Dominic Lawson: Big bonuses the fault of former Chancellor and help-to-buy

Owl says: While Lawson blames Osborne it should be noted that May and Hammond have not closed the loophole … which could easily be done …

“At first he said he deserved his £110m bonus, and resisted all the pressure to assign a large chunk of it to charity. Then he said he would give some of it to good causes, but not how much (“a private matter”). Finally, on Friday, after three months of hectoring by the media and investors, he said he’d forgo . . . £25m.

I’m referring to Jeff Fairburn, chief executive of the housebuilder Persimmon and the principal beneficiary of a remarkably generous share-based incentive scheme that has sprinkled more than £500m of equity around 140 of the company’s “top individuals” as if from a fairy godmother’s wand. Except it doesn’t come out of thin air, but by diluting all the ordinary shareholders’ stakes in the business.

Their representatives — pension fund managers, principally — have spent those past three months moaning about it. But when the incentive scheme was drawn up in 2012 — linking the rewards to share price performance and dividend payments — it was approved by 85% of shareholders. So Fairburn’s resistance is understandable; and, indeed, Persimmon’s investors have done fine — since 2012 their shares have quadrupled in value.

But the main reason is not the ingenuity of Fairburn and his colleagues. No, if there was a fairy godmother in this, it was George Osborne. As chancellor, he launched the help-to-buy scheme, which economically crazy but politically astute subsidy supports about half of Persimmon’s recent house sales. We as taxpayers are not directly funding those £500m worth of bonuses, but we have underwritten the personal mortgages that made that colossal windfall possible. Don’t mention it, Jeff: happy to help.

The person most annoyed by this is actually a lot richer than Fairburn — and another housebuilding boss. Steve Morgan, the head of Redrow, complained: “For somebody who has not taken a salary for 20 years it sticks in the craw, being called a greedy housebuilder because of that one company.” And why has Mr Morgan not taken a salary for 20 years? Because he founded Redrow in the 1970s and is worth about £830m. He would be a billionaire (according to the compiler of The Sunday Times Rich List) had he not passed £226m of Redrow shares to his charity, the Steve Morgan Foundation, which supports disadvantaged and disabled people in north Wales and northwest England.

Here we see, in instructive proximity, the sort of wealth that compels admiration and the sort that provokes contempt. That stark divergence is not because Morgan has been philanthropic. It is because he has created his own business and, at the outset, would have been at personal risk if it had not worked out (perhaps, like so many entrepreneurs, he had offered whatever he owned as security for bank loans). Fairburn had a good story to tell, too: he began in the building trade as a youth training scheme apprentice, studying to become a quantity surveyor while mixing concrete. But he did not create the firm of which he is, after all, just another employee: he is taking the rewards of entrepreneurialism without the risks.

He is not, in the true sense of the word, a capitalist. But Morgan is. And the point is that while there has in the decade since the credit crunch been a gale blowing the sails of those who denounce “capitalism”, the public hostility is actually — and rightly — directed against those who are not capitalists (as Karl Marx defined them), but who have seized capital from its owners. After all, that is what the discredited banking executives, both here and in America, did. They leveraged the capital of which they were merely managers, to generate vast bonuses for themselves: when that blew up the banks, the exploded corporate balance sheets were rescued by the taxpayer . . . while the executives kept all their winnings.

In his latest book, Skin in the Game (which I review today) Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls this “the Bob Rubin trade”, in (dis)honour of the former US Treasury secretary who kept his $120m compensation from Citibank: “When the bank, literally insolvent, was rescued by the taxpayer, he didn’t write any cheque — he invoked uncertainty as an excuse.”

The risk — to the market system now under attack from the unreconstructed Marxists at the helm of the British Labour Party — is that the bonny baby of entrepreneurial endeavour will be thrown out with the dirty water of executive self-dealing.

Much of that self-dealing — which I first wrote about as long ago as 1989 in a Spectator cover piece titled “How the bosses help themselves” — is promoted by the argument that it makes senior managers behave more like proper owners, rather than mere time-servers. Specifically, the executive compensation committees of FTSE companies have argued that through the awards of share options, the interests of those managers are aligned with the investors who, collectively, own the businesses.

It is a theory generally accepted and, like many such established doctrines, false. The ordinary shareholders have actually paid for their equity, so if things go pear-shaped, they stand to lose what they have invested; and those who have created businesses can lose everything, even their homes. But share options are free. There is an upside, but as no capital is at risk, no real downside.

One result is that share option schemes have encouraged undue risk-taking by executives, for example by borrowing heavily to finance acquisitions — which is what happened at Carillion. It also encourages a more short-term approach to business-building than a true owner would adopt: share option schemes tend to last for a few years, not the decades that a good business should be measured in.

I should confess, at this point, to having been a beneficiary of just such a scheme. When I was an executive of the Telegraph group I was assigned, for the first and only time in my life, some share options . . . and within just a few months they were most unexpectedly realised when the majority shareholder decided to buy out everyone else. Without any effort on my part — other than just continuing to do my job of editing a newspaper — I was suddenly presented with a cheque sufficient to pay off my mortgage.

