Charles Perez-Storey

Chartered Chemical Engineer | Work in Energy | Dismayed by English #Leasehold injustices |

[Karl Turner MP @KarlTurnerMP]

@SteveReedMP @thetimes What about buying a leasehold home, Steve lad? We ought to have a butchers at that once we’ve sorted this leadership shenanigans out. We did promise it in the manifesto after all.

[Charles Perez-Storey @CPerezStorey]

@Sam_Dumitriu .@Sam_Dumitriu - who do you think should control service charges, Leaseholders or Freeholders? And, who should pay for them?

Secondly - do you / would you own a Leasehold property? If not, why not? It's an important revealed preference test.

[Free Leaseholders @FreeLeasehlders]

Labour quietly drops key leasehold pledge – but promises right to faster Wi-Fi https://t.co/HmNOt9xXHZ

[Charles Perez-Storey @CPerezStorey]

Hey @AndyBurnhamGM - I hear you're interested in Labour's currently failing policies. What do you have to say on the #Leasehold scandal?

Leaseholders demand:
- GR capped to zero from day 1
- Universal Right to Manage
- End to forfeiture
- Scrap marriage value

Do you agree???

[Charles Perez-Storey @CPerezStorey]

Hey @AndyBurnhamGM - I hear you're interested in Labour's currently failing policies. What do you have to say on the #Leasehold scandal?

Leaseholders demand:
- GR capped to zero from day 1
- Universal Right to Manage
- End to forfeiture
- Scrap marriage value

Do you agree???

[Charles Perez-Storey @CPerezStorey]

At long last, another #Leasehold bill is to be brought forward by Govt... But, it sounds like it will be shorn of key measures!

@AngelaRayner - will you support amendments for the following:

- GR capped to zero from day 1
- Universal Right to Manage
- End to forfeiture

???

[Charles Perez-Storey @CPerezStorey]

@BenjaminEHowe @AngelaRayner Indeed. Limited by tweet character count!

[Charles Perez-Storey @CPerezStorey]

@wharfgirl @AngelaRayner Limited by tweet character count!

There are of course many other issues to add, these are just my top 3.

[Charles Perez-Storey @CPerezStorey]

@matt_londonlife @AngelaRayner Thanks. Yes, I saw this as well after the tweet. Didn't have all the info beforehand.

It's all part of the same theme of issues though, to tackle the biggest problems for Leaseholders.

The most important frankly is universal RTM, because SC are biggest costs for Leaseholders.

[Charles Perez-Storey @CPerezStorey]

@critithinkstar @SCP_Hughes @s8mb @bswud You clearly don't actually understand what RTM is. Or, this is a bad faith response.

RTM companies have directors like any other. Leaseholders are the members (i.e. shareholders) of the company.

Directors get to instruct a professional MA, and therefore become the customer.

[Charles Perez-Storey @CPerezStorey]

.@SCP_Hughes, @s8mb and @bswud - I am perplexed by why you guys are so pro-leasehold. It seems to me that your arguments exist in an intellectual rather than practical space.

A "revealed preference" test - have any of you owned /would you own leasehold property? If not, why not?

[Liam Spender @LiamSpender]

The case for leasehold in this article is wrong and predicated on false premises.

1/ leases of new flats or houses are not sold at a “substantial discount” to reflect the fact that they are leasehold and carry ground rents.

The ground rent is neither legally nor commercially necessary. Ground rent as part of the price / consideration for the grant is not legally necessary because the leases are made by deed and require no consideration.

The ground rent is not a term of the lease any purchaser can negotiate. The same is true of many other terms in leases. It is common to see flats of identical configuration, if not next door to each other, sold for materially different premiums but with the same ground rent.

Indeed, in virtually all cases the developer will have agreed to sell the ground rent income before the first flat is built and cannot negotiate even if the flat buyer offers a higher premium for no ground rent.

Nor is it uncommon or unusual to see leases that prescribe the ground rent by factors that have nothing to do with the premium paid, for example by the number of bedrooms.

Further, when the Competition and Markets Authority investigated leasehold in 2015 it could find no evidence that new houses were sold for less than freehold houses. And where is the constant against which to compare flats because they are generally never sold as freehold?

2/ buying a leasehold flat or house is not the same as buying a sofa on instalments. If a sofa is bought on hire purchase then the buyer owns it outright at the end after making all payments. Not true for a leasehold flat or house, which goes back to the freeholder at the end of the term even after all payments are made. Indeed, modern leases also require the leaseholders to pay all the upkeep and for improvement of the building.

3/ a lease is not a right to occupy. That would be a rental tenancy. A long leasehold is an estate in land carrying the right of exclusive possession for the term. It is this right that makes it saleable and mortgageable.

4/ the myth that leaseholders are incapable of running estates or building places is to be contrasted by experience of right to manage and resident management companies, including at very large sites. Walk round New York or Paris or any other major city and you will see neighbourhoods full of communally owned and managed buildings. It is quintessentially feudal to say the British are too stupid to manage their own buildings without a third party freeholder.

5/ leasehold is not and has never been designed for multi occupancy blocks of flats. It was all that was available at the time large numbers of flats began to be built to ensure that positive covenants could be legally enforceable as owners changed and in multi-storey blocks. Other common law countries (Australia, Canada to name but two) saw the flaws in leasehold and developed a bespoke legal model. That is what Commonhold seeks to achieve for England.

6/ the fundamental flaw in leasehold, which cannot be fixed, is that it creates an adversarial relationship and a principal-agent problem between freeholders and leaseholders. The freeholder has all the power and no responsibility. More than 50 years of Parliament attempting to regulate service charges demonstrates this problem is inherent, a feature not a bug.

