Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill
Wednesday 24th April 2024
(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberLeasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 View all Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 50-II(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (24 Apr 2024)
“Abolition of forfeiture of a long lease(1) This section applies to any right of forfeiture or re-entry in relation to a dwelling held on a long lease which arises either—(a) under the terms of that lease, or(b) under or in consequence of section 146(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.(2) The rights referred to in subsection (1) are abolished.(3) In this section— “dwelling” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, or outhouses and appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it;“lease” means a lease at law or in equity and includes a sub-lease, but does not include a mortgage term;“long lease” has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would abolish the right of forfeiture in relation to residential long leases in instances where the leaseholder is in breach of covenant.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, our amendments in this group go to the heart of one of the current serious injustices relating to leasehold: that of forfeiture. It is quite simply anachronistic, wholly disproportionate and complete imbalance in the relationship between leaseholders and landlords. In some circumstances, a debt of a few hundred pounds can trigger the ability to take possession of the property. What my honourable friend the shadow Minister for Housing in the other place called
“the chilling effect that results from its mere existence”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/24; col. 203.]
puts landlords in a nearly unassailable position of strength in disputes with leaseholders, as I hope I illustrated in my earlier quote from an elderly leaseholder. Unfortunately, the threat of forfeiture is too often used routinely by landlords as a first resort when seeking to recover alleged arrears in payments from leaseholders, and so often invoked to deter leaseholders from disputing any unreasonable costs and defending claims.
Our first amendment is reasonably straightforward: it is basically a matter of disproportionality and consistency. A real estate solicitor summed it up very neatly in his evidence to the Commons committee. He said:
“It is extremely welcome to see the government’s proposed clause 59 and amendment NC4 relating to the abolition of remedies relating to rentcharges. It is also very welcome to see the proposed amendment NC1 which would abolish forfeiture in long residential leases, which is long-overdue. However, there is a key point that does not seem to be addressed: forfeiture in relation to rentcharges. Rentcharge deeds often reserve a right of forfeiture for non-payment which operates in the same manner as a forfeiture clause in a lease. The Committee clearly recognises that the expropriation of somebody’s property as a remedy for breaches of a lease on an extra-judicial basis is entirely inappropriate and unfair. Therefore, it should equally concern the Committee that the same remedy is available in many cases in relation to rentcharges. Therefore, I would ask that the Committee either add to proposed amendment NC1 or propose an additional clause to abolish any right of forfeiture under a rentcharge”.
This amendment would ensure that leaseholders are in no worse a position than anyone else subject to a challenge to ownership would come under. So, while we accept the principle that legal remedies should be available, we do not believe that forfeiture provides adequately for leaseholders to challenge or defend themselves from repossession.
Our other amendments are a bit more complicated on paper, as they would replace Clause 111, which currently provides remedies for arrears of rent charges where the rent charge remains unpaid for a period of 40 days, one of which is the ability for a rent charge owner to take possession of a freehold property in instances where a freehold homeowner fails to pay a rent charge. But in essence it is very simple. It would simply mean that debts have to be sued for, as you would for any other kind of debt. In short, the 1925 Act provides for the power to seize freehold houses for non-payment of a rent charge, even if the arrears are merely a few pounds, and allows the rent charge holder to retain possession or render it, in effect, worthless by means of maintaining a 99-year lease over it.
In our view, the remedies provided in the 1925 Act are a wholly disproportionate and draconian legacy of Victorian-era property law. The 1977 Act prohibited the creation of new rent charges and provided for existing rent charges to be abolished in 2037, but 13 years from now is still a long time away and any lease granted prior to the abolition will remain in force. Rent charges are therefore an area of law in respect of which legislative reform is long overdue and the need to protect rent payers from what amounts essentially to a particularly severe form of freehold forfeiture as a result of the relevant remedies provided by the 1925 Act is pressing.
