came to market. Many of them were either already involved in politics or quickly became involved. Others simply funded political parties who promised to represent their interests by maintaining the leasehold system and blocking any attempts to alter legislation.

The financial world has always supported the freeholders with banks, Insurance companies and pension funds woven into the history of leasehold. Of course there are also thousands of ‘accidental’ freeholders who also can be vicious and amoral who see their leaseholders simply as a way to get rich on the back of their suffering.

The campaign against the unjust leasehold system

In the building of Britain leasehold became a vehicle to make staggering wealth for the freeholders, especially when there were no legal rights to ever enfranchise (the meaning of which comes from the old French enfranchiss “to set or make free”).

A freeholder would sell a lease on a piece of land for 99 years (called a building lease) and the builder would build a property to the freeholder’s specification and sell it. Once the lease had run its course the freeholder would then take possession of ‘their’ house (or flat) which they had never paid a penny toward and could sell it on again and again thanks to leasehold creating a perpetual land ownership device for the rich.

That is how many of the grandiose squares in London came to be built and are still owned by the ‘great’ estates who are the freeholders. This method of wealth generation was not limited to prime central London though.

This was also a standard method employed in Wales and Cornwall for miners and farmers. A miner would lease a bit of land and build a home for their family and live it in for generations until one day the freeholder would write to them explaining that the lease had fallen to zero and they now owned the miners house and could they please leave or pay the freeholder a fortune to stay.

In the late 19th century this prompted a huge outcry against these greedy freeholders with newspapers constantly writing articles in support of the leaseholders and emotive debates in the House of Commons. There were marches and demonstrations and the rise of a new term ‘anti-landlordism’ a derogatory term to describe unscrupulous freeholders.

Over the next 160 years there have been countless efforts to end the leasehold system by various groups with varying degrees of support but all of them have been unsuccessful…. up to now.

Why is that?

For the very same reasons the movement to abolish slavery found it so difficult to change a blatantly immoral and brutal system, the movement to abolish leasehold has hit the same brick wall. The people who own the freeholds are often the very elite of society with huge political influence. They are backed by powerful banks and pension funds who make a fortune from the system or they are freeholders who fund political parties to look favourably on their cause, to keep making money from leasehold.

Everyone is making too much money so why change it? A few million people are trapped in this nightmare form of land tenure but, big deal right?

Also the Government knows that to make any retrospective changes to the leasehold laws would trigger a compensation payment to the freeholders that would make the slavery compensation amount look like small change.

Are the leasehold houses the ‘Clarkson picture’ moment?

There is now a huge new movement against the leasehold houses scandal which has gained so much traction it is reaching a critical mass. There have been numerous political statements, inclusions in the Queen’s speech promising to wipe out leasehold abuse (the irony of which should not be overlooked) and it is spoken about daily in the press and media.

The leasehold house scandal has become vitally important in the battle to end leasehold. Just like Clarkson’s drawing of the conditions of the slave transportation, the leasehold house scandal has humanised leaseholders and brought to the public’s mind just how bad the abuses of the leasehold system can be.

Even though many have tried for years to bring focus to the constant abuses suffered by leasehold flat owners, it has always brought a shrug of the shoulders and a swift “Well, flats have to be leasehold don’t they?”

With houses though, it is easy for everyone to understand that there is no need to build houses as leasehold.  Add to this the fact developers and freeholders included onerous ground rents and lease clauses simply to make more money, then this has proved to be a step too far in the public opinion.

It is therefore essential that the owners of those leasehold houses as well as every other leaseholder in England and Wales should get behind this campaign and support the abolition of leasehold houses. This is the first positive step in ending leasehold and once the sale of them has been banned the focus will shift to leasehold flats.

People will see that there is no reason that flats should be leasehold either but are made so solely to create an asset class for wealthy people to get wealthier.

An important note

I want to make it clear that in no way whatsoever am I comparing current day leaseholders and their experiences to the actual slaves and the brutal and criminal way that they were treated by the elite of this country.

My comparison here is made purely on the history of the abolition of slavery, the process they went through and the challenges that campaign faced.

There is then an obvious comparison and lessons we can learn which we can apply to the campaign to end leasehold.

We look back at the history of the slave trade with repulsion and disgust and it is hard to comprehend that at one point in our collective history this vile trade seemed a legitimate way of making money.

One day I hope people also look back at this unjust leasehold system and wonder how we all allowed it last for nearly 1,000 years.

Anne liceat invitos in servitutem dare?