I was delighted, of course. But it also felt wrong, somehow. I suppose I might feel the same way if I won the national lottery, although that is most unlikely to happen, and not just because of the odds: I don’t enter it. At least the lottery winners have paid for their stake. We should expect our best-remunerated business leaders to have done the same.”

Source: Sunday Times (pay wall)

“Persimmon slashes boss’s bonus … to just £75m”

Owl says: well the cut is just chicken-feed to these people – and what bets on Persimmon improving other packages such as expenses, stock options and pension payments in future?

“Persimmon is reducing bonus payouts to three top executives by £51m, including a £25m cut for its chief executive, after the UK’s second largest housebuilder was strongly criticised over its huge payout plans.

The FTSE 100 firm said a bonus of £100m for its chief executive, Jeff Fairburn, would be cut to £75m under the company’s long-term incentive bonus plan.

Finance director Mike Killoran will receive £24m less than the £78m he was originally due, and managing director Dave Jenkinson will see his bonus cut by £2m to £38m. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/feb/23/persimmon-slashes-bosss-bonus-to-just-75m

“Persimmon increases freehold sales after Government pressure”

Persimmon – whose boss got a £110 million bonus. And note the headline doesn’5 say “stops” leasehold sales of houses … Why isn’t this illegal?

“Persimmon has upped the number of homes it is selling freehold in a sign it is bowing to Government pressure over the sale of leasehold properties.

The company is understood to have changed its sales tactics on a number of sites where it is currently developing homes after concerns were raised about the potential for third party firms to buy up tranches of freeholds, and the high cost of ground rents.

Homes being sold at a development in Melksham, Wiltshire, where a four bedroom house is available for £234,995, are now being offered freehold, where previously only a leasehold sale had been available. Other sites in Penrith, Crewe, Crawley and Bracknell are also now being marketed for freehold sales.

Persimmon, which builds around 15,000 new homes each year, has come under fire for selling houses on leasehold terms to then hold onto the freehold for future sale as an extra source of income. Some leasehold homeowners found themselves on punitive terms with rapidly increasing ground rents and extra charges, or facing spiralling costs to buy the freehold at a later date. There are around 1.4 million leasehold households in the UK in total. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/02/18/persimmon-increases-freehold-sales-government-pressure/

Obscene Persimmon bonuses – add nearly £41,000 to cost of each house

Guardian Letters:

What do management bonuses mean to the average customer? Persimmon’s CEO will receive a bonus of £110m. Senior staff bonuses will exceed £500m. Persimmon builds approximately 15,000 houses a year. Arguably, therefore, the CEO’s bonus adds at least £7,333 to the price of a house and the senior staff bonuses add £33,333. It is unlikely that the customer would think it money well spent.”
Martin Jeffree

AND

“Surely the housebuilding company Persimmon can now afford to run its own help-to-buy scheme.”
David Simpson

That Persimmon boss £128 million bonus in perspective

“Wow! A bonus worth more than working since the building of Stonehenge for an average Briton…”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/15/persimmon-chair-resigns-chief-executive-obscene-bonus
(comment)

“Persimmon chair resigns over chief executive’s ‘obscene’ £128m bonus”: “corporate looting”

£128m bonus =
427 homes at £300,000 or
512 at £250,000
– just saying …

The chair of Persimmon has resigned over his role in orchestrating a £128m bonus for the housebuilder’s chief executive, Jeff Fairburn, that will begin paying out on New Year’s Eve.

Nicholas Wrigley, the company’s chair and a former banker, said he regretted not capping the bonus scheme and was leaving “in recognition of this omission”.

The Guardian understands Wrigley had put pressure on Fairburn to donate some of his bonus to charity, although Persimmon declined to comment.

The bonus scheme – believed to be the most generous ever in the UK – is due to start paying out more than £800m to 150 senior staff on 31 December. The payouts are linked to the company’s stock market performance, which has been significantly boosted by the government’s help to buy scheme.

Persimmon’s share price has more than doubled since George Osborne introduced help to buy in 2013. About half of Persimmon homes sold last year were to help-to-buy recipients, meaning government money helped finance the sales.

The bonuses have been widely criticised by politicians, charities and corporate governance experts contacted by the Guardian this week. One expert described the bonuses as “corporate looting”, while another said directors had their “hands in an open cookie jar”.

Vince Cable, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, said the “scale of this bonus is obscene” and built on a “government subsidy”.

“It is reminiscent of the worst excesses of corporate greed that helped to create the financial crisis, when short-termism was heavily incentivised and long-term planning ignored,” he said.

“This is also a perverse situation where a corporate fortune has been built on what is essentially a government subsidy in help to buy. This situation shows just why help to buy is so flawed: it fuels demand rather than supply, putting house prices even further out of reach of young people, while adding zeros to the bank balances of housebuilding executives.”