We understand that the Minister in the Commons called this argument “reasonable” and implied that it could be revisited if the Government were able to consider the potential consequences of such a change, so I press the Minister that, if we are asked to withdraw our amendment today, she will at least consider whether the Government can deliver the effect we all want to see via a government amendment. We feel very strongly about this issue and I hope it will not be necessary to continue to press this point through to Report. I beg to move.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I wish to address the issue of forfeiture and support Amendment 55 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Pinnock, and Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. I absolutely agree that leaseholders should not be subject to forfeiture in the case of a debt of a few hundred pounds or a temporary breach of covenant. Indebtedness can be dealt with by the county court and bailiffs. For that reason, I support Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. However— I know this may be controversial with some noble Lords—I am concerned that a blanket ban on forfeiture would remove an effective deterrent preventing some leaseholders persistently and wilfully breaching their leases by, for example, anti-social behaviour.
Let me give three practical examples I have come across in my years as a leaseholder. The first concerns a landlord who was letting out his flat on Airbnb, in breach of his lease. He knew he could make more money doing this than letting it on a long lease. As noble Lords know, Airbnb can cause a serious nuisance in blocks of permanent residents, due to excessive noise, wear and tear and lack of security impacting on quiet enjoyment. The landlord/leaseholder in question stopped only when threatened with forfeiture for breaching the lease.
The second involved a leaseholder putting a hot tub under a neighbour’s window, in clear breach of the lease, as only patio furniture was allowed to be displayed on the terrace, and threatening their quiet enjoyment. When challenged, their approach was dumb insolence. “What are you going to do about it?” was their approach. The threat of forfeiture ensured its removal.
The third example is more personal. My wife was attacked in our own garden by a neighbour’s tenant’s large dog, which was in a flat in breach of the lease. The gardens are open, with no boundaries, so dogs wandering around under no control are a problem. Let me be clear, I am a dog lover—I had two dogs as a child—but I am also conscious that there has been a massive increase in dog attacks in recent years. Official NHS figures reveal that, in the year to March 2023, there were 9,277 hospital admissions in which the patient had been bitten or struck by a dog. The number of people killed by dogs has also risen dramatically. In the last 20 years or so, the number of fatal dog bites has averaged about three per year; however, by 2022, it had risen to 10 fatalities and is still climbing. These cases are horrific and worrying.
Many blame the owners, not the dogs. Too many owners seem unwilling or unable to control their dogs and this behaviour is unfortunately widespread, as I have witnessed myself on a number of occasions. The dog in our block stayed, but when the leaseholder/landlord tried to introduce another tenant with another large dog, after the first attack, again in breach of the lease, it was only the threat of forfeiture that resolved the situation. Dogs may be appropriate in many surroundings, but in others they are excluded in leases for a reason.
Thus there are occasions when the mere threat of forfeiture, rarely used in practice, is useful to ensure compliance with lease obligations. Other legal routes can be extremely costly, lengthy and ineffective. So I ask the supporters of a complete ban on forfeiture how they propose to enforce compliance with leases and prevent breaches in the future if this proposal is carried.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 55, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, because it seems to me, as it does to the noble Baroness, that this is one of the clear injustices in the current leaseholder-freeholder relationship. The amendment is rightly restricted to the abolition of forfeiture of a long lease.
I thought it was straightforward until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, outline some of the issues that he believed could be addressed only through forfeiture. I was surprised that we have to go to such draconian ends to deal with a fairly straightforward neighbour dispute.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
The problem is that, if you try to enforce a lease, what is your route? The only other route would be to go to the High Court, and that would be a very lengthy process. I am saying that the threat of forfeiture is often enough for people to see sense. I have never come across a case in which people have actually gone through the whole process of forfeiture.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for expanding on that.
