Freeholders' Rights

For Domewood Freeholders:

The change of company status in 2021, effectively robbed freeholders of any individual voice in matters concerning the maintenance of the road, or any say on projects, improvements, and expenditures that fall outside of regular road maintenance.

Previously, contributions to the Association were deemed to be voluntary, allowing each resident to consider their level of support based on personal judgment and financial capability. The now active company, DPRA Ltd,  mandated these contributions, renaming them as “charges” with expenditures decided by a claimed  “majority” amongst those that attended an AGM. Those unable to attend have thus been completely excluded from the decision process.

The directors’ approach overlooked a crucial legal and ethical standpoint: no individual or group of individuals has the inherent right to compel another to contribute to expenses they do not agree with, or see as necessary.   Whereby most would agree to and contribute to maintaining the road on a like-for-like basis if affordable,  it cannot be assumed that there is any moral obligation or otherwise to submit to the demands of one's neighbours in financially supporting plans, costs, and expenses that fall outside of routine maintenance. 

DPRA Ltd has trodden over the rights of residents in this respect, attempting to use the courts to strong-arm residents into submission.  

A more sinister underlying issue emerged from DPRA Ltd’s actions: The company effectively challenged the rights of residents as Freeholders by asserting that property ownership within Old Domewood dictated the compulsory payment of its charges. In this it relied on a flawed report the directors had commissioned from solicitors Cripps Pemberton Greenish, most residents freeholders never having seen the brief.  The "advice" was stacked in DPRA Ltd's favour and was subsequently disproved in the courts. However, despite the court's rulings, DPRA Ltd has seen fit to assert otherwise in contravention of the law and its position under Data Protection. 

The imposition not only undermines the fundamental nature of Freehold ownership but also potentially damages the marketability of our properties. By imposing these demands, DPRA Ltd not only infringes on our legal property rights but also jeopardises the inherent value and autonomy that Freehold status is supposed to guarantee to homeowners. 

 

How did this situation arise in Domewood when it had not been a problem for so many years? Why have Domewood Freeholders been so blindsided as to act against their legal rights and freehold property interests?   

 

Is this Domewood now?

Psychologist Irving Janis in 1972 defined GROUPTHINK as a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, where the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimise conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints, often leading to poor decisions. Without openness and honesty, critical evaluation can not take place.