Freeholders' Rights

The Position of Freeholders in Old Domewood

In 2021, the shift from an informal residents’ association to an active company structure fundamentally changed how decisions were made—removing the previous voluntary approach and limiting individual freeholders’ influence over road-related expenditure and improvements.

Previously, contributions to the informal residents’ association were voluntary. Residents could assess their level of support based on personal judgment and financial circumstances. Following the activation of DPRA Ltd, contributions were rebranded as “charges,” and spending decisions were said to be made by a “majority” of those attending AGMs—leaving non-attendees without a say.

This approach disregards a key legal and ethical principle: no one can be compelled to contribute to costs they do not agree with, particularly when those costs go beyond essential maintenance. While most residents are willing to contribute to maintaining the road in a like-for-like manner, the assumption of a broader obligation is unfounded.

DPRA Ltd has pursued enforcement through legal proceedings, asserting that ownership of property within Old Domewood creates a compulsory obligation to pay company-imposed charges. This claim relied heavily on a solicitor’s report commissioned by the directors. The brief provided to the solicitors was not shared with residents, and it remains unclear whether the report was ever intended to reflect the rights of individual property owners. Although presented as applying to all freeholders, the report failed to properly acknowledge or reflect freehold property rights.

The company has since acknowledged that the report was incorrect. Despite this, it continued to rely on those conclusions in subsequent legal proceedings, even after earlier cases had clarified that the argument was not accepted by the court. A formal complaint has been submitted to the Legal Ombudsman regarding the conduct and advice of the solicitors involved.

These actions raise wider concerns about the erosion of residents’ rights and the potential implications for property autonomy and marketability. Freehold status is meant to provide independence, not subject owners to imposed charges from a private company with no general contractual or statutory authority.

How did such a shift occur in Domewood after decades of cooperative maintenance? And why have so many freeholders been persuaded to act against their own long-established rights?

Note: This page presents a general overview of governance and legal issues affecting freeholders in Old Domewood. It is not a detailed account of any individual legal dispute or settlement.

 

Is this Domewood now?

In 1972, psychologist Irving Janis defined Groupthink as a phenomenon where the desire for harmony or conformity within a group leads to irrational or dysfunctional decisions. Members suppress dissenting views, avoid conflict, and prioritise consensus over critical thinking—often resulting in poor outcomes.

In any community, openness and honest discussion are essential. Without them, critical evaluation becomes impossible—and good decisions are replaced by group pressure and silence.