Homeowners trapped by ‘fleecehold’ – the new cash cow for developers
Fairburn is due to collect the first £50m worth of bonus shares on 31 December. The scheme, which is based on the level of dividend returned to shareholders, was meant to take 10 years to pay out, but the company has accelerated dividend payments.

This means Fairburn, other executives and more than 100 middle managers are likely to collect all of the £800m worth of shares by July 2018, far ahead of the 2021 schedule.

The top three Persimmon bosses are due to collect more than £230m from the scheme, which was worth 9% of the entire company when it was created.

John Hunter, the chair of the UK Shareholder Association, which represents small investors, said the bonus scheme was “completely ridiculous” and was based solely on the dividend payments.

“Any bloody fool can pay dividends – it’s just paying them their own money. The scheme is doing the opposite of what it is meant to do – incentive performance and retention,” Hunter said.

“How does this incentive people when they’re all sitting on fortunes? If you’re a manager and you’re getting millions you’d retire on the spot.”

Hunter said Persimmon defends the scheme, which was approved by 85% of investors in 2012, as a reflection of the company’s strong performance and the billions of pounds it has returned to investors through dividends.

“It has done brilliantly well – with our money,” he said. “Help to buy has been almost a license to print money – our money. These bonuses are being subsided by us. All building companies have made a lot of money from help to buy, a government subsidy. We, the voters, have subsidised these payments to directors.”

He added: “I don’t blame directors for putting their hands in an open cookie jar – they are only human. The question here is how this scheme ever got approved.”

Jonathan Davie, Persimmon’s senior independent director and chair of the renumeration committee, which sets company pay, also resigned on Thursday.

“Nicholas and Jonathan recognise that the 2012 LTIP [long-term incentive plan] could have included a cap,” the company said in a statement. “In recognition of this omission, they have therefore tendered their resignations.”

Davie resigned with immediate effect. Wrigley will stay on until his successor has been appointed. …”

Naughty Persimmon

“A national housebuilder has been ordered to stop construction on one of its developments.

Plymouth City Council has issued a 28-day “temporary stop notice” to Persimmon Homes because it’s breached weekend working hours at its Saltram Meadow development on the former Plymstock Quarry site. …”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-devon-42266659

Another new-build developer scam

Estate rent charges apply in Cranbrook:

Thousands of homeowners on private estates are facing unregulated and uncapped maintenance fees, amid allegations that developers have created a cash cow from charging for communal areas not maintained by the council.

Management contracts for “unadopted” private estates are frequently sold off to speculators and property management companies in the same way as freeholds and ground rents – leaving homeowners with spiralling fees and nowhere to turn.

If a new-build estate is “unadopted” it means communal areas such as roads, grass verges, pavements and playgrounds are retained by the developer. The developer then usually sub-contracts day-to-day management.

These companies then pass on the costs to homeowners (both freeholders and leaseholders) via a deed of transfer which obliges the homeowner, under the Law of Property Act 1925, to pay for maintenance of this land. This is often referred to as an “estate charge” or “service charge”. These are on top of full council tax – even though the council doesn’t maintain their street.

Critics say the system is open to abuse because management companies have no obligation to keep costs down or provide evidence the services they charge for are being carried out. Buyers may find the bills spiral as soon as a management contract is sold on.

Lynn Myers bought her two-bed leasehold house in Penrith, Cumbria, from developers Persimmon in September 2016. The sales agent told her the estate would be managed by Carleton Meadows Management Company with an estate charge of £100 a year per household for grass cutting.

When Gateway Property Management took over in July 2017 it tripled the fee to £308 a year – that’s £17,000 from the 55 residents. Myers alleges that the fee includes more than £3,000 “postage”.

“I am on a lower-end income and ploughed my late husband’s insurance money into this property,” says Myers. “I worry that I will be unable to afford this on top of full council tax etc, and also I will be unable to sell. I have been mis-led by Persimmon and the government.”

Persimmon says the initial costs had been miscalculated and that it was working with Gateway to resolve the issue.

Meanwhile, 40 miles away across the Lake District, residents in Church Meadows in Great Broughton are in a similar situation. Richard Elsworth moved into his Persimmon-built freehold property in May 2013. The estate’s 58 residents each pay Gateway a service charge of £125.53 a year, amounting to £7,281 to maintain about 600 square metres of grass.

But Gateway’s charges don’t stop there. When Elsworth’s neighbours sold their home, they were charged £360 for a “management pack” for the buyer, plus £144 for a deed of covenant.

“The only part of the pack that is relevant to the sale is a financial statement so that the service charge information is available to the prospective buyer. As the properties are freehold, Gateway has no responsibility whatsoever for the conveyancing process, other than to receive a deed of covenant from the conveyancing solicitors,” says Elsworth.

Gateway claims it provided an “often exhaustive” amount of information to purchasers’ solicitors when a sale takes place. It said it was common practice for managing agents to charge fees for sales packs and additional legal documentation. It says: “The information we are asked to provide varies from development to development and this is reflected in the amount we charge ranging from £150-£300 plus VAT.

