Covenant is a "money-making racket", say campaigners (From Southend Standard)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us Click here for details »
Thorpe Bay covenant is a "money-making racket", say campaigners
12:00pm Sunday 7th October 2012 in News
Ron Woodley in the Burges Estate
CAMPAIGNERS have branded a protective covenant a “money-making racket” after it was revealed a major development company received a share of the profits.
The Echo has discovered Robert Leonard Group, which owns prominent sites such as the seafront Esplanade House and 225 acres of green belt at Bournes Green, holds a 49 per cent stake in Thorpe Bay Estate Company Ltd.
The company, through its subsidiary, Thorpe Estate Ltd, owns the covenant which binds hundreds of residents of the Burges Estate, Thorpe Bay, to pay up to several thousand pounds if they want to make any alterations to their homes.
The rest of the firm is owned by Regis Group, which has been called a “bully” by the Burges Estate Residents’ Association and James Duddridge, the Tory MP for Rochford and Southend East, for its strict enforcement of the covenant.
The covenant ostensibly exists to protect the character of the estate by preventing over-development.
But Ron Woodley, the association’s chairman, said the involvement of Robert Leonard proved it had simply become a way to make easy money.
He said: “It is just a money-making racket, a way of generating revenue.
“There can be no pretence that it is anything other than that.
“It cannot and does not need to protect the integrity of the estate, because the council now has that responsibility.”
Most of the residents living on the estate own the leasehold to their properties, with the freehold retained by Regis.
Pier Management, a Regis subsidiary which manages the leases, says that means it is entitled to charge an “administration fee” and “reasonable costs” for any alterations to homes.
But Mr Woodley has now launched a legal challenge after collecting examples of residents being charged thousands of pounds for relatively minor changes.
Companies House records show Thorpe Estate Ltd raked in £146,000 in 2010/11, “mainly due to additional licence and alterations income”.
Earlier this week, Mr Duddridge vowed to raise the issue in Parliament.
He said: “Collectively the community needs to get together and get somebody who will be able to have a proper judicial review of the covenant and its application, rather than doing it on a case-by-case basis.”
No one from Pier Management or Regis was available for comment.
THE boss of Robert Leonard Group has called for Ron Woodley to be honest about his motivation for campaigning on residents’ behalfs.
Perry Gamon, the firm’s managing director, confirmed the company held an interest in Thorpe Bay Estate Company Ltd.
But he revealed Regis Group had offered to let Mr Woodley, an Independent councillor as well as chairman of the Burges Estate Residents’ Association, manage the estate on its behalf nearly two years ago.
He said: “Personally speaking, I believe that if Mr Woodley was that unhappy with the situation, he should have accepted the opportunity to manage the estate when it was offered to him.
“I’m not sure whether he advised his members of that generous offer.
“Maybe the time and hard work involved in managing a huge estate would stand in the way of his political ambitions.”
According to Mr Woodley, the deal offered by Regis was to manage only the applications for minor changes to properties.
He said: “I couldn’t accept that - it had to be the whole lot - so there was nothing to offer to the association.”
Comments(20)
v.randy
says...
1:24pm Sun 7 Oct 12
This covernant is ideal for making cash because it is vague ,poorly defined and easily abused.
My mother (aged 90) received a demand for £250 'and we will forget about what you owe us up to this point'.
This is blackmail.This is a contract between two parties the residents and Regis/PM but we the residents have no equallity or say or a right of reply.
If Regis/PM as they claim have the Burges Estates interest at heart then they should be obliged to seek a License from the Council to operate and operate within strick,approved guidelines.But that would probably put a dent in their sickening profits.This is profiteering at the expense of innocent homeowners who strive to pay their legitimate taxes etc.
At the moment we on the Burges Estate appear to have two governing bodies intent on managing our lives,one we voted for and one that for all intent and purpose is legally entitled to take as it sees fit without redress.
v.randy
says...
1:48pm Sun 7 Oct 12
TB townie wrote:Spot-On!
Excellent work Ron. It amazes me how people in the town still go to the Roslin hotel which is owned by the same bunch!
As a footnote Regis/PM have interests right across Essex ,London etc.
And enjoy much the same profiteering with leases.
I have as an example a letter in front of me from PM pointing out that 'with the digital age comes the necessity for a dish this means you must have attached it to the external wall of your property such action must be accompanied by a PM Dish License.
Which you must purchase from us.
If you ignore this letter then you will receive a £500 demand for the right to install a Sat Dish.'
My property is on cable!!
Villians....
p1966k
says...
1:51pm Sun 7 Oct 12
Seasider90
says...
6:47pm Sun 7 Oct 12
marshman
says...
7:24pm Sun 7 Oct 12
p1966k wrote:Good point and it makes me wonder if Regis/PM have ever donated to the Conservative Party?
Tory values - fleece people to make the rich richer.