It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether there are any statistics regarding freeholders using the forfeiture system to address not the issues that are normally referenced—failure to pay ground rent or an accumulation of three years or more of debt—but breaches of the lease. It would be helpful to understand all that.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has said, if the payment in lieu is more than £350, or is outstanding for more than three years, the freeholder is entitled to claim repossession—and then all the equity in the property is lost, of course. When I first looked at this, I could not see how it could possibly be right. I remember that, at Second Reading—I was just trying to find it in Hansard—the Minister said that the Government were considering bringing forward an amendment to address this issue. It is unfortunate that that has not been forthcoming in the time that has elapsed between Second Reading and Committee. Perhaps in her reply, the Minister can say whether the Government intend to bring an amendment on Report. It would help us resolve what is, on the face of it, a complete injustice. It would be sufficient if the Minister said that that is going to happen, and maybe those of us who have signed the amendments could have a meeting with her to discuss it, if necessary.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I support this amendment. Although in his intervention the noble Lord talked about how to control peoples’ behaviour when they have misbehaved and breached their lease, it should be taken into account that the threat of forfeiture is held over leaseholders, in a very draconian fashion, for the smallest infraction. More importantly, it is used to enforce such things as the flagrant and inequitable boosting of service charges. If you are in dispute in this situation, you are told you will end up having to pay court fees. You are told that, if you do not pay—
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
To clarify, I said specifically that people should not have their leases forfeited as a result of rent arrears. The threat of forfeiture can ensure that lease compliance occurs. If you remove the threat of forfeiture, how do you achieve compliance with other terms of the lease?
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
There are ways and means within our court system to reclaim any money that may be owed to the freeholder for service charges, ground rent and so on. Let us be very clear that forfeiture is used as a tool to threaten, bully and cajole leaseholders into compliance. When your freeholder invents a new reason as to why you have to pay more, you are warned that, if you do not do so, you could be taken to court for forfeiture. You are then told by the system that, if you do pay more, it is seen as agreeing with the bill that was presented to you.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
I am not talking about freeholders taking action against other leaseholders; I am talking about how one leaseholder may want to enforce a lease against another leaseholder. In that case, you are saying that they would have to go to the High Court to enforce the lease, and that is a very lengthy and protracted process. I am not talking about the relationship with the freeholder or indebtedness; I am talking about how to enforce the lease between leaseholders, and I gave the example of Airbnb using a block of flats.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
It would be extraordinary, though possible, if fellow leaseholders could invoke forfeiture but the freeholder could not. That would be incredible, and I am sure it would have all its own problems.
The point remains that, if you keep some kind of forfeiture, freeholders will want to keep hold of that power, because it is exactly that: an unfettered, threatening power, which leaseholders speak about as though it is mythical, like a dragon that will burn you if you stand up to the freeholder. Words fail me when I try to describe how forfeiture must go. We have had many conversations in which the word “feudal” has been bandied about. This is one occasion where it has real meaning. Forfeiture should and must go.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I declare a number of interests to the House. I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, the chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association, a non-executive director at MHS Homes Group, and a leaseholder.
Before the Bill arrived, it promised a lot. As it stands it is doing much less than that, so in a sense it is a fairly timid Bill. However, some of the things it does are actually very useful. I support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage on forfeiture; it needs to be abolished. I have also listened to the noble Lords, Lord Truscott and Lord Bailey, and both make very valid points. The Government should listen and bring an amendment that addresses the points they made. That is not impossible, as far as I can see; it is absolutely right that there should be some remedy to deal with this.
Equally, we cannot have people being bullied into paying the service charge or ground rent; that it totally wrong. There must be remedies to deal with those things: if someone is owed money, they should get it, but forfeiture—losing their entire asset—is ridiculous. I hope that, on both points, which are extremely valid, the Government say to us that they hear what people are saying and that they will look at this issue and come back with amendments.
I want to ensure that people can enjoy their property without being annoyed by parties, noise and other trouble, and that there is a remedy to enforce that if need be. Equally, if someone has a freeholder coming after them, they could actually lose their property, or, worse, the freeholder could use their service charge or ground rent to take them to court. We need to deal with all these things.
I hope that, at the end of what will probably be a fairly short debate, the Government will recognise that there is a problem here and will help us by bringing back an amendment to deal with these issues; or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, that they will get people together around the table to try to sort this out. The Bill is not doing much, but this is something very positive it could do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for her amendments in this group, which seek to remove forfeiture from the leasehold and freehold estate.
