Got a bit of green space? Greater Exeter would LOVE to build on it

https://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/call-for-sites/

and a (pointless) “consultation” document here:

https://www.gesp.org.uk/consultations/issues/

Since, as usual, all done and dusted.

Big expansion to Newton Abbott already moving on, same with the Teignbridge side of Exeter at Alphington and at Cranbrook – and all the partner councils happy to allow development anywhere and everywhere else. Unless you are in Exeter, in which case all housing will probably be student housing.

The East Devon Local Plan was supposed to cover us till 2030. This one goes from now to 2040.

Local Plans for 4 councils (ours taking nearly a decade to pass) all to be ripped up as no longer worth the paper they were (eventually) written on.

And, whilst all this is going on, EDDC’s main preoccupation is spend millions of pounds of our money to relocate to a site that could be redundant before they ever set foot in it.

Lancashire devolution killed off due to lack of support – why not Devon and Somerset?

Surely, with the bid for a “Golden Triangle LEP” coupled with Somerset-centric funding and LEP business interests, we are in much worse disarray than (one county) Lancashire?

Lancashire councils have been ordered by the government to rewrite their devolution plans.

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) said the plans were “redundant” after two of the county’s 15 councils withdrew support.
The leader of Fylde Borough Council leader said on Wednesday the deal was not good enough and it was pulling out.

Devolution would mean Lancashire making its own decisions on transport, housing and parts of education.

Lancashire’s 15 local authorities, with the exception of Wyre, backed an original bid to take powers from Westminster last November.

A DCLG spokesperson said: “Councils in Lancashire have been told they will have to resubmit an application for devolution, if Fylde withdraws its support for a Combined Authority.

“An application which was submitted last year was being considered by government, but that becomes redundant if Fylde pulls out – which it looks set to do.”
i
The decision to withdraw will have to be formally rubber-stamped by Fylde Council in the coming weeks.”

How did our (unelected, unrepresentative) LEP come to power and why?

Bumped from comment to post:

“I think that the clue is in the failure to seek involvement of either the broader business community or the public.

The signal failure is made most obvious by the admission, “private sector participation on the Board needs to be broader than just development related companies and needs to ensure representation from the wider local business community as has been successfully achieved in Exeter and Heart of Devon Economic Partnership and the Exeter and the East Devon business forums.”

The “post truth” (do we mean lie?) is that Heart of Devon and East Devon Business Forum were even more unrepresentative, representing only the individuals who elected themselves to be representatives. To put no finer point on it, nobody asked me if I approved these individuals to do anything at all.

The principal economic interests (see official statistics bodies) for Devon are tourism and agriculture. Always, were, always will. So yes, there may be other routes to market and other markets.

But you are a damn fool to ignore your principal strengths and capitalize on them.

But even with the agricultural economic disaster of Brexit staring the agricultural lobby in the face there is no move to lobby parliament. What we are presented with is a mantra that we will make the location healthy and thus we don’t need the NHS or care in the community or local hospitals, but must concentrate on building houses that are only economic if the developer’s clever accountants say so, and return nothing to the community.

I assume that the builders have got those clever computer models that figure out what is the economic point at which you maximise profit for bothering to build a house as opposed to land-banking it. If they don’t then the shareholders MUST be looking for a new board of directors (Bovis?). For that is the nub of the problem.

Commercial businesses are constrained to make profits for the benefit of the remuneration of the directors (first, if you please) and then shareholders, but not the employees because they are below the salt. There is nothing in their Memorandum and Articles about social justice and social responsibility – trust me, it is not there; and damn all about social housing.

So that is the real problem. Bodies are being created that are private sector beneficial, but they are being paid for out of public sector funds. So the tax payer is enriching, without any recourse, bodies that they did not authorise, to distribute public money – the council tax – for the benefit of self-elected groups who appear to have no responsibility to report to the public, or to be open to prosecution if they fail to behave with the probity one expects of those who administer public moneys.

Can we do anything about it.

Damn all? Maybe go to parliament to get local authorities to be able to do their own developments instead of being compelled to offer their own developments for right to purchase.

Frankly speaking, I find it unacceptable that the mantra that market forces must prevail on all accounts over any sector. Why should my taxes be used to give profits to people just because their house was built for social housing instead of for profit? Why don’t I get my money back?

There is a nostrum that says health is simply an economic matter – it you do not have the money you cannot afford to be healthy. Indeed, in all social matters, it is imperative that, through the public sector, we test if the private sector actually offer value for money or not. And we can only do this by having the ability to mount public sector developments (whether building hospitals or housing developments) that allow us to test value for money.

Value for money is not about how much profit a company can make out of running a train service (or failing to?) but about how much does it cost the tax payer to commission that service and what return does the taxpayer get?

If we look at the banking sector and the 2007 disaster – paid for by the tax payer – and still being paid for by the tax payer when we own RBS. What is your government doing for you? So far the tax payer is deeply exposed to RBS. And none of that means the tax payer sees a return themselves. Nothing in the hustings develops agriculture or tourism. So we are entitled to conclude that the blandishments of the LEP are mere frippery and bring no improvement to the region’s economics or development of travel and tourism.