“It is best-practice for the information to be prepared by professionally qualified staff because purchasers are reliant on information being accurate to enable the sale to proceed as smoothly as possible. Typically, a sales pack contains in excess of 25 pages and is tailored to the development.”

Privates estates were debated in parliament earlier this month. Kelly Tolhurst, Conservative MP for Rochester and Strood in Kent, told MPs how homeowners in Hoo bought from Taylor Wimpey and Bellway but are now in dispute with their property management company, SDL Bigwood.

Tolhurst went on to criticise Hyde Housing Association, and London and Quadrant. The latter tried to charge residents at Lodge Hill, Chattenden, for street lamps and street cleaning undertaken by Medway Council.

The Homeowners’ Rights Network (Hornets) is the campaign group fighting for a fairer deal for homeowners on private estates. Its main issue is a lack of a cap on charges and that homeowners don’t have a choice of provider. And, if homeowners have a dispute, there’s no resolution service in place.

Cathy Priestley, spokesperson for Hornets and a freeholder on a private estate, says the private estate model seems to be the norm for new-build estates. “We can only speculate as to why this has happened. The main benefactors are the plc developers who get to keep the estate land, don’t have to prepare it to adoption standards and don’t have to pay for its maintenance or the commuted sums for adoption,” she says. “All councils have to do, under planning, is to ensure there is a long-term sustainable arrangement to maintain the land (under the Town and Country Planning Act). They seem to readily accept assurances from the developers that the management company will deliver this. They don’t appear to have thought about how this affects homeowners.”

While leasehold owners have some (albeit limited) statutory protection, freeholders have very few options. They can take cases to court, but this can be expensive and time consuming. If they decide to simply not pay, they can ultimately lose their home. “Any arrears will normally be recoverable as a debt claim in the county court.

“However, homeowners should be cautious as the rent charge owner may have a number of options including the ability to take possession of the property,” says Adrian McClinton, associate solicitor at Coffin Mew.”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/dec/02/homeowner-freehold-management-fees-unadopted?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

“Housebuilder Persimmon’s boss in line for ‘outrageous’ £50m shares windfall despite Theresa May’s crackdown on fat-cat pay”

“The boss of one of Britain’s biggest housebuilders is in line for an ‘outrageous’ £50 million New Year shares windfall despite Theresa May’s crackdown on fat-cat pay.

Persimmon’s chief executive Jeff Fairburn will next month pocket the first chunk of a share bonus worth a total of about £130 million at the current share price, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The Persimmon incentive scheme, which will see 150 managers share a bonus pot of more than £800 million, is likely to make Fairburn the best-paid FTSE 100 chief executive. … “

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-5116833/Persimmon-boss-set-outrageous-50m-shares-windfall.html

A new problem for new house buyers: flying freeholds

“Simon and Maggie Dancer were ready to exchange and complete on the sale of their house when the bombshell dropped. The conveyancing had uncovered the fact that Linden Homes, which had built the Buckinghamshire estate where they live, had miscalculated the boundaries of their home – and that meant their neighbour owned half their master bedroom. …

… Their neighbours, James and Katrina Inch, are unable to rejoice in their unexpectedly expanded floorspace, for the error makes their home also unsaleable. “We are astonished by how this mistake could have been overlooked by three separate solicitors – our own, our neighbours’ and Linden’s – when we bought the properties,” says James Inch, who was alerted to the issue by the Dancers.

… Extraordinarily, two more residents on the ironically named Exemplar Park estate in Aylesbury are in the same predicament. Ann and Terry Payne checked their deeds after the Dancers contacted them and discovered that their neighbour, Clare Reeve, effectively owns half of their main bedroom.

Like the Dancers and Inches, their homes are link-attached over a shared driveway to the parking area. The room above the gateway should belong to the Paynes, but an error bestows it on Reeve. Slipshod markings have also granted Reeve ownership of a large traffic island in front of the houses. “I am going through a divorce and am trying to sell, but I can’t while the boundaries are in dispute,” says Reeve. “You’d think Linden would have got in touch when it came to light, but I’ve had no word.”

The Paynes have been told by Linden Homes to get the original conveyancing solicitor to sort it out. And it appears unabashed by the fiasco, blaming the families and their solicitors for not noticing the mistakes when they bought. …

… Alarms ought to have been triggered by the very existence of a “flying freehold”. It is a legal grey area that can cause headaches because of potential problems with gaining access across the neighbour’s portion to carry out repairs or enforce covenants. Some mortgage lenders steer clear of such properties which can be difficult to sell on.

… A flying freehold caused an identical issue for Colchester homeowner Samantha Sweeney, who found herself unable to sell her link-attached house. She discovered that her neighbour owned 90 square feet of her 11-year-old property, including half her bedroom which overhangs a shared driveway between the two houses.

The estate had been built by Persimmon which told the Observer: “We worked closely with the resident and this has now been resolved.”