But I'd have more respect for the efforts of Councillor Ron Woodley and James Duddridge MP if they weren't residents of the estate themselves. They clearly have a financial interest in the outcome of negotiations and it sort of takes the gloss off their efforts. Besides, I can think of many far more pressing issues for the MP to take to parliament rather than one which could benefit him financially.
Horton
says...
7:46pm Sun 7 Oct 12
The guy is a joke who is not taken seriously locally nor by his peers in Westminster and therefore has minimal lobbying power - not that he has anything worthwhile to lobby about in the first place. Here's a tip Duddridge - try lack of funding for transport and infrastructure in SE Essex rather than moan about what you have to pay for your latest home improvements.
He has to go - it's a shame we can't just sack him like Dave did...
Brunning999
says...
9:33pm Sun 7 Oct 12
Nebs
says...
12:07am Mon 8 Oct 12
SARFENDMAN
says...
6:33am Mon 8 Oct 12
TB townie wrote:Wasn't it The Roslin that wanted to build over part of the public beach for weddings and functions?
Excellent work Ron. It amazes me how people in the town still go to the Roslin hotel which is owned by the same bunch!
Ian P
says...
7:25am Mon 8 Oct 12
Seasider90 wrote:It seems to me that a prestigious address was more important to the residents than the small print in their leases. This covenant was not suddenly foisted on them by the Lessor, it was in place when they signed on the dotted line. Unfortunately, in my experience of having been a Lessor in the past, people do not understand what purchasing property leasehold actually means and often Solicitors do not ensure that their clients are made fully aware.
Oh stop bleating. Your solicitors would have made you aware of the covenant befiore you bought the properties. If they didn't thet havent done their jobs properly. A little research shows this has been going on for years. You chose to live in Thorpe Bay so get on with it and stop moaning. No one likes paying bills but thats life so stop whinging.
Shoeburylass
says...
11:15am Mon 8 Oct 12
I do feel ongoing fees are unfair, but if it's in your contract... The few people I know on the Burgess estate have lived there in excess of 30 years. I doubt very much there were notes in their contracts about satellite dishes back then..
rhowes
says...
2:03pm Mon 8 Oct 12
No wonder the highest values in Southend are now in Shoeburyness!
Shoeburylass
says...
2:52pm Mon 8 Oct 12
rhowes wrote:These covenants apply to freehold properties. It's nothing to do with leasehold or freehold. And it isn't leaseholders charging fees.
The moral of this story is " DONT BUY A PROPERTY ON THE BURGESS ESTATE! Who in their right mind would buy leasehold?
No wonder the highest values in Southend are now in Shoeburyness!
rhowes
says...
3:18pm Mon 8 Oct 12
Other estates have them, I know, like Chalkwell. Nightmare!
I'm on the Westcliff Park Estate, and we have other problems like no parking and upholstered street furniture.
Seasider90
says...
10:19pm Mon 8 Oct 12
rhowes
says...
3:08pm Tue 9 Oct 12
andy:)
says...
3:24pm Tue 9 Oct 12
Seasider90 wrote:Not as simple as that, fees for such thinghs should be reasonabkle and only cover the limited administration costs a freeholder/managing agent may incur, IT IS not to be used a a money making exercise.
Oh stop bleating. Your solicitors would have made you aware of the covenant befiore you bought the properties. If they didn't thet havent done their jobs properly. A little research shows this has been going on for years. You chose to live in Thorpe Bay so get on with it and stop moaning. No one likes paying bills but thats life so stop whinging.
It si not limited to just Thorpe Bay and that is really a dumb comment and shows your lack of understanding on the subject.
Unless you are lucky enough to buy a freehold house the chances are you will often live in some sort of flat/property that is leasehold and have similar restrictions.
On the plus side, I have taken on my Freeholder both in Court and Leasehold Valuation Tribunal and been very succesful, this was a litigant in person up against expensive solicitors and barristers, I have now curbed nearly all my freeholders excesses and been refunded many thousands of pounds in overpaid charges and costs.
For good free advice, try Leasehold Advisory Service > http://www.lease-adv
ice.org/ and LandlordZone is a great forum > http://www.landlordz
one.co.uk/forums/for
umdisplay.php?11-Lon
g-Leasehold-Question
s
andy:)
says...
3:29pm Tue 9 Oct 12
rhowes wrote:Nearly EVERY Flat in the UK will be leasehold of some description, even if it has been taken over by a RTM/RTE company or the owners have a share in the freehold.
The moral of this story is " DONT BUY A PROPERTY ON THE BURGESS ESTATE! Who in their right mind would buy leasehold?
No wonder the highest values in Southend are now in Shoeburyness!
The 2002 Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act was supposed to introduce the concept of Commonhold (similar to that used by most other countries) but it has been a failure and there are only a handful of commonholds in England,.
You will find that for the majority saving to buy their first flat, they will have no choice other than to buy a leasehold one.
Andy
rhowes
says...
3:54pm Tue 9 Oct 12
TB townie says...
1:21pm Sun 7 Oct 12