GCH pauses estate charge plans after resident outcry and MP intervention. Freehold homeowners received unexpected charge letters.
The initial letter acknowledged past errors where estate charges were not applied to freehold properties, and they planned to start charges in April following a review of records using Land Registry documents. Public reaction caused GCH to back down.
GCH apologized in a new statement, admitting the letters lacked clarity and prevented proper consultation. They paused discussions with freeholders and pledged to do more research first.
Labour MP Alex McIntyre welcomed the pause after meeting GCH on February 19. He demanded they halt the process, remaining concerned with the proposals, and promised close contact with GCH. “I stand up for people,” he said.
Liberal Democrat Jeremy Hilton wrote to the GCH chief executive, voicing concern about the letters sent to freehold homeowners. The changes could have begun April 1.
These properties were once council houses bought years ago through Right to Buy. Hilton heard from worried residents. They lived in his Kingsholm ward.
Hilton shared the residents’ frustration, wanting transparency from Gloucester City Homes regarding cost calculation methods. He questions why non-estate freeholders got letters and wants GCH to clarify what legal basis supports the charges.
Conservatives also heard from many residents concerned about the changes. Andrew Gravells said the letter was not well received, and people requested more details.
Gravells spoke with City Homes at length. They said they paused the review. City Homes accepted the letter’s poor wording. They apologized for causing worry.
Community Independents leader Alastair Chambers was shocked GCH tried to charge freeholders when these properties had no such charges before. GCH isn’t part of the city or county council.
The council mapped land after almost ten years, distinguishing council land from GCH land. Taxpayers funded GCH grounds upkeep freely, which he stated was a misuse of public money and astonishing since the council cut grass for another organization.
After mapping, the council offered paid maintenance, but GCH chose to handle it themselves. Now, GCH aims to recoup the costs from residents, including freeholders with gardens, which Chambers believes is unreasonable.
GCH confirmed their decision to pause consulting freeholders about charges, but they will consult directly later this year for homeowners who get the services. They will share accurate cost estimates linked to received services.
They acknowledged the letters lacked sufficient clarity and apologized for any resulting worries. An estate charge was not previously applied for nearby communal land upkeep. This concerns non-council land located near properties, they mention.
They wrote to freeholders, opening a consultation that they’ve now temporarily paused. Current service costs are only paid by tenants, meaning tenants subsidize services for homeowners.
Their approach aims to spread costs so everyone who benefits would pay. They will gather precise impact information and provide cost estimates individually. Then, the consultation will reopen, and City Homes welcomes feedback then. They appreciate patience from residents now.
The company will carefully consider all feedback before making final decisions. Affected residents can email leaseholders@gch.co.uk. This consultation does not affect GCH renters directly.