All the residents of Exemplar Park can lodge a formal complaint with their solicitors who missed the crucial anomalies and, if they don’t achieve a resolution, they can appeal to the Legal Ombudsman.

Linden Homes says that its legal team is working on a deed of rectification to correct and realign the development’s boundaries, but the delays have cost the Dancers dear. Their daughter starts school next year and they have to move by January in order to meet the deadline for school applications. They also want to be settled before their baby is born. “I’ve had to pay for new valuations and cancel my daughter’s place at the nursery where she was due to start in September after we’d relocated,” Simon Dancer says. “And Linden is moving in baby steps. As far as it’s concerned it sold the house four years ago and couldn’t care less. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/nov/26/house-problem-neighbours-own-half-bedroom-boundaries-wrong

“Help to buy has mostly helped housebuilders boost profitsl

“The chancellor, Philip Hammond, is lining up another £10bn to extend the “help to buy” programme first launched by George Osborne in 2013, which has already sucked up £10bn of taxpayers’ cash. Yet a report from Morgan Stanley – not usually the type to stick the knife into a flagship government policy – lays bare how this colossal sum has been almost entirely wasted.

Those billions have not helped buyers. The money has gone almost entirely into the pockets of the giant housebuilding firms, which have raised the price of developments by almost exactly the amount made available by the government. All it has meant for first-time buyers is more misery – by pushing up house prices.

Help to buy works by giving aspiring homeowners an interest-free government loan worth up to 20% of a property’s value – if the buyer opts for new-build. The idea was that it would provoke a wave of new building.

But the Morgan Stanley report, headlined “The help to buy premium – and its unintended consequences”, drily unpicks the data, revealing how the beneficiaries have been the major developers. Researchers compared the price of new-build houses in 2013, when the scheme began, with the price of existing or “second-hand” houses.

There has always been a small premium for new-build; people will pay extra for spanking-new kitchens and bathrooms. But since 2013, that premium has rocketed. “The divergence between new-build and second-hand prices is higher than it’s been since records began,” says the report.

It says that the price of new-build has outstripped second-hand by 15% since the start of help to buy. “We are now around 5% points away from the level at which new-build prices have diverged by the full amount of the government’s equity loan (20% of house price across England).”

Of course, Morgan Stanley didn’t produce this report for the likes of me to make a dig at the government. Its interest is in the share prices of the major housebuilders. It worries that the big builders won’t be able to get away with charging a premium of more than 20% for new-builds, and that the super- profits may be coming to a close.

Make no mistake about just how much help to buy has fuelled developers’ profits. The new-build market is increasingly reliant on help to buy, with the large builders – Barratt, Taylor Wimpey, Persimmon – suggesting that about half of their volumes are help-to-buy purchases. And what a brilliant money-making wheeze it has been. Morgan Stanley says: “Help to buy (and broader house price inflation, among other things) have helped housebuilder earnings triple since its launch.”

The builders will say the scheme has, indeed, provoked some supply, but evidence is thin. Morgan Stanley says: “Though it has helped drive supply, figures provide ammunition for critics who suggest it has pushed up prices, rather than making them more affordable.”

Despite this, Hammond is preparing to bung another £10bn at the developers – perhaps to “give clarity and certainty” about the scheme – which even the rightwing Adam Smith Institute says is “like throwing petrol on to a bonfire”.

But George Osborne didn’t need investment banks or thinktanks to tell him this back in 2013 when he launched this madness. Guardian Money at the time spoke to the people at the sharp end: young people excluded from the property market. Duncan Stott of the PricedOut group was particularly prescient: “Help to buy should really be called ‘help to sell’, as the main winners will be developers and existing homeowners who will find it easier to sell at inflated prices. Pumping more money into a housing market with chronic undersupply has one surefire outcome: house prices will go up.”

But the government chooses to listen to the developers instead. Britain’s housing market is broken, and help to buy is just making it worse.”

https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2017/oct/21/help-to-buy-property-new-build-price-rise

After freehold leases another scam: unadopted roads

Rumour has it there are many such roads in our part of the world …
http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/news/practical-advice-issued-for-sensible-parking-in-cranbrook-1-3999229
and
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/02/20/cranbrook-estate-rent-charges-another-developer-cash-cow/comment-page-1/

Owners of new homes are living on potholed roads with no street lights or rubbish collection as housebuilders and councils shun the responsibility for road maintenance.

Developers can save thousands by dodging the legal agreements that pass the roads on to local authority control, allowing builders to make roads narrower than usual, for example, and leaving homeowners to pay for the road’s upkeep or see it fall into disrepair.

People living on these unadopted streets have been forced to seek approval from road management committees before selling their homes and say it is harder to find buyers.

The government is to ban new houses from being sold on a leasehold basis to tackle onerous ground rent charges, yet owners of freehold houses on unadopted streets are being “held to ransom” by management companies that charge households up to £660 a year for road maintenance.

“We seem to be rewriting the rules on the way that roads are looked after,” says Derrick Chester, a councillor for Littlehampton and Arun in West Sussex.