Amendment 55 seeks to address one of the ways in which leasehold law is tilted in favour of landlords. I know that noble Lords from all sides of the House are sympathetic to this intention, as are Members from the other place, where this same clause has already been debated.
Forfeiture is widely recognised as a draconian and unfair measure which is open to abuse. The main objection to the current law is that, should the landlord forfeit the lease and go on to sell the property, this allows them to make a large windfall gain at the expense of the leaseholder, who loses everything. Abolishing forfeiture would reduce the risk to the leaseholder of losing their home and would prevent abuses.
Abolishing forfeiture without replacing it with an alternative enforcement mechanism would mean that landlords would have recourse only to ordinary civil debt recovery and injunction proceedings, which, as we have heard, can be lengthy and are not always effective. In the absence of forfeiture or an alternative, there is a danger that a greater number of leaseholders may refuse to pay their fair share of the cost of maintaining their block or estate, and we have to take this all into account.
Noble Lords asked how many cases there are. We do not have the exact number, but stakeholders give us estimates of between 90 and 120 cases per year. It is not a big issue, but it is a very important one for those people.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
The number of cases will not indicate the use of forfeiture, because forfeiture is wielded as a fiery dragon. Leaseholders speak about it as the dog that bites. The number of cases may be small, but I would argue that the use of forfeiture is probably far greater.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I have said that it is not the right way of doing it, and we want a different way. That is exactly what the Government are looking at.
We have to be clear that the upkeep and safety of buildings is also paramount. Landlords, be they third parties or resident management companies, need effective mechanisms for securing prompt payment to ensure that those properties are insured and maintained in the interests of everybody else in the block.
We recognise that there is the potential for significant inequity at hand where a landlord stands to gain a windfall when a lease is forfeited. However, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the Committee that the Government have been listening to calls for us to act. The Government continue to work through the detail and we will report to the House shortly with more information. In the meantime, I welcome members of the Committee sharing their views on this matter, which the Government will reflect on when formulating their position.
In addition, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for Amendment 95, which seeks to abolish Section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in respect of all rent charges. Let me be clear: the Government are sympathetic to the issue raised by the noble Baroness. We recognise that forfeiture is an extreme measure and should be used only as a last resort. Any changes will require careful consideration of the rights and responsibilities of all interested parties.
Clause 111 already seeks to abolish forfeiture for income-supporting rent charges, which are still in existence, even though the creation of new charges of this nature has been banned since 1977. However, some types of rent charges may still be created, including estate rent charges, which are used for the provision of services on managed estates.
Where they are created, estate management companies need a means to recover sums owed to them. Failure to do so means that costs may fall on other home owners, or the upkeep of an estate will worsen, to the detriment of everyone living on that estate. The problem may be particularly acute for resident-led management companies which do not have alternative sources of funding.
It is important that we fully understand any unintended consequences. This is an issue that we are carefully considering. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, most of what she said was very welcome. The acceptance that forfeiture is draconian, unfair and open to abuse—we agree with that. It is not the right way to do things, as the Minister said.
Specifically on inequality, we all agree with that, and it was good to hear the Government say that. A bit more disappointing was that I did not hear the Minister say, “I want to meet colleagues”; nor, “We hope to bring an amendment back on Report to address this”. All we got was, “We will formulate our position”.
There is agreement around the Chamber that what we need to see is an amendment that addresses all these issues. We would like a commitment to get us all together, and to hear from the Minister that she hopes there will be an amendment on Report. If we do not do that, there have been lots of warm words here but not much else has been achieved.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thought the Committee was probably fed up with me saying that I am always very happy to meet any group of noble Lords, on any subject, at any time. I apologise for not saying it in this group, and I will never ever forget to say it in any group in the future. Also, I said that we will report back to the House shortly with more details. I think the noble Lord needs to look at those words—they are quite positive.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I am not saying they are not positive. At the end of the day, to make progress we need a government amendment, or an amendment that somebody else tables that the Government will support, at the next stage. That is progress; that is what I am trying to push. I know the Minister is very generous with her time, and wants to get this right, and wants to meet colleagues. I am just trying to get it on the record, that is all. I know the Minister has been good every time that colleagues have raised this issue in the House, and I have a Question on it again on, I think, 22 May. I thank her very much.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for supporting these amendments and the noble Lords, Lord Truscott, Lord Kennedy and Lord Bailey, for their comments.
