UPDATE: Mr Joseph Gurvits, of Y and Y Management, wants to make clear that neither he nor his company are not formally part of the appeal process.
Freeholder Israel Moskovitz and his business associate and managing agent Joseph Gurvits have failed to obtain leave for appeal against the decision to grant Regent Court in Plymouth its right to manage.
Regent Court, a retirement complex, won its epic 20-month battle in July, when the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) upheld last year’s LVT ruling that the retirement site have right to manage.
Sir Keith Lindblom, president of the Upper Tribunal, rejected Moskovitz / Gurvits attempt to appeal the matter further stating “there is no sound basis for an appeal in this case, nor any other good reason for an appeal to be heard”.
But Moskovitz / Gurvits have until August 26 to ask whether they can appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.
Regent Court has had an epic struggle to win right to manage from the London property duo, who trade here as freeholder Avon Freehold Limited and property manager Y and Y Management, which is a recent member of ARMA.
Gurvits is a well known figure to London leaseholders and his wife, Esther, runs Eagerstates managing agents.
The RTM marathon has been fought for the residents by the Sussex-based Right To Manage Federation, headed by Dudley Joiner.
Another retirement site, Elim Court, also owned and run by Moskovitz/ Gurvits is still fighting for RTM having failed in January.
The residents are appealing to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) and the case may not be heard until next year.
Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation Comment
It is shameful that pensioners seeking to exercise what our legislators imagined would be a simple no-fault right to manage process can be frustrated for years by a series of legal stratagems and manoeuvers.
It cannot possibly be right that a key protection for leaseholders – right to manage – can be thwarted without any thought to the benefit of the pensioners, who have made their wishes clear. Several of the original applicants have died.
MPs need to revisit the rules of right to manage and make them simpler and easier, so that the servants of freeholders can be sent packing when it is clear that they are unwanted.
Peverel receives a lot of criticism on this site, but it has never fought a right to manage in this fashion.
Related posts:
Israel Moskovitz and Joseph Gurvits fail to thwart ‘right to manage’ at Plymouth retirement site …
Israel Moskovitz fails – again – to appeal against the Regent Court right to manage
Bottomley meets Joseph Gurvits and Israel Moskovitz over disputes at Plymouth retirement developments – but leaseholders are determined to fight it out
‘Don’t make the pensioners of Regent Court take you to court AGAIN, Mr Moskovitz,’ urges Bottomley
How utterly preposterous that Moskovitz / Gurvits have the right to appeal on Regents Court.
As for Elim Court , again the rules of claim on a RTM are very clear and the residents want to have the option to appoint a managing agent of their choice. How can it be fair or right that they have been refused permission purely on a set of (brackets) in a document?
If we were talking about mortgage irregularities or insurance irregularities which involved over 3 million people, the Government would be up in arms about it and demanding an investigation…… why do they not want to do this for leaseholders? we are talking about millions of pounds worth of irregularities within the sleazy world of Leasehold…..
I can only image that it will upset the apple cart for all the new apartment developments that are currently in the process of being built and would effect the massive profits that these developments bring in to the coffiers…
Karen,
Years ago the problem with leasehold could in a large part be put down to the greed of landed gentry, who inherited their land on the basis of which fair maiden satisfied the needs of a King.
That said, there are still some of the landed gentry that take their responsibilities very seriously. Purely as a personal opinion (now wait till I am shot down in flames) a good example would be the Mostyn family.
The problem now is the “new breed” of freeholder and the manner in which the purchase of freeholds took place.
Consider the effect of a change of leasehold to freehold. Think of the immediate financial consequences to pension funds and banks?
What is a government to do, if they are faced with the claimed assets of the institutions being found to be severely overvalued?
What is a government to do, if a bank they are trying to sell off put one of the largest freeholders into administration? If they do, the debts will go bad. and have to be put on the books as a bad debt provision. If they do the true value of the portfolio is exposed, which will have a domino effect on other property portfolios.
If you are a government, you leave things as they are, no matter what the cost to leaseholders.
Not heard of the Mostyn Family until now but obviously they are doing a good job… there are a few landlords who could learn from them… I agree there are some good landlords out there but they are getting thinner on the ground.
More reasons for us all to keep piling the pressure on the Governments of the day to get this mess sorted out….they are relying on lethergy and that eventually we will get sick and tired of complaining to them but we won’t.
We will all just keep digging up more stories of abuses and eventually the hole will cave in on them with all the dirt..
I have noticed that more and more of the smaller managing agents are getting eaten up by the big nationals and that freeholds are being sold off like some sort of magic dust……. unfortunatley, there will be no golden egg by the time they all climb the magic beanstalk..
Leasehold tenure will fail and collapse it is just a matter of time……