Good to see that @AnnTaylor_HoL - Chair of HoL Ind & Regs Committee - has acknowledged to @michaelgove that regulation of managing agents won't actually solve the core issue, namely power imbalance (ie lack of accountability). That is why we need to liberalise RTM rules. 1/6
However well-intentioned, it is not up to unelected “campaigners”, Big Freeholders (@RFAssociation), unelected peers (Lord Best) or remote quangos to decide standards in flats. Leaseholders are the best regulators to determine whether a valuable service is being provided! 2/6
Regulation is being pushed by the monopolistic RFA as a cynical positioning device. They want to look reasonable and responsible to Ministers. But they know it will be another opportunity to extract wealth. It will not fix the root problem of accountability + control. 3/6
A regulator will mean increased costs for leaseholders. Think made-up compliance costs and new fees. The body wouldn't be funded by taxpayers but through industry “fees”. Guess who will end up paying those fees? Leaseholders. No! 4/6
A regulator will also mean there is a big risk of it becoming captured by special interests (stakeholders to use industry jargon) with lobbying budgets that do not serve individual leaseholders. Big Freeholders are obvious. But also charities, think tanks and ‘campaigners’. 5/6
People like @HarryScoffin @FreeLeasehlders have zero interest in being long-term campaigners (lobbyists) for leaseholders. None. We want LIBERATION not regulation.
@michaelgove @Lee4NED LET LEASEHOLDERS TAKE BACK CONTROL OF OUR MONEY AND LIVES!
6/6
@michaelgove @Lee4NED LET LEASEHOLDERS TAKE BACK CONTROL OF OUR MONEY AND LIVES!
6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