In relation to the Minister’s comments about the time it takes to do this, I repeat that the Conservative Party has had this in its manifesto since 2017, so there has been quite a lot of time to think this through and have a look at this. It is a bit disappointing that we are in Committee in the House of Lords with some of these key issues still unresolved.
I ask your Lordships to reflect on, first, the example I gave in the earlier debate, of the elderly couple who told me they have a dispute with their landlord and are being threatened with forfeiture. They potentially have a £15,000 bill for the costs. If they pay that charge it is taken as agreement, but failure to pay it means that the landlord can invoke forfeiture, so where do they go? That is an awful position to put people in.
My second example is a young lady who I was out with the other day doing our political work. She lives in a leasehold flat; she put a political poster up in her window and then, almost immediately, received a letter from the landlord threatening her with forfeiture because that breached the terms of her lease. That seems an onerous way of dealing with a relatively small issue.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and he is right that there needs to be some form of resolution to this that means it does not need to go to the High Court—but it should certainly not be forfeiture, which is totally disproportionate. There may be a need to consider remedies other than the big sledgehammer of the High Court. Threatening to repossess people’s homes is certainly not an answer to technical breaches of lease.
Regarding rent charges, they will still be in place until 2037. We have to look at this and see whether we can find some way of getting rid of them before then.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, if we have to bring this amendment back again, we will, but I would rather the Government did so. That said, I withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“Schedule Part 2: consequential amendments to other legislationParliamentary Commissioner Act 1967
1 In Schedule 4 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (relevant tribunals), in the entry relating to rent assessment committees, omit “and also known as leasehold valuation tribunals for the purpose of determinations pursuant to section 21(1), (2) and (3) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967”.Leasehold Reform Act 1979
2 In section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1979 (price of enfranchisement under the LRA 1967 not to be made less favourable by reference to superior interest), in subsection (1), after “the price payable on a conveyance for giving effect to that section” insert “, in a case where the price payable is determined under section 9(1) of that Act by virtue of section 7A of that Act,”.Local Government Act 1985
3 In Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1985 (residuary bodies)—(a) in paragraph 14(aa), at the end insert “, where it applies by virtue of section 7A or 32(5) of that Act”;(b) omit paragraph 17.Housing Act 1985
4 In the Housing Act 1985—(a) in section 115 (meaning of “long tenancy”)—(i) for subsection (2)(c) substitute—“(c) at the time it is granted, it complies with the specified requirements.”;(ii) after subsection (2) insert—“(3) The “specified requirements” are—(a) in the case of a tenancy granted before 11 December 1987, the requirements of the Housing (Exclusion of Shared Ownership Tenancies from the Leasehold Reform Act 1967) Regulations 1982 (S.I. 1982/62) (including where the tenancy was granted before those regulations came into force);(b) in the case of a tenancy granted on or after 11 December 1987 and before the 2024 Act commencement day, the requirements in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Association Shared Ownership Leases (Exclusion from Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and Rent Act 1977) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987/1940);(c) in the case of a tenancy granted on or after the 2024 Act commencement day, requirements specified in regulations made by the appropriate authority.(4) The “2024 Act commencement day” is the day on which paragraph 11 of Schedule 8 to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 comes into force.(5) “The appropriate authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers.(6) Regulations under subsection (3)(c)—(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;(b) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases;(c) may make different provision for different purposes or different areas;(d) may include supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision.(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of—(a) where it contains regulations made by the Secretary of State, a resolution of either House of Parliament; (b) where it contains regulations made by the Welsh Ministers, a resolution of Senedd Cymru.”;(b) omit section 175 (determination of price payable on enfranchisement under LRA 1967 where tenancy created under right to buy).Landlord and Tenant Act 1985
