This week, I want to address a pressing issue that has been affecting many of you: the problem of ‘fleecehold’ and unadopted estates. Over the past few months, I have been gathering information and listening to your concerns, including a survey which saw over 200 people respond with shocking stories about their interactions (or lack thereof) with property management companies.

‘Fleecehold’ refers to the situation where homeowners are required to pay ongoing fees to property management companies for the upkeep of communal areas and facilities, even after purchasing their homes. Unadopted estates are those where the local council has not taken responsibility for the maintenance of roads, lighting, and other infrastructure, leaving residents dependent on private companies.

In a’fleecehold’ situation, residents are paying twice. They still pay council tax but are also required to pay a property management company for the maintenance of those parts of the estate which are unadopted.

One of the most significant issues with ‘fleecehold’ and unadopted estates is the lack of transparency and accountability from property management companies. Many of you have shared your frustrations about not knowing how your fees are being spent and feeling powerless to challenge unfair charges. This lack of transparency is unacceptable and needs to be addressed.

Recently, I conducted a survey to gather more information about your experiences with property management companies. The stories I heard were shocking and deeply concerning. Families have been forced into debt due to exorbitant fees, bins have been left overflowing for weeks, and residents have been billed for work that was never carried out or was not required. These issues are not just inconveniences; they are affecting the quality of life for many of you.

In response to these concerns, I joined a group of MPs to call a large property management company, RMG, into Parliament. During this session, we had the opportunity to challenge them directly about the poor service they have been providing. I am pleased to report that this meeting resulted in three positive outcomes for residents living on estates managed by RMG:

Service Level Agreements: Where a residents committee is in place, RMG will publish a Service Level Agreement (SLA). An SLA is a document that clearly sets out the basic level of service residents can expect from their base service charge, including response times, maintenance standards, and contractor obligations. This should provide greater transparency and allow residents to hold RMG to account.

Support for Residents’ Committees: If a residents committee does not currently exist on an estate, RMG has committed to supporting the establishment of one to ensure residents have a formal voice in the management of their community.

Real Decision-Making Powers: Residents committees should have meaningful influence over estate management decisions. RMG acknowledged that this has not always been the case and shared an example where a residents committee successfully pushed for a cleaning contract to be re-tendered, with residents involved in appointing a new contractor. I made it clear that residents I have spoken to do not currently have these powers, and RMG agreed that this is wrong and needs to be corrected. I will be following up with them to ensure this is put right.

While these outcomes are a step in the right direction, there is still much work to be done. I will continue to advocate for greater transparency and accountability from all property management companies operating in our constituency. Additionally, I am working with my colleagues in Parliament to push for legislative changes that will protect homeowners from unfair ‘fleecehold’ practices.

I encourage all of you to continue sharing your experiences and concerns with me. Your voices are crucial in driving change and ensuring that we create a fairer system for everyone. Together, we can make a difference and improve the quality of life for all residents in our community.