Report comment

I was instructed by a property institution to liaise with the Government over what eventually became the CLRA. As Stephen Larcombe hints, it started quite differently. The first draft bill I saw was heavily weighted (in terms of the number of clauses and appendices) towards dealing with the insolvency of a commonhold association.

I am somewhat surprised at the furore. The practice is odious, and money-grabbing (and haven't we been here before, with what I think were called Blue Dolphin clauses?), but must have been pointed out to the buyers AND, surely, their mortgagees? If not, it is a terrible black mark against the profession. I acknowledge that lay clients often don't take any notice of advice, or take it with an interesting and unforeseen interpretation (I write as a litigator, not a conveyancer), but the mortgagees would have been interested to know their security wasn't perhaps worth so much after a few years?

There is a place for leasehold schemes in housing developments, where there are communal areas which need managing, and possible basic rules for the good of all. The sensible longer term approach though is for the freehold to be vested in a company owned by each house equally, so it is the residents who manage the show and get any ground rents.

As for the comment by anon at 08.04: I suppose this does happen, but isn't it a clear conflict of interest?