5 In section 26 of the LTA 1985 (exception to service charge restrictions for public authority tenants)—(a) for subsection (3)(c) substitute—“(c) at the time it is granted it complies with the specified requirements.”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(4) The “specified requirements” are—(a) in the case of a tenancy granted before 11 December 1987, the requirements of the Housing (Exclusion of Shared Ownership Tenancies from the Leasehold Reform Act 1967) Regulations 1982 (S.I. 1982/62) (including where the tenancy was granted before those regulations came into force);(b) in the case of a tenancy granted on or after 11 December 1987 and before the 2024 Act commencement day, the requirements in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Housing Association Shared Ownership Leases (Exclusion from Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and Rent Act 1977) Regulations 1987 (S.I. 1987/1940);(c) in the case of a tenancy granted on or after the 2024 Act commencement day, requirements specified in regulations made by the appropriate authority.(5) The “2024 Act commencement day” is the day on which paragraph 11 of Schedule 8 to the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 comes into force.(6) Regulations under subsection (4)(c)—(a) are to be made by statutory instrument;(b) may make provision generally or only in relation to specific cases;(c) may make different provision for different purposes or different areas;(d) may include supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision.(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”Housing and Planning Act 1986
6 In Schedule 4 to the Housing and Planning Act 1986 (shared ownership leases), in paragraph 11 (transitional provisions and savings)—(a) in sub-paragraph (1), at the end insert “, subject to sub-paragraphs (1A) and (2)”;(b) for sub-paragraph (2) substitute—“(1A) The amendment made by paragraph 7 (repeal of section 140 of the Housing Act 1980) also applies in relation to leases granted before the commencement of this Schedule, except in cases where, under section 7A or 32(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 has effect without the amendments made by the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024.(2) In those cases, this Schedule does not affect the operation of section 140 of the Housing Act 1980, the enactments applying that section or regulations made under it.”Housing Act 1988
7 In Schedule 17 to the Housing Act 1988 (minor and consequential amendments)—(a) omit paragraph 40;(b) omit paragraph 68. Local Government and Housing Act 1989
8 In paragraph 5 of Schedule 10 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (security of tenure for long residential leases)—(a) in sub-paragraph (4), for the words from “unless” to the end substitute “unless—(a) the landlord is a relevant authority, and(b) the premises are required for relevant development.”;(b) after sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(4A) For those purposes—(a) “relevant authority” means a person referred to in any paragraph of section 38(2) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967;(b) “relevant development”—(i) in relation to a relevant authority other than a health authority, means development for the purposes (other than investment purposes) of that body;(ii) in relation to a relevant authority that is a health authority, means development for the purposes of the National Health Service Act 2006 or the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;(iii) in relation to a relevant authority that is a university body, also includes development for the purposes of any related university body;(iv) in relation to a relevant authority that is a local authority, also includes area development;(c) “health authority” means—(i) NHS England;(ii) any integrated care board;(iii) any Local Health Board;(iv) any Special Health Authority;(v) any National Health Service trust;(vi) any NHS foundation trust;(vii) any clinical commissioning group;(viii) any Strategic Health Authority;(ix) any Primary Care Trust;(d) “university body” and “related university body” have the same meaning as in section 29(6ZA) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967;(e) “local authority” has the same meaning as in section 29(5) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967;(f) “area development” means any development to be undertaken, whether or not by a local authority, in order to secure—(i) the development or redevelopment of an area defined by a development plan under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as an area of comprehensive development;(ii) the treatment as a whole, by development, redevelopment or improvement, or partly by one and partly by another method, of any area in which the premises are situated.”Local Government (Wales) Act 1994
9 In Schedule 13 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, in paragraph 24—(a) omit paragraph (b);(b) in paragraph (c), at the end insert “, where it applies by virtue of section 7A or 32(5) of that Act”.Housing Act 1996