Advertisements

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Truth About Virtual Freeholds

‘Virtual freehold’ has fast become the ubiquitous term that is used to describe a leasehold property with a long lease of, usually, 999 years. You regularly see it used in estate agent’s descriptions, developer’s brochures and auction houses.fullsizeoutput_479

The term suggests that you don’t need to be afraid when buying a leasehold property. It implies that this property won’t share the same nightmarish financial consequences that can exists with normal leasehold properties and that there is a good chance that this freeholder is ‘honest’ to grant you such a long lease in the first place.

Buying a ‘virtual freehold’ property can become a real nightmare though with terms so onerous it can seriously affect the future salability of your property and here’s why.

How big is the problem?

An excellent article which appeared in the Guardian, 29 October 2016, entitled ‘The new-builds catching house buyers in a leasehold property trap’ exposed the scandal of Taylor-Wimpey selling leasehold houses. These houses were being sold as ‘virtual freeholds’ with a 999-year lease but with onerous ground rents clauses which doubled regularly making the houses difficult to sell as the ground rent due per year becomes disproportionately high.

This is just the tip of the iceberg though.

For many years we have been aware of this very same tactic being used on tens of thousands of newly built leasehold flats across London.

For example, we helped a group of flat owners buy the freehold of their flats in Islington a couple of years ago at a newly built block. The ground rent clause was £250 a year doubling every 25 years for 999 years. We calculated the ground rent due for the last 25 years of the lease was £160,000,000,000 a year, a bargain!

Why do developers grant 999-year lease with high ground rents?

Developers generally sell the freeholds of their leasehold buildings before building work starts to professional ground rent investors. These investors want to make as much profit as possible from these freeholds so they request certain clauses are included in the leases before they buy. The developer will then also be able to sell the freehold for a much higher fee if they agree to include them.

For example, if a developer builds a block containing 200 flats and includes a standard ground rent clause that states the ground rent will be £100 a year doubling every 25 years, the total combined ground rent of all the flats that would be brought in over the first 100 years would be £7,500,000.

If they included a clause that states the ground rent will be £350 a year doubling every 25 years, the total combined income rises to £26,250,000! It’s easy to see why they do it.

The reason the leases are granted for 999 years though, is a stroke of pure evil genius from toxic unscrupulous freeholders. This is done to totally remove the motivation for the flat owners to ever group together and buy the freehold of their build meaning the freeholder loses their investments and feel sad.

fullsizeoutput_477It is done to ensure the freeholders retain permanent ownership of the property and it allows them to make lots of money from their captive leaseholders.

That’s because there are other ways a predatory freeholder can make money from leaseholders who have bought flats with these lease terms and it’s like shooting fish in a barrel for the freeholders.

Other ways freeholders can make money from ‘virtual freeholds’

A knowing freeholder can make even more money from service charges which tend to be high on new builds. Closely managing a building and having a separate company that carries out the work can be a gold mine for them. A cursory search on Google will reveal a depressingly high number of reports and court cases documenting these abuses.

Generally, these leases will also give the rights to insure the building to the freeholder who can then recover these costs from the leaseholders. We regularly see freeholders recommending a poor quality of insurance with high excess fees while they pocket, in our experience, 50% of these costs as ‘finder’s fees’.

Fees for licences and permissions can also bring in a considerable amount of profit to freeholders. We regularly see permissions to sub-let on these properties costing more than a thousand pounds a year. The cost of the permission legally required to sell a property from a freeholder, can often dwarf the total legal fees paid for conveyancing the sale of the property!

Leasehold houses too can see the cost of permissions being ridiculously high, we were speaking to the owner of a leasehold house recently who was being asked to pay the freeholder £15,000 for permission to build a conservatory on his own property!

What can you do about it?

fullsizeoutput_47bIt is assumed that most leaseholders wanting to buy a nice new shiny leasehold house or flat will probably not fully grasp the serious financial implications of owning a ‘virtual freehold’ property with onerous clauses until it’s too late.

Therefore, the only risk for developers in acquiescing to the freeholders demands for onerous ground rents and lease terms, is if the public find out and make a noise about it.

I’m sure Taylor-Wimpey are currently regretting selling leasehold houses with onerous ground rents due to the tsunami of bad press they are currently receiving.

So if you find yourself owning one of these flats or houses with these terms contact the developer and ask them why they did it. Get together and contact the press.

If you bought your flat on or after 1 October 2015 you are covered by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. This Act applies to the terms of a lease and if it is proved that the financial implications of a lease term were not fully explained to you, it would no longer be binding on you. If you group together with your neighbours you can split the cost of the legal fees of proving this.