Normally housebuilders have new roads “adopted” by the local authority through a legal agreement under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980, while the sewers underneath are covered by a similar Section 104 arrangement. When the road is left unadopted, homeowners on the road are responsible for its upkeep, and often the sewers and facilities such as playgrounds and parks.

Halima Ali, 30, and her husband bought their freehold four-bedroom home in Rochdale, Greater Manchester, from Persimmon, the developer, and believed that the road would later be adopted by the local council. Seven years later the streets around the 120 flats and houses remain unadopted and are deteriorating.

“The street lights have not been fixed for years, so there are areas that are in complete darkness; it is quite scary at night. A neighbour has had a problem with a sewer cover, which is in danger of collapse,” she says. “There is a children’s playground and, even though it is a public park, residents are required to maintain it. The public come and trash it and we can be made to pay for its maintenance, which is outrageous, and we are paying council tax on top.”

Another homeowner, 56, bought a three-bedroom freehold house in Kettering, Northamptonshire, from SDC Builders nine years ago. “At the time it was sold to me as a benefit, your own private neighbourhood, which would be passed into the residents’ control once the developer had left,” she says, “but, as an unadopted road, we have no street lighting, the bin men won’t come down and we are liable if anyone has an accident on the communal land.”

She has been trying to sell her home, but buyers pulled out when they found out about problems with the unadopted road.

She says that SDC Builders set up a limited company for managing the development, which was passed to residents, who elected two neighbours as directors. She was not aware that if she wanted to sell her property it would require the directors’ approval, and they have refused permission over what she says is a trivial disagreement about parking.

Christine Hereward, the head of planning at Pemberton Greenish, the law firm, says councils and highways authorities will only adopt roads if they are built to their standards. Section 38 agreements are also backed by a lump sum, sometimes running to hundreds of thousands of pounds, put down by the housing developer as a bond against the road not being finished properly. Developers receive their bond back only when the road is adopted. Ms Ali says: “Persimmon has not built our road to the required standard. The council won’t adopt it.”

Critics say developers are choosing not to enter into a section 38 agreement so that they can bypass local authority standards; roads can be narrower and car parking spaces smaller than regulations require, for example. They also save tens of thousands by not making the required bond payments.

In 2009 the government estimated that it would cost £3 billion to bring the country’s thousands of unadopted streets up to an adoptable standard. “Developers can achieve cost savings and make their lives easier. It does enable them to construct a substandard highway. It is a shortcut. To be fair to the developers, it is up to councils to enforce the standards,” says a source who did not want to be named. “There is very little sanction.”

The public come and trash the park and we can be made to pay for it
Mr Chester says councils and housebuilders are colluding over the issue because it saves both parties money. “It fits into the narrative about local authority budget cuts,” he says.

Phil Waller, a former construction manager who runs the website Brand-newhomes.co.uk, says: “I know of one development where a fire engine was unable to access a fire because of parked cars and the layout of the road.”

Unlike private roads, which are often gated, unadopted roads appear as ordinary streets. Whether the public has right of way can be uncertain. Mark Loveday, a barrister from Tanfield Chambers in London, says he frequently hears from homeowners who did not realise that their property was on an unadopted road. “What very often happens is nothing is done to the road for many years and it is only when potholes appear and someone living on the road says, ‘hang on, someone should be maintaining this road’”, he says.

Buyers of new-build homes ought to check the specifics of the road before the sale. “This is an important thing that should be flagged up by the solicitor,” says Mr Loveday. Those who are unsure about the status of their road can apply to the Land Registry for details.

Steve Turner of the Home Builders Federation, the trade association, says housebuilders are increasingly in dispute with local authorities and planning departments over the specifications of newly built roads, which is causing delays in local authorities adopting them. “The resolution typically involves the authority demanding more cash,” he says.

‘We may have to pay for the road upgrade’

Residents of unadopted streets often need to take out public liability insurance in case someone is injured on the street.

Keith Beattie used the government’s flagship Help to Buy scheme to buy his house in Haydock, near St Helens, Merseyside, from Westby Homes North West. In February 2014, when he moved in, the road was unfinished, with tarmac not properly laid and potholes filling up with water. The housebuilder went into administration in August. “The administrators have informed us that they won’t be completing the road and paths. St Helens council will not enter a section 38 until the road is brought to an adoptable standard, which it is not,” he says. “As residents, we may have to pay to have the road completed to the council’s standard.”

Source: Times, pay wall

One of those “too poor to build affordables” posts 30% profit rise

“LONDON (Reuters) – Britain’s second biggest housebuilder Persimmon said its first-half pre-tax profits rose 30 percent to 457 million pounds but it would remain cautious over land buying due to uncertainty around Brexit.

Persimmon, which built just over 15,100 homes across the country in 2016, said its volumes rose 8 percent to 7,794 units in the first six months of the year and that customer interest in its developments remained strong.

The firm said the housing market was still “confident” and its reservation rate had risen 2 percent in recent weeks but it would be prudent about buying land for future building, the biggest cost faced by most builders.