For if you insist on economic measures for the region, first you have to define them, if they do not resonate with the Office of National Statistics (trust me – those folks have more serious statistics) then you have a serious credibility problem.

And therein hangs the tail. Agriculture and tourism is what we do – but the (irrelevant?) use cases being presented are what we don’t do.

Now the guys pushing for new developments are being told if they do not hit the ‘hot buttons’ of development they do not get funding, so we can only be certain that farmers and B&B providers are going to lose out because they are ‘yesterday’s market’ even though they are where the true market of Devon is.

Jurassic eat your heart out?’

“Beware the Rentcharge “Scam” – and it’s perfectly legal”

From the blog of Clutton Cox, Bristol.

Owl cannot verify this legal information but, if it is correct, it has important implications for many Cranbrook residents so they may wish to check this out urgently:

The arcane world of Rentcharges has moved on significantly – and not in a good way.

We have updated this post a few times since my appearance on Radio 4’s “You and Yours” a couple of years ago to discuss Rentcharges.

At the beginning of last year, we were able to confirm what we thought was the end to a particularly vindictive abuse of process in how arrears were recovered.

Annoyingly, on appeal, the law has been returned to its previous anachronistic form.

If you are the owner of a property with a Rentcharge (or Chief Rent depending on which area you live) you need to read on to avoid your being an unwitting part of a particularly nasty Conveyancing Nightmare.

More on that later, but first some background.

What is a Rentcharge?

Rentcharges (technically Rentscharge but let’s not be too pedantic, we’re friends after all) originated in the early part of the last century and were a means for builders to develop land without paying a premium to the owner of the Land.

Landowners would sell land to Developers at a reduced capital sum or for no money at all in return for an income from the owners of the new houses and their subsequent owners.

The person entitled to the Rentcharge is known as the Rentowner.

Rentcharges normally range between £2 and £10 per annum with the most expensive at around £12.60.

Rentcharges originated in the early part of the last century and were a means for builders to develop land without paying a premium to the owner of the Land

Rentcharges in Bristol, Chief Rents in Manchester

A Rentcharge is a peculiarity of Conveyancing in Bristol and surrounding towns and villages. They can also crop up in other areas of England such as Bath and Sunderland.

In Manchester such payments are known as Chief Rents.

Estate Agents, in our neck of the woods, often use the term “freehold and free” in their property particulars and brochures. In this context “freehold and free” refers to a freehold house which is not subject to the payment of a Rentcharge.

The 1977 Rentcharges Act abolished the creation of all new Rentcharges, subject to a few exceptions, for example, small developments with shared facilities such as a pumping station or shared accessways.

The shelf-life for existing Rentcharges was capped at 60 years so that all relevant Rentcharges would expire in 2037.

The 1977 Act, for those who could not wait that long, by design or choice, permitted existing freehold owners, to buy out (or redeem as it is technically known) the Rentcharges attached to their property.

A Rentcharge should not be confused with a Ground Rent which only relates to Leasehold properties, especially, although not exclusively, to flats. You do not have an automatic right to buy your Ground Rent.

How Much Does It Cost To Redeem a Rentcharge?

If you know the identity of the Rentowner you can apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government to redeem the Rentcharge.

The cost of redeeming the Rentcharge will be about 16 times the yearly payment.

We had an enquiry from a client who had received a letter from an Estate Agent acting for a Rentowner and was asked would he like to purchase the Rentcharge for £750

We were asked whether £750 was a good deal or not.

The Rentcharge in question amounted to £2.64 per annum.

The cost to redeem under the 1977 Rentcharge Act would be about 16 times the yearly payment, approximately, £43.

We said it was not a good deal and advised him to contact the Department for Communities and Local Government

If you know the identity of the Rentowner you can apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government to redeem the Rentcharge.

The address to write to or download the application form online is:

Rentcharges Unit:

Department for Communities and Local Government, Ground Floor, Rosebrae Court, Woodside Ferry Approach, Birkenhead, Merseyside, CH41 6DU.

Are There Any Problems with Rentcharges When Selling Your Property

Many homeowners have been paying the yearly rentcharge although many may have forgotten to pay, not been asked to pay or not known who to pay.

As Conveyancing Solicitors, we often have to deal with problems where there is no evidence of payment of the Rentcharge on the sale of a property.

Conveyancing Solicitors in Bristol normally agree on an apportionment from the sale price of 6 years (the limitation period for a debt) Rentcharge payments roughly between £15 and £75.

No big deal then?

The Rentcharge “Scam”?

Many conveyancing deeds which include a rentcharge state that such rent will be payable annually “whether formally demanded or not”.

Rentowners, including a growing number of Investment Companies, have used non-payment as a trigger to impose draconian penalties on unsuspecting homeowners.

Here is what happened to one of our conveyancing clients in Bristol.

The Facts:

Our client owned a house in Bristol subject to a Rentcharge. He received a Rentcharge demand purporting to be from the new Rentowner.

