Firstport's recent submission to the Law Commission report on leasehold makes for interesting reading.
Alongside the usual nod to customer service, better regulation via trade bodies, they basically wish to maintain leasehold all be it in a slightly differeent form.
They go out of their way to caution against the adoption of common hold.
Why would common hold be a problem for Firstport?
They say the current system prevents small groups from having too much influence in the management at a development.
However the real reason for their objection to common hold in favour of continuing leasehold may be revealed by Firstport's submission to the law commission?
They claim to have 3,900 developments containing 185,000 units under management. each development averages out at around 48 units.
Their appointments come via developer/freeholder appointments and Right To Manage companies appointing them.
Many of the freeholder appointments came fromPeverel/Firstport connected company freeholders. effectively they were self appopinted. Even more sinister they were woven into the lease to ensure they became the managing agent.
If common hold came into effect and Firstport were subjected to freely decided by residents appointments how wouyld this effect them?
Of all their appointments 200 come from Right To Manage companies.
That means of all their appointments only 9,600 residents have willingly appointed Firstport as managing agents.
The other 175,400 have had Firstport imposed on them.
