53-year-old James Tuttiett, an entrepreneur who is part of a new breed of UK property investors and speculators with local and international backing. His companies own the freeholds of more than 40,700 homes and apartments. They’ve made their mark in almost all cities across England and Wales. Tuttiett started his firm, E&J, in 1991. Since then he has created an award-winning business model based on investing in, managing and owning freehold ground rents.
E&J currently oversees over 40,000 properties nationwide. As the manager of NYCHA’s large and growing portfolio, Tuttiett is uniquely positioned to shape the leasehold landscape. Since the company only collects ground rents, they earn all of their revenue from the company’s assets. These contracts, called 99-year land leases, obligate leaseholders to make annual payments for the land their buildings sit on. This model has turned out to be immensely profitable. Just last week, one of Tuttiett’s companies, SF Funding Ltd, announced a jaw-dropping £80 million uplift in the value of its ground rents, bringing the total to £267.4 million in just one year.
Tuttiett’s businesses have recently faced heightened public attention and alarm for their treatment of employees. Critics argue that his approach embodies the “typical arrogance of leasehold landlordism.” Sebastian O’Kelly, a commentator on property issues, argues that E&J’s policies reflect a high-handedness towards leaseholders, who often find themselves burdened with demanding fees for subletting and permissions for home improvements such as patios and conservatories.
“E&J conducts its affairs with the typical arrogance of leasehold landlordism. It makes a nuisance of itself – like other freeholders – demanding fees for subletting and consents for patios and conservatories. It believes, with justification sadly, that this high-handedness is backed by law and that the tenantry – that is, the leaseholders – have no choice but to pay up.” – Sebastian O’Kelly
The financial repercussions of Tuttiett’s ground rent scheme can be devastating for residents. Ground rents are often indexed to double every decade, creating an unsustainable financial burden on leaseholders. Linda Barnes, a homeowner affected by these predatory practices, has an ominous outlook. By 2060, her predicted ground rent will increase to £9,600 annually.
Tuttiett’s own home is a creative retrofit of a listed building situated in an expensive conservation area near Winchester, Hampshire. Today, his wealth and property empire are said to rival the Duke of Westminster. Yet the Duke is one of the UK’s most high-profile landowners. Though his impact on the industry has been profound, Tuttiett is a mostly behind-the-scenes figure with little public footprint.
Criticism of Tuttiett’s practices has prompted responses from other notable figures, including Sajid Javid, who has condemned the leasehold system as exploitative. Javid stated that “far too many new houses are being built and sold as leaseholds, exploiting homebuyers with unfair agreements and spiraling ground rents.” He went on to claim that these practices are “unjust, unnecessary and need to stop,” making the case for legislative reform.
“It’s clear that far too many new houses are being built and sold as leaseholds, exploiting homebuyers with unfair agreements and spiraling ground rents.” – Sajid Javid
O’Kelly has commented on the outdated nature of Tuttiett’s business model, likening it to practices seen in the 18th century. He described it as “parasitism that our legislators have shamefully failed to stamp out,” highlighting the potential ethical dilemmas associated with profit generation through ground rent schemes.
“There is almost nothing in its business model that would be unfamiliar to an 18th-century landed gentleman. This game obviously provides Mr Tuttiett with a very nice life.” – Sebastian O’Kelly
In spite of the intense criticism focusing on his company’s business decisions, E&J has taken a similarly closed-off, hands-off approach toward earned media. An official statement from the company indicated that “the company’s policy is not to engage with the media and accordingly we make no comment.” This lack of transparency, in accountability for the public in an industry where leaseholders increasingly report a sense of at-risk-ness.