We get the feeling that government want to address the “injustice of fleecehold” by simply regulating agents and providing leasehold style tribunal redress over estate maintenance charges on existing developments. This is extremely concerning as it does not release residents from the liability to fund maintenance of public infrastructure, which is the real injustice. The fact that managing agents can and do exploit residents is a side effect of the lack of adoption. There are other less immediately obvious detrimental effects which we outline in our briefing. please feel free to share it widely with politicians and the media.
Write to Your Council
Lots of fleecehold victims are asking for a template to help them put pressure on their council to implement adoption now that the CMA back this approach and Stratford Council have successfully introduced policies to do so.
We suggest you write to Your Local Councillors (Find them On Write to Them), cc Planning Chair, Leader and Opposition Leader plus council CEO. You can either find the rest on your council web site or ask your local councillors to forward a copy if you have that level of trust!!
The wording is below, but please don’t feel you have to stick to it!
Dear Councillors
I live on the [NAME] development, which has unadopted areas managed by a private company making me am a victim of “fleecehold” in your ward.
It is fundamentally unfair that I pay upkeep for public spaces and amenities for all to use and abuse. My estate is not private, just privately managed. The liability for this cost was not fully explained to me when I bought the house and I now find that there is no accountability or transparency over the rapidly escalating charge(s). I feel badly let down by the councils lack of care in allowing this to happen via planning arrangements with the developer.
When I dig deeper, I find that the estate construction is below adoption standard, adding insult to injury in making maintenance more costly for me. In addition, the estate has become run down due to this factor together with lack of proper maintenance. There is no accountability over maintenance standards or quality control mechanisms. Councils have a duty to prevent blight and you collectively have failed in this duty.
In their recent Market Study, the CMA have identified lack of adoption as the underlying cause of detriment for home buyers and have recommended adoption for both future and existing estates. Regulation of managing agents as being implemented by parliament is not enough on its own.
Some councils such as Stratford Upon Avon have already implemented policies which will stop private management via planning agreements. They are ahead of the game, and I would strongly urge you to develop similar policies here. I am sure you will find the same level of support if you were to conduct a consultation in our area. This article explains what they did https://www.stratford.gov.uk/news/press.cfm/current/1/item/138223
Their policies will only help future developments, and if adoption is not universal it will create a two tier system and further disadvantage people like me. It will become harder to sell homes with estate charges and there is no doubt that value will fall even further. I ask you to go a step further and consider how to take over established privately managed estates. Again, this is something the CMA have recommended.
Can you please agree to work towards implementing similar policies in [YOUR AREA] and keep me informed of progress.
What’s the Problem?
Why Regulation Doesn’t Work
Here is a perfect example of regulation NOT being the answer for estate residents. The properties are on an ex MOD site in NE Scotland. Managing agents known as factors ARE regulated under Scottish law. Redundant MOD estates are unadopted and sold to developers to refurbish and market. Prices paid are low and the residents mostly are on low incomes. they know they have a factor, but are unaware of the extent of their liability for land maintenance.
The recent article in the local press is here:- https://www.forres-gazette.co.uk/news/we-still-don-t-know-how-much-this-is-going-to-cost-us-re-421183/
if you can’t read it here is a pdf copy:-
We feel that examples like this could be quoted in arguments for adoption rather than merely regulating agents in the Westminster governments upcoming consultations.
and here’s another defect – this time from England

The Meaning of Injustice
In a recent Prime Ministers Questions session, Kier Starmer repeated the exact wording of the party manifesto on fleecehold. Not promising to get rid of it, but merely to address the injustice of it!
Here is the clip:
Just what does the government mean by ”the injustice” of fleecehold? We hold that the fundamental injustice is privately managed public spaces and amenities on which we, the estate dwellers, pay uncapped upkeep costs. We have most commonly been hoodwinked into taking on this liability at the sales offices of the big builders. Conveyancers have failed to warn us, but the material facts were withheld at the point of sale by the vendors.
In spite of the Competition and Markets Authority recommending more adoption (the only just solution in our view), the government appears to be full steam ahead in Titanic fashion towards the iceberg of regulating agents and greater transparency. Whilst this may reduce the excesses of overcharging for poor or no service, it does nothing to remove the unfair burden on estate dwellers with obligations to pay for estate upkeep.
We campaign to STOP THE ROT ADOPT THE LOT- please keep the pressure up on your MPs by asking them to consider that only adoption would properly address “the injustice of fleecehold”.