“We will remain cautious with respect to new land investment for as long as the uncertainties facing the market persist, particularly those associated with the risks to the UK economy resulting from the UK’s exit from the EU,” the firm said on Tuesday.”

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-court-idUKKCN1B120X

Persimmon and Crest Nicholson shareholders rebel on executive pay rises

“Pirc advises shareholders to abstain on the annual remuneration report because of high pay for the chief executive, Jeff Fairburn: “The CEO-to-employee pay ratio for 2016 is at an unacceptable level of 55:1,” it says.

Mr Fairburn was paid £2.1m for 2016, up slightly from £2m a year earlier but less than half the £5m paid to then-chief executive Mike Farley in 2012.

Persimmon may be insulated from a large-scale pay rebellion because Institutional Shareholder Services, the largest proxy adviser, says shareholders should vote in favour of all motions at its annual meeting.

But the criticism of its pay scheme follows a revolt at Crest Nicholson, where 58 per cent of voting shareholders opposed the remuneration report in March after it cut profit targets at which incentives under its long-term pay plan kick in. It also comes at a time of growing disquiet over UK listed companies’ multimillion-pound payouts to top executives.

Housebuilders have been increasing profits and dividends as their businesses thrive thanks to house price rises, a shortage of new homes in areas of jobs growth, and the Help to Buy equity loan scheme. This programme enables buyers of newly built homes to receive government-backed loans so they can buy with deposits of only 5 per cent. At Persimmon, this scheme supports about 45 per cent of home sales.” …

https://www.ft.com/content/bb8628b8-269b-11e7-a34a-538b4cb30025

Persimmon non-payment for 3 years may lead to loss of bus service

Owl says: if a developer has not kept its side of a bargain and ows money or in-kind payments, with a planning application, surely it should not be allowed to submit further planning applications till the debt has been fully discharged (with appropriate interest).

“The future of a vital bus route could be placed in jeopardy. Persimmon Homes South West has built 334 new homes at Mile End on the Ashburton Road on the A383 at the edge of Newton Abbot, and as part of the planning agreement for the scheme, they would help to fund the number 88 bus service that runs between Newton Abbot and Totnes, via Buckfastleigh, and travels on the A383 Ashburton Road,

But, the developers have been accused of not paying those contribution for 2015, 2016 and 2017 – a total of £225,000.

Teignbridge Council have commenced legal proceedings against the developer to ensure all the signed contributions are met.

But there are fears that unless the developers pay up, the bus route could be placed in jeopardy as there could be no funds for it.”

http://www.devonlive.com/south-devon-bus-service-under-threat-as-developers-have-not-paid-contributions-for-it/story-30282913-detail/story.html

Persimmon loses appeal against Newcastle master plan decisions

Though basically it was just a developer/developer spat – one developer fighting another about who got to build 3,000 houses and where – Persimmon saying that the other developer shouldn’t be allowed to build where it was given permission to build.

Nothing like the right to build masses of houses to bring out the developers’ lawyers!

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30620%3Acouncil-defeats-high-court-challenge-to-masterplan-and-planning-permissions&catid=63&Itemid=31

Who will help people in sub-standard new build homes?

“There are rising concerns that the rush to build new homes is causing housebuilders to cut corners. Many firms have set tough targets to cash in on huge demand.

There are rising concerns that the rush to build new homes is causing housebuilders to cut corners. Many firms have set tough targets to cash in on huge demand — and meet the Government’s pledge to build 200,000 new homes a year.

Thousands of victims of poor workmanship have formed groups on social media websites such as Facebook, including Taylor Wimpey Unhappy Customers, Avoid Persimmon Homes and Bovis Homes Victims Group.

Hundreds have posted on Snagging.org — named after the jargon builders give to the task of finishing a project — citing problems such as creaking floors, scratched windows and stained carpets.

Campaign groups want a new homes ombudsman who can step in when families are let down. Buyers should also be given a chance to inspect their new-build before being handed the keys, they say.

Paula Higgins, chief executive of HomeOwners Alliance, says: ‘You have more consumer protection when you buy a toaster.

‘The industry is tilted too far in favour of developers, and the complaints system is too confusing.’

A report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Excellence in the Built Environment found more than nine in ten buyers report problems to their builder.

Oliver Colvile, chairman of the parliamentary group and Conservative MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, says: ‘There have been too many reports of new homes that are quite simply uninhabitable.

‘We need to ensure there is a clear process whereby developers can be held to account and are responsible for correcting any below-par workmanship as soon as possible.’

Britain’s biggest house builders nearly all reported soaring profits last month. Persimmon reported a pre-tax profit of £783 million for 2016 — a 23 per cent increase on 2015.

Barratt Developments saw a 20.7 per cent rise to £682.3 million, Bellway a 36.5 per cent rise to £492 million, Redrow a 35 per cent rise to £140 million and Taylor Wimpey a 21.5 per cent rise to £733.4 million.
Bovis reported a 3 per cent fall in profits but still made £154.7 million.
Bovis has been forced to set aside £7 million to compensate buyers who have complained about the poor quality of its homes.