If you bought your flat prior to 1 October 2015 you are still covered by Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and you could get legal relief from these onerous terms if you can prove they are unfair.

Did your solicitor clearly inform you about the real implications of the terms of this lease when you were purchasing the property? If they didn’t you could have a claim against them for professional negligence and there are many easy to find guides on how to do this available.

Think about buying the freehold of your building and ridding yourself of the freeholder once and for all. Although the ground rent is high so the compensation you would have to pay the freeholder would be higher than normal, there is no reversionary interest to pay nor marriage value meaning it would be much cheaper to buy the freehold if you have a 999-year lease than it would if your lease was just 99 years long.

Write to your MP. The only real way to bring lasting change to the hugely flawed leasehold system is to change the legislation that surrounds it. This change can only come about when there is political appetite for change and sadly, I do not believe that exists right now.

If it did though it would stop this legal money making scam at the expense of leaseholders, once and for all and all of us can collectively add our voices to this demand and make a difference.

©Barcode1966 – 2016

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

Why the threat of compulsory purchase orders has become one of the biggest fears for ex-local authority leaseholders in London.

418865_406280396101674_377969546_nCompulsory Purchases Orders (CPOs) are already a big issue in London, with many estates having already been forcibly bought. I am currently aware of 37 different estates in London that are currently fighting CPOs and it is just about to get much worse.

The current political thinking about CPOs in London

That’s because the political thinking around CPOs has shifted dramatically and swiftly during 2016. In this year’s London electoral race both Zac Goldsmith and the winning Sadiq Khan agreed that CPO’d council estates should be the land used to facilitate the building of the 50,000 new homes that were promised to be built per year in the capital.

In early 2016, the Prime Minister announced that he was about to blitz poverty by demolishing at least 100 large, run-down and difficult to manage council estates. He described these as ‘sink estates’ and to show how serious he was he pledged 149 million to it. Obviously 1.49m per estate is a paltry figure and so the government will need to rely heavily on developers’ money to pull it off.

Cameron then commissioned the silver-spooned Michael Heseltine (who ironically was a key figure in Thatcher’s original sale of council houses under the right to buy legislation) to examine how to demolish and redevelop the country’s 100 worst “sink estates” with the help of the private sector.

Heseltine says it is his dream to get rid of the ‘slums’, which is about to become a real nightmare for the legitimate tenants and owners of these properties. One thing Heseltine’s 17-person regeneration panel aims to do is speed up the process by fast-tracking developers’ applications.

Last March a body called the London Land Commission, headed by Boris Johnson, was formed to compile and publish a register of all publically owned land and property in London in preparation for this great compulsory plan.

Bizarrely a left wing think tank, the IPPR, have been embraced into this ‘social cleansing club’ and now seem to be at the forefront of current political thinking, having produced their own damaging report entitled City Villages: More homes, better communities.’ Here they assert that ‘by far the largest source of publicly owned land suitable for new housing is already owned by local authorities in their existing council housing estates.’

Following this all council estates have now been classified as ‘Brownfield estates’ and are now viable targets for CPOs, social regeneration and fat profits to be made.

This job of carving London up seems to have fallen to the estate agent Savills. They also produced a 164 report with the snappy title Completing London’s Streets: How the regeneration and intensification of housing estates could increase London’s supply of homes and benefit residents. In  their darkly disingenuous report, the estate agents spell out their vision of redeveloping existing council estates and the benefit it will bring to London (read: their friends, the developers); they also gleefully assert that they should be paid huge chunks of tax payers’ money to preside over it all, as the various councils don’t have the expertise.

I could go on and on but the upshot is that all council estates have now become valid and viable targets for CPOs and all politicians, potential mayors and the private sector are in agreement.

Why do councils want to issue CPOs?yuppie2

The official reason is to turn run-down estates into sparkling new homes for their social tenants and leaseholders.

The real reason though is mostly about money. Firstly, they get money from the eager developer who wants to mow down the flats and build nice shiny chrome and glass luxury flats to a mostly investor market.

They get out of having to pay for and provide thousands of homes for social tenants, who in CPOs get ‘decanted’ out of the area, sometimes being shipped as far away as up north.

In their eyes the area will become more desirable to live in once it’s been socially cleansed and they can then put your council tax up.

Finally, many councils signed up to LOBO loans and they need to pay them off.

