May 29, 2024

MPs back Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation / LKP call to reform residents association regulations – drawn up by the man who won back £500,000 from Tchenguiz / Peverel

MartinBoydCampaign against retirement leasehold exploitation / LKP has proposed changing the government regulations on the creation of residents’ associations, and has received widespread backing for the reform.

The key changes that have been presented to Communities Secretary Eric Pickles are:

That residents associations can be recognised with 50 per cent of qualifying residents plus one supporting the move, not 60 per cent which is the current – arbitrary – figure.

That the freeholder inform all leaseholders with the service charge demand, or once a year, to join a proposed or existing residents’ association.

The changes have been proposed by LKP director Martin Boyd, who is also the chairman of the residents’ association at Chartered Quay in Kingston, Surrey.

On five occasions, Boyd represented the residents at Chartered Quay in its battles over excessive service charges with Peverel and the Tchenguiz Family Trust, which owned the head lease.

This resulted in more than £500,000 being repaid to the residents, the ejection of Peverel and – in July – the purchase of the head lease for £900,000 (it was on the Tchenguiz books at £3.2 million and heavily indebted).

The reform to residents’ associations is being backed by representatives of the three main political parties:

Ed Davey, the LibDem Energy Secretary and MP for Surbiton and Kingston, Sir Peter Bottomley, Tory MP for Worthing West, and Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Conservative), and Jim Fitzpatrick,  Labour MP for Poplar and Limehouse.

All are known to have an interest in leasehold reform. In addition, the LKP initiative has secured the backing of:

  •  Steve O’Connell, (Conservative AM) London Assembly
  • Ian Fletcher, British Property Federation
  • Caroline Abrahams, AgeUK
  • Chris Paterson, CentreForum think tank
  • Mark MacLaren, Which?
  • Ian Wingfield, Deputy Leader of Southwark Council & Cabinet Member for Housing

“Setting up a residents’ association is often the first step for leaseholders obtaining justice and I am sure Eric Pickles will support a measure that is both beneficial and reduces needless red tape,” said Sir Peter Bottomley.

“Forming a residents’ association was vital when we began our legal battles at Charter Quay,” says Boyd. “We had no idea how difficult it would be to contact enough owners to reach the ridiculous 60 per cent qualifying limit.

“Every conceivable barrier was put in our way to prevent it happening, although we were assured time and again by the freeholder that we would be recognized.

“Only after the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal made the decision for them was recognition granted.

“As Peverel, in particular, continues to assure everyone it welcomes residents groups it may finally have to do something about it if these guidelines are approved by the Secretary of State.”

An officially recognized residents’ association was a vital weapon in the armory during Charter Quay’s battles for freedom, even though it apparently has few rights.

“Formal recognition meant we were able formally to appoint independent surveyors and accountants, and have them seen as independent experts at any hearing.”

Steve O’Connell, Tory Assembly Member at the London Assembly and chair of the planning committee, said:

“It’s pleasing to see a new set of guidelines that are also designed to reduce bureaucracy and make it easier to form leasehold tenants associations. They will also help save the state having to spend so much money on the Property Tribunal with courts arbitrating on these issues as they have to do under the existing guidelines.”

Ian Fletcher, of the British Property Federation, said:

“The Federation’s Residential Management Committee considered that the existing guidelines were long-in-the-tooth and in need of updating and their status needed to be clarified. Working with other stakeholders such as the LKP therefore made a great deal of sense.

“Generally in our experience, collaborative efforts tend to be viewed more positively by Government and dealt with more expeditiously by it, and I hope that will prove the case with these guidelines.

“ Within the existing guidelines there seemed some unnecessarily bureaucratic hurdles to overcome and the new guidelines seek to be more practical and fair in who can vote and to set out a process that seeks reasonable obligations on both parties.

“ The 60 per cent threshold seemed rather arbitrary and on the basis that no one we came across could explain why that had been chosen, and a simple majority seemed a fairer and more sensible basis on which to proceed. Members were concerned about the potential for ‘rival’ groups being recognised and hence the desire for a simple majority.

“We see both residential and commercial  sectors at BPF. In the commercial sector landlords are often crying out for better participation in occupier groups and the like. Groups that are properly constituted in the residential sector are therefore welcome.

“The only caveat I would add is that the groups themselves, once established, need to continue to be democratic and representative of residents and not be taken over by a few individuals. Some safeguards are therefore written in to the guidelines. Best practice rolled out by bodies that represent leaseholders is also very valuable in that respect.”

Caroline Abrahams, Charity Director of Age UK, said: “Age UK strongly supports measures to promote the engagement of older residents in the management and control of their own schemes. Encouraging the establishment of recognised residents associations is an important part of achieving this objective.”

The full proposed changes are here:

Letter to SoS 5 Nov NS 2013


  1. Michael Epstein says

    Speaking on LBC Radio, Eric Picles referred to the tragic case of Florence Bourne who died after being charged £50,000 for roof repairs for her flat in Newham that were not needed.
    He once again reaffirmed his intention in the new year to cap any demands where the council is the freeholder. This is a very welcome step in the right direction. It shows that campaigning groups such as Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation are having an effect on politicians.

  2. Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation says

    I am not sure he is doing much more than scoring points off the Labour controlled Newham council. The cap only applies to schemes with central funding and there aren’t any now. There were some interesting comments on LKP about this

  3. Martin well done,
    I have sent out other fact sheets to residents and will contact you next week.
    Thank you for the advice it has really helped.

  4. Commenting on the ‘Martin Boyd LKP/Campaign against retirement leasehold exploitation ‘ proposals for change in the guidelines on recognition of leasehold tenants’ associations (RTAs).

    It doesn’t appear to me that the anomaly that is written in the present Peverel Resident’s Association constitution is covered in the above proposition.

    I refer to the situation where only “Leaseholders” that ‘pay service charges’ are permitted to be full members, with voting rites or be members of the residents association committee. or make propositions.
    For other residents attendance at meetings is permitted but only in an observational role.

    The anomaly arises with the class of residents that have a life time interest in the property they live in.
    Those who are sub-leasees to the property leaseholder but DO pay annual service charges.

    These are usually life time tenancy contracts made with an up front payment to the sub-leassor on occupation of the property.

    I am one such sub-leasee which has been refused permission to partake in any Residence Association activities, be a voting member or make propositions or be a committee member, despite the fact that I do pay annual service charges.

    Comments appreciated.

  5. We have tried to include all the potential variants of those who are subject to service charges and we did talk through situations like yours. However, it may be something which needs to be reviewed before DCLG formally adopt the proposals. I’ll check and revert.