The operations manager – as well as RMC directors – of a retirement village in Oxfordshire bungled a section 20 application over an energy contract and have now spent £36,450 of leaseholders’ money on lawyers to put right their error.
They are also on the hook for perhaps another £4,000 legal costs of a leaseholder who disputed the issue.
Dibleys Heritage, in Blewbury outside Didcot, a desirable retirement site in extensive grounds where the freehold is owned by the residents, asked for and was granted retrospective dispensation for a section 20 consultation.
Nor will Abbey Developments, Avant, Ballymore, Dandara, Emerson Group (Jones Homes), Inland Homes, London Square, Rydon Homes and Telford Homes
Housing secretary Michael Gove yesterday named 11 housebuilders who are refusing to pay up to remediate building safety defects in the apartment blocks they built, including bolshy Irish developer Galliard and the Aussie-based Lendlease.
Both were quick on the draw to ensure leaseholders were on the hook to pay building safety bills at the start of the post-Grenfell building safety crisis.
Public interest request to advance the dispute to Upper Tribunal as other sites may also have similar budget omissions was declined
The First Tier Tribunal was asked yesterday why subsidies from the Energy Bill Relief Scheme were not included in the annual energy budget set by FirstPort at the prime site St David’s Square in London’s Docklands.
The government’s Energy Bill Relief Scheme delivers the same level of financial benefit to commercial gas and electricity users as the Energy Price Guarantee delivers to domestic gas and electricity users.
After spreading the scourge of leasehold houses around the country; squirrelling in ruinous ground rent terms in leases; selling revenue-generating freeholds to anonymous offshore private equity punters; building unsafe apartment blocks with elementary mistakes, like absent fire-breaks; what’s next on the agenda for our extraordinary – and hugely subsidised – plc housebuilders?
Could it be, say, packaging up shared ownership contracts as new investment vehicles, akin to ground rents? Or working the angles of “for profit social housing”, a concept surely akin to aetheists for God?