Our client had been paying his Rentcharge annually ever since he bought the property to another person. Naturally, he asked for proof of ownership before paying to someone else. Proof, he was told, would only be provided if a £60 administration fee was paid. Not, unsurprisingly, he refused.

But, here’s the rub: the company went ahead with imposing a Statutory Lease on the property rather than pursuing its debt through the Courts.

The company used the little-known Section 121 (4) of the Law of Property Act 1925 ( the LPA) to create a Lease as security for payment of its Rentcharge.

The sum total of the Rentcharge debt that the company, Morgoed Estates Limited (Morgoed), could have legitimately claimed through the Courts was only £16.50

Morgoed used the LPA to create a Lease on his property as security for debt of the £16.50 unpaid Rentcharge.

When our client discovered a Lease had been created on his property, he offered the £16.50 offered in full payment of the outstanding debt.

The company refused this offer.

A Sledgehammer Lease to Crack a Rentcharge Nut

What Morgoed did was perfectly legal, but hardly proportionate.

In 1925 the annual sums payable as Rentcharges were not insignificant.

The ability to create a Lease therefore as security for payment would not have been that controversial.

But the power to impose a Statutory Lease remains from the 1925 Act and was not abolished by the 1977 Act.

Fast forward to the present day and inflation has eroded any financial impact for Rentowners. But the power to impose a Statutory Lease remains from the 1925 Act and was not abolished by the 1977 Act.

The 1925 Act also permits the Rentowner to claim its fees for creating the Lease and a payment for the removal of the Lease as well.

Unfortunately, there is no requirement in the Act for the fees charged to be reasonable.

The fees could easily run into thousands of pounds if the Rentowner so chooses.

Our client took Morgoed to Court to remove the Lease from the title to his property.

And, he at least, had his day in Court.

A Short-Lived Victory

The Court was having none of it and decided in favour of our client.Act

The Court decided that

“The lease …is not registrable at HM Land Registry as a lease because it is a mortgage (within sections 3(5) and 4 (5) of the Land Registration Act 2002) and can only be protected on the register by a notice.”

The company could not ask for any additional monies over and above the outstanding Rentcharge debt.

The judge did not temper his opinion when he stated:

By the Applicants (Morgoed) unreasonable conduct in these proceedings and in persisting in charging unreasonable sums as a condition for redeeming the Rentcharge I see no reason why the standard order for costs (against Morgoed) should not follow the failure of the application.”

Morgoed’s ruse of creating a Lease had been rumbled.

The Land Registry removed the restriction on our clients title and he was able to sell his property without the Statutory Lease.

But, unfortunately, for other homeowners that changed once again on an Appeal in July 2016.

The Appeal Decision

Viewers look away now, as they say on TV, as you may find scenes of an unpleasant nature.

The Court reversed the earlier decision and held that:

“It is clear from s 121 of the LPA that the right to grant a lease arises once there is 40 days of arrears, provided that the rentcharge remains in existence and even if payment was not demanded.

That right is unaffected even if the Appellants have provided no information about their entitlement to the rentcharge, even if they have sent demands to the wrong address, and even if they have refused arrears after the grant of the lease.”

It is difficult to see how the appeal could have gone any better for Morgoed. You can read the full decision here.

The judge although recognizing how the result was not appropriate said that Parliament should have reformed the remedies available in the 1977 Act and abolished the right to the Statutory Lease.

To be fair to the lawmakers, such abuses were not prevalent, if at all, at the time.

8 Tips To Avoid the Rentcharge “Scam” Happening To You.

The Rentcharge “scam” is very real one and legal!

There are a few things you can do to minimize your risk of being caught in the “scam”

1. First, check your deeds to see if your property could be subject to a Rentcharge. If you are unsure check with your Conveyancing Solicitor or the Land Registry.

2. Make sure you pay your Rentcharge on time whether demanded or not and ask for a receipt.

3. Set up a Standing Order if possible to avoid overlooking payment of the Rentcharge.

4. If you were paying a Rentcharge but it has not been demanded check with your neighbours to see if they have any information.

5. If you receive a new demand for a Rentcharge ask for documentary proof from the purported new Rentowner and ensure your request by mail is “Signed for”

6. Be prepared to pay an Administration fee for proof (however unpalatable) to avoid paying hundreds of pounds later if a Statutory Lease is registered against your property.

7. If your Rentowner is Morgoed or other “investment companies” make sure you never miss a payment not even when you were not prompted to pay. Companies like Morgoed exist to make money out of unsuspecting homeowners with Rentcharge liabilities from dubious administration fees and/or payment defaults.

8. Best of all, redeem your Rentcharge through the Department for Communities and Local Government as it will save potential hassle and additional cost later on when you sell your house.

Don’t fall into the Rentcharge Trap and turn the non-payment of a few pounds into a Conveyancing Nightmare.”

http://www.cluttoncox.co.uk/site/blog/conveyancingblog/rentcharge_trap_cost_thousands_bristol.html