In January the firm was revealed to have offered up to £3,000 to buyers who moved into their houses by December 23 as it struggled to meet targets.
Sales have been boosted by the Government’s Help to Buy scheme, which has helped 100,284 first-time buyers onto the property ladder since 2013.
All the firms reported an increase in both the number of homes built and average selling prices. …

… A spokesman for the National House Building Council says: ‘We carry out spot check inspections at key stages during construction… [but] the builder is responsible for ensuring homes conform to building regulations and our standards.’

A Taylor Wimpey spokesman says: ‘We recognise that we do sometimes get things wrong, but we are committed to resolving those issues.’
A Bovis spokesman says: ‘We are putting more resource into customer care and reviewing our processes to ensure a focus on quality.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-4314028/Who-help-families-forced-live-half-built-homes.html

The housing white paper: Guardian nails it!

Not so long ago, the communities secretary, Sajid Javid, sounded like the scourge of the big housebuilders as he complained that current rates of housebuilding were “not good enough”. His white paper on housing upgraded the rhetoric to describe the market as “broken” but it would be hard to conclude the fix-it plan will make life uncomfortable for the likes of Barratt, Persimmon and Taylor Wimpey.

The stick that Javid has chosen to beat the big boys looks more like a twig. Developers will be forced to build on land within two years of gaining planning permission. That is a reduction from the current cut-off of three years but, given that most developers tell us they start building almost as soon they receive permission, the switch may be barely noticed.

At a push, one might say government assistance for small housebuilders could inject more competition. But, if the sight of profit margins at 20%-plus across the sector hasn’t brought forth a rush of new rivals, the problem may go deeper than a lack of official encouragement for the smaller brigades.

Javid’s greater focus seems to be funding more “affordable” homes, to be delivered chiefly by housing associations and local authorities. Since the big boys tend to be uninterested in the affordable end, they’ll be happy to let others get on with the job. Share prices across the sector rose gently, and one can understand why. The big boys can continue building at their current steady rate and their special dividends can keep flowing.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2017/feb/07/housing-white-paper-builders-sajid-javid

Council takes out injunction against Persimmon for highways work not completed before house sales started

“In a statement made after the injunction was served but before agreement was reached, David Hammond, Housing and Planning Manager at Wychavon, said: “The highways issues relate to our concerns that construction traffic could meet other road traffic, cyclists and pedestrians on a road that is currently too narrow, unsuitable and unsafe for construction vehicles.

“By beginning development on site and selling homes, Persimmon is in breach of a planning condition that was imposed by the Secretary of State on 2 July 2014, a condition that clearly states that in the interests of public safety, the necessary highways work should have been completed before any development took place.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29915%3Acouncil-and-developer-reach-deal-after-injunction-served-over-highways-issues&catid=56&Itemid=24

Bovis … creek … no paddle?

Bovis is currently constructing all over East Devon, including in large numbers at Axminster, Seaton and Cranbrook.

The company has recently seen the creation of the Bovis Homex Victims Group Facebook site:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/09/08/bovis-homes-victims-group-facebook-page/

Could it be that this has also contributed to their woes?
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/12/23/axminster-and-cranbrook-slums-of-the-future-says-councillor-hull-whilst-councillor-moulding-says-nothing/

A City attempt to lay the foundations of a £5bn merger of Bovis Homes and Berkeley Group is on shaky ground, with Berkeley understood to have rejected the idea.

Schroders, Bovis’ biggest shareholder, wrote to Berkeley proposing an all-share merger following a difficult trading period for Bovis which claimed the scalp of its chief executive David Ritchie.

Bovis had issued a surprise profit warning at the end of 2016, saying that pre-tax profits were likely to be flat this year at between £160m and £170m, below analyst predictions of £180m, due to a slowdown in the rate of building and sales in December.

The string of events prompted Schroders to target a merger with Berkeley, which mostly builds homes in London and the South East. Bovis’ activity is also concentrated on that area.

But Berkeley sources said the company had dismissed the call, instead choosing to concentrate on growing through partnerships with the likes of the National Grid, with whom it signed a £700m joint venture to develop new homes on disused land owned by the power provider in 2014, rather than mergers.

Other housebuilders, such as rivals Redrow or Persimmon, could still be in the frame to buy Bovis, which has struggled in recent months with slowing sales of its homes amid wider market uncertainty.

Berkeley itself has not been immune to a slump in the market: last month it amended its five-year dividend plan to return some cash through share buybacks instead. It also said in December that the number of reservations for its homes had fallen by a fifth since the referendum, signalling the impact of the slowing London property market on the company.

It hit out at Government policy which it said was increasing demand rather than supply, saying while it had helped in some areas, it was having “a negative effect on the capital”.

Schroders declined to comment on the terms of its proposals.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/01/22/merger-bovis-berkeley-shaky-ground/