7/ as to freeholders’ property being expropriated without market value under the 2024 Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 this is wrong and the Divisional Court said so last October. We shall see if the Court of Appeal agrees.

In any event, the loss of the freeholders’ right to 50% of marriage value when leases below 80 years are extended is unjustifiable in market terms. The freeholder gives nothing in exchange, keeps his freehold interest and is compensated for the loss of ground rent. Ending marriage value stops freeholders extracting ransom from a lease extension or freehold purchase.

[Charles Perez-Storey @CPerezStorey]

At long last, another #Leasehold bill is to be brought forward by Govt... But, it sounds like it will be shorn of key measures!

@AngelaRayner - will you support amendments for the following:

- GR capped to zero from day 1
- Universal Right to Manage
- End to forfeiture

???

[Charles Perez-Storey @CPerezStorey]

Good to see that a Commonhold and #Leasehold Reform Bill is included in the King's Speech.

However, it needs to be progressed QUICKLY - this is a daily cost of living issue for Leaseholders facing large bills, with no control over them, despite being liable for the costs....

[Charles Perez-Storey @CPerezStorey]

@critithinkstar @SCP_Hughes @s8mb @bswud The point is control of our own money!

Let's say you lease a car from me. You are liable for and pay the service costs. Fine. But you wouldn't accept if I chose the service garage and passed you the bill, incl. unnecessary costs to repaint it.

Same concept applies to #leasehold

[Charles Perez-Storey @CPerezStorey]

Good to see that a Commonhold and #Leasehold Reform Bill is included in the King's Speech.

However, it needs to be progressed QUICKLY - this is a daily cost of living issue for Leaseholders facing large bills, with no control over them, despite being liable for the costs....

[Liam Spender @LiamSpender]

The case for leasehold in this article is wrong and predicated on false premises.

1/ leases of new flats or houses are not sold at a “substantial discount” to reflect the fact that they are leasehold and carry ground rents.

The ground rent is neither legally nor commercially necessary. Ground rent as part of the price / consideration for the grant is not legally necessary because the leases are made by deed and require no consideration.

The ground rent is not a term of the lease any purchaser can negotiate. The same is true of many other terms in leases. It is common to see flats of identical configuration, if not next door to each other, sold for materially different premiums but with the same ground rent.

Indeed, in virtually all cases the developer will have agreed to sell the ground rent income before the first flat is built and cannot negotiate even if the flat buyer offers a higher premium for no ground rent.

Nor is it uncommon or unusual to see leases that prescribe the ground rent by factors that have nothing to do with the premium paid, for example by the number of bedrooms.

Further, when the Competition and Markets Authority investigated leasehold in 2015 it could find no evidence that new houses were sold for less than freehold houses. And where is the constant against which to compare flats because they are generally never sold as freehold?

2/ buying a leasehold flat or house is not the same as buying a sofa on instalments. If a sofa is bought on hire purchase then the buyer owns it outright at the end after making all payments. Not true for a leasehold flat or house, which goes back to the freeholder at the end of the term even after all payments are made. Indeed, modern leases also require the leaseholders to pay all the upkeep and for improvement of the building.

3/ a lease is not a right to occupy. That would be a rental tenancy. A long leasehold is an estate in land carrying the right of exclusive possession for the term. It is this right that makes it saleable and mortgageable.

4/ the myth that leaseholders are incapable of running estates or building places is to be contrasted by experience of right to manage and resident management companies, including at very large sites. Walk round New York or Paris or any other major city and you will see neighbourhoods full of communally owned and managed buildings. It is quintessentially feudal to say the British are too stupid to manage their own buildings without a third party freeholder.

5/ leasehold is not and has never been designed for multi occupancy blocks of flats. It was all that was available at the time large numbers of flats began to be built to ensure that positive covenants could be legally enforceable as owners changed and in multi-storey blocks. Other common law countries (Australia, Canada to name but two) saw the flaws in leasehold and developed a bespoke legal model. That is what Commonhold seeks to achieve for England.

6/ the fundamental flaw in leasehold, which cannot be fixed, is that it creates an adversarial relationship and a principal-agent problem between freeholders and leaseholders. The freeholder has all the power and no responsibility. More than 50 years of Parliament attempting to regulate service charges demonstrates this problem is inherent, a feature not a bug.

7/ as to freeholders’ property being expropriated without market value under the 2024 Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 this is wrong and the Divisional Court said so last October. We shall see if the Court of Appeal agrees.

In any event, the loss of the freeholders’ right to 50% of marriage value when leases below 80 years are extended is unjustifiable in market terms. The freeholder gives nothing in exchange, keeps his freehold interest and is compensated for the loss of ground rent. Ending marriage value stops freeholders extracting ransom from a lease extension or freehold purchase.

[Charles Perez-Storey @CPerezStorey]

@ret_ward @KathrynPorter26 @ret_ward where does it actually say that in the report?

The summary has this para, which to my understanding is a very roundabout way of saying that the high renewables share was at fault for grid instability, but can't say so directly because it's not "politically correct"...

[James Wright @JPBWFarm]

According to Natural England's modelling, the fish disco will save just 0.083 salmon and 0.028 sea trout per year. That works out to over £280,000 per fish saved.

For £700 million, we could wipe out Somerset’s £41 million council deficit for a decade, fix every single pothole in the county, build a rail link to Minehead, and make every bus in Somerset free for years.

Or we could just make the electricity that Hinkley produces cheaper, and we'd all benefit.

Being a poor country is a choice.

[Charles Perez-Storey @CPerezStorey]

@Hrushworth This looks excellent @Hrushworth!!

You could go "next level down" by mapping the SCS positions that departments publish - e.g. DESNZ produce a spreadsheet, that goes down to DD level, so could be imported into here - & visualising as an org chart.

Would encourage more scrutiny!