A sad pattern that is emerging from all these regeneration schemes is that they are sold initially on the amount of social housing that will be included in these developments. It soon transpires that there isn’t enough profit for developers to include the social housing element they promised after all and it’s reduced to a minuscule amount of housing.

What are the biggest dangers to you if your flat is CPOed?

The number one danger is the amount of money they will offer you for your flat compared to what it is actually worth on the open market.

The councils have a legal obligation to ensure that a flat owner is in ‘a no better or worse financial situation’ after a CPO. The reality though is different and very grim.

Councils tend to make their first offer of compensation a derisibly low offer to start with to shock flat owners and set their expectations and then over a period of many months they incrementally increase the offer whilst doing a good job of managing everyone’s expectations.

Below are some very rough figures I have been given (I have not been able to check the validity of all of them all. I have heard the same figures time and time again however so they will be pretty accurate)

  • Hendon (worth £347,000), opening offer £130,000, final offer £214,000
  • Heygate (worth £355,000), opening offer £114,000,  final offer £164,000
  • Colville (worth £270,000), opening offer £120,000, final offer £150,000
  • Woodberry (worth £330,000), opening offer £130,000, final offer £158,000

Data obtained by campaigners at the Aylesbury estate under the Freedom of Information Act found Southwark council paid £147,500 for a four-bedroom, 97 sq m maisonette. The average house price in London at the time had just had hit £400,000.

At the West Hendon estate in Barnet, some leaseholders were offered just £90,000 for a one-bed flat and £130,000 for a two-bed maisonette when the council applied for the first in a series of compulsory purchase orders.

This is hugely unfair to flat owners who are not being given a fair market price for their flats and they cannot buy a like to like flat on the new development.

There is then a real human cost to receiving unfair compensation. Many leaseholders will be too old to get a mortgage and will not be given enough compensation to buy another flat in the area they have grown up in. They will be faced with either using their capital for rent until it is used up or moving hundreds of miles away to be able to buy cheaper properties.

Those young enough to get a mortgage will be in a similar positon of not being able to afford to live in the area they currently do – with their friends and extended families – and will instead be forced to move to cheaper areas. This causes real issues for families forced to break up, and it is widely documented that people in these situations are suffering from depression or mental health issues due to losing the support of their friends and families.

Of course if leaseholders are unhappy with the valuation offered they can take their case to the Upper Tribunal but the cost of valuers, solicitors and barristers is very daunting to leaseholders. Also the councils, who get all their fees paid for by the tax payer, are almost certain to appeal if they don’t get the desired decision, thus wiping out a huge portion of the compensation received by a leaseholder, win or lose.

Will buying your freehold prevent a CPO from happening?

34836_chopsticksbeforePossibly. A council can make a CPO on any property as long as it is can be proved to be in ‘the public’s interest’. In reality though, it is generally much easier for a council to make a CPO on property they broadly own than to do it on property that is completely privately owned.

The more buildings that have the freehold purchased the harder it will become to make these sweeping CPOs.

There is also the scope for a much higher valuation for flats with a share of freehold of between 1-3% which on some high value flats will start to make a big impact on compensation.

There is a further argument that was successful and became case law in CPOs.

Transport for London v Spirerose Limited.

Spirerose successfully argued a form of “hope value” on the future development value on the freehold of the building that they owned. This adds a further layer to possible compensation if a building has been bought from the council.

Councils will not like the fact that bulk lease extensions and freehold purchases are being done on these estates as it will be driving up the compensation they will have to pay out if they try to serve a CPO.

What can you do to stop a CPO?

Anyone can submit a freedom of information request to a council to see if your block is being considered as a possible CPO target. There can be lots of rumours around the fact but it is simple to find out the truth.1441360468

If you are targeted for a CPO don’t despair! The council have to jump through a lot of hoops to get the permission required to take possession of your homes.

Organise yourself into a group with your neighbours who will be affected. The best possible chance you have is to act as a group to fight the proposal. Connect your group with those social tenants at your block who will also be looking to object; although you will both have different issues you have the same goal and it is a mistake to act separately.

Look at what other estates have done to fight CPOs, as there is a lot of information out there.

Write to MPs to let them know the human cost of CPOs.

Just recently the Aylesbury estate has won a famous victory to prevent a CPO taking place but we need to watch closely what happens next.

Some useful links

The official stance on CPOs

Some key case law

Another tower of shame (35 percent)

Heygate sell off (35 percent)

Heygate Estate Southwark Notes

©Barcode1966 – 2016

 

Filed under: Uncategorized, , , , , , , , ,