Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
fru-gal

Leasehold tycoon: man whose firms control 40,000 UK homes

Recommended Posts

They had to be in there somewhere:

Quote

The financing of Tuttiett’s property empire is helped by low-interest loans totalling £336m made by an insurance company, Rothesay Life, spun out of Goldman Sachs, in which the US investment bank remains the largest shareholder. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole leasehold scandal is another example of the financialization of the UK economy. Anything and everything that can be converted to a financial product is, to unlock more value and squeeze out more profit. 

This is a scandal like PPI in that the housebuilders knew what they were doing and were aware that the house sale price did not reflect the value of the lease. It was little more than theft using sleight of hand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, fru-gal said:

What a good article, well spotted.

Democorruptcy, ha ha, yes, the perennial bad penny - or evill penny!

LIked this:

"Yet despite his vast property interests, little is known about Tuttiett. He lives in a listed property in an exclusive part of Hampshire near Winchester, surrounded by his own vineyard. Only one picture of him can be found on the internet, on his ‘The Team’ page at E&J Capital Partners."
And now on a very widely read newspaper website.

And loved this:

However, critics of E&J’s ground rents and debt collection practices are far more vocal. Sebastian O’Kelly, who runs Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, said: “E&J conducts its affairs with the typical arrogance of leasehold landlordism. It makes a nuisance of itself – like other freeholders – demanding fees for subletting and consents for patios and conservatories. It believes, with justification sadly, that this high-handedness is backed by law and that the tenantry – that is, the leaseholders – have no choice but to pay up.

There is almost nothing in its business model that would be unfamiliar to an 18th-century landed gentleman. This game obviously provides Mr Tuttiett with a very nice life.

But it is not wealth creation or imaginative business. It is parasitism that our legislators have shamefully failed to stamp out.

 

That Sebastian, sterling bloke, go on my son.

Edited by North London Rent Girl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, North London Rent Girl said:

There is almost nothing in its business model that would be unfamiliar to an 18th-century landed gentleman. This game obviously provides Mr Tuttiett with a very nice life.

But it is not wealth creation or imaginative business. It is parasitism that our legislators have shamefully failed to stamp out.

So what's the fundamental difference between a leaseholder paying rent to a landlord, and a buy-to-let tenant paying rent to a landlord?

'Cos I don't see a difference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to ban all leasehold, not just on new builds. If you spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a property (esp in London where it is likely to be a small flat), you should own it at the end, not have to pay some parasite for doing nothing and making your life stressfful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the freeholds include not just homes but also schools"

Even taking money from your child's education and doing absolutely nothing towards it.

Edited by Arpeggio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big money to be made out of renting.......think phones, cars, think gym and TV subscriptions, so many day to day regular services where a regular payment is debited from bank accounts an on going income source for some..... including a place to live......never owned, never in control, always to pay for.....life for rent.;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

So what's the fundamental difference between a leaseholder paying rent to a landlord, and a buy-to-let tenant paying rent to a landlord?

'Cos I don't see a difference.

 

Security of tenure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, VeryMeanReversion said:

Security of tenure.

That just makes BTL even worse.

If you think the leasehold system is an outrageous relic of the 18th century, if you think it isn't wealth creating (and both of those things are true), then you ought to think the exact same thing about BTL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, longgone said:

surely if the government stamp out leasehold his business is bankrupt overnight ?

Which is just another example of why people like him, and particularly those that backand support him, are so privately terrified of up and coming political leaders like Corbyn - yet they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that there practices, and the social consequences, give rise to such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, fru-gal said:

They need to ban all leasehold, not just on new builds. If you spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a property (esp in London where it is likely to be a small flat), you should own it at the end, not have to pay some parasite for doing nothing and making your life stressfful!

An individual house owner can choose if they want to opt out of buying building insurance for their home or regularly maintaining it, and take the risk of losing all. 

But in the case of apartment blocks, amounting to collective living/sharing of facilities, there needs to be some structure in place to manage and maintain the property for all - and this needs to be funded. There will inevitably need to be some compulsion of all residents in a block to contribute to insurance and upkeep.  Thus living in such blocks will still involve annual 'service' costs.  But certainly it can, as many do, cut out the 'parasite' and reduce those costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, anonguest said:

An individual house owner can choose if they want to opt out of buying building insurance for their home or regularly maintaining it, and take the risk of losing all. 

But in the case of apartment blocks, amounting to collective living/sharing of facilities, there needs to be some structure in place to manage and maintain the property for all - and this needs to be funded. There will inevitably need to be some compulsion of all residents in a block to contribute to insurance and upkeep.  Thus living in such blocks will still involve annual 'service' costs.  But certainly it can, as many do, cut out the 'parasite' and reduce those costs.

You can buy the shared freehold and organise your own building insurance. Leasehold just means you have to buy or extend the lease normally at thousands of pounds on top of what you have already paid to own the property and you would still need to pay a managing agent to manage the block. So some sponging landowner can continue to sit back and get rich.

Edited by fru-gal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, insertcoinstocontinue said:

As with all things such as this if everyone just didn't pay it what can he do?  I say feck him don't pay

Hi insertcoinstocontinue,

The landlord would be able to forfeit the lease

In general I think the problem lies with the legal advice given to the buyers rather than with anything the freeholder has done wrong. It looks highly likely that the buyers can claim against the solicitors' indemnity insurance if they were not advised on the lease. The lenders won't be best pleased with the solicitor either (who is also responsible for advising them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Democorruptcy said:

They had to be in there somewhere:

 

Imagine you had an actual business that invested in these things at sustainable levels.  Freeholds, property, hotels etc etc

You could sleep better at night knowing your taxes bailed out this lot and subsidised them so they could be in competition with you forcing you to pay more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 65243 said:

Hi insertcoinstocontinue,

The landlord would be able to forfeit the lease

In general I think the problem lies with the legal advice given to the buyers rather than with anything the freeholder has done wrong. It looks highly likely that the buyers can claim against the solicitors' indemnity insurance if they were not advised on the lease. The lenders won't be best pleased with the solicitor either (who is also responsible for advising them).

Yes but surely the legal fees involved trying to force it would cripple the lease holder 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, insertcoinstocontinue said:

Yes but surely the legal fees involved trying to force it would cripple the lease holder 

You mean the freeholder? Forfeiture involves the entire interest reverting to the freeholder. The lease is cancelled. It would more than compensate for a bit of lost ground rent and a solicitors' bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 65243 said:

You mean the freeholder? Forfeiture involves the entire interest reverting to the freeholder. The lease is cancelled. It would more than compensate for a bit of lost ground rent and a solicitors' bill.

I'll get back in my box :-)

ok but it's the idea that the best way to protest about high energy suppliers is if the nation as a whole switched to one supplier the others would soon lower prices. People do still have some power but apathy kills it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, insertcoinstocontinue said:

Feck me housing is depressing. I've had enough. I've been obsessing about house prices since 2005. I'm tired

Yes know the feeling, just want somewhere to live then i'll never look at another article about property and give up this ghastly internet habit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   81 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.