10 In the Housing Act 1996—(a) omit section 109 (collective enfranchisement: valuation);(b) omit section 110 (lease extension for flats: valuation);(c) in Schedule 10 (consequential amendments)— (i) in paragraph 6, omit sub-paragraph (4); (ii) omit paragraph 18;(d) in Schedule 11 (compensation for postponement of termination in connection with ineffective claims)—(i) in paragraph 2, omit sub-paragraph (2);(ii) in paragraph 3, omit sub-paragraph (2).Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
11 In the CLRA 2002—(a) omit section 126 (collective enfranchisement: valuation date);(b) omit section 127 (collective enfranchisement: freeholder’s share of marriage value);(c) omit section 128 (collective enfranchisement: disregard of marriage value for very long leases);(d) in section 130 (lease extension for flats: residence test), omit subsection (2);(e) omit section 132 (lease extension for flats: personal representatives);(f) omit section 134 (lease extension for flats: valuation date);(g) omit section 135 (lease extension for flats: freeholder’s share of marriage value);(h) omit section 136 (lease extension for flats: disregard of marriage value for very long leases);(i) in Schedule 13 (leasehold valuation tribunals), omit paragraph 15.Finance Act 2003
12 In the Finance Act 2003—(a) in Schedule 4 (stamp duty land tax: chargeable consideration), for paragraph 16C substitute—“16C The following do not count as chargeable consideration—(a) costs borne by the purchaser under section 9(4) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, where it applies by virtue of section 7A of that Act;(b) any amount payable by the purchaser under section 19C of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967;(c) any amount payable by the purchaser under section 89C or 89D of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.”(b) in Schedule 17A (leases: further provision), in paragraph 10 (tenants’ obligations etc that do not count as chargeable consideration), for sub-paragraph (1)(f) substitute—“(f) any liability of the tenant for costs under section 14(2) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, where it applies by virtue of section 32(5) of that Act;(fa) any amount payable by the tenant under section 19C of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 or section 89F of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993;”Companies Act 2006
13 In section 1181 of the Companies Act 2006 (access to constitutional documents of RTE and RTM companies)—(a) in the heading, omit “RTE and”;(b) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (a);(c) in subsection (4), omit the definition of “RTE companies”.Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013
14 In section 84 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (redress schemes: property management work), in subsection (10), omit the words from “or which” to the end. Immigration Act 2014
15 In Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 2014 (excluded residential tenancy agreements), in paragraph 13(2)(a), omit the words from “or which” to the end.Consumer Rights Act 2015
16 In section 88 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (duty of letting agents to publicise fees: supplementary provisions), in subsection (1), in the definition of “long lease”, omit paragraph (a)(ii) and the “or” preceding it.Housing and Planning Act 2016
17 In Schedule 10 to the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (leasehold enfranchisement and extension: calculations)—(a) omit paragraph 4;(b) omit paragraph 5.Tenant Fees Act 2019
18 In section 28 of the Tenant Fees Act 2019 (interpretation), in subsection (1), in the definition of “long lease”, omit paragraph (b) and the “or” preceding it.Building Safety Act 2022
19 In Schedule 8 to the BSA 2022 (remediation costs), in paragraph 6 (permitted maximum)—(a) in sub-paragraph (5), omit “total” in each place it occurs;(b) in sub-paragraph (8)—(i) for “total” substitute “tenant’s”;(ii) for “section 7” substitute “section 101(1)”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Schedule would make amendments to other legislation in consequence of Part 2.
Lord Khan of Burnley
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that all leaseholders, not just those with residential leases of 150 years or over, have the right to vary their lease to replace rent with peppercorn rent.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 57 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Schedule 9 makes provision for a new enfranchisement right to buy out the ground rent and to vary it permanently to replace the relevant part of the rent with a peppercorn rent, without having to extend the lease. We welcome the intent of the schedule. The reform will ensure that leaseholders can enjoy reduced premiums and secure nominal ground rent ownership of their properties, without the need to go through the challenge and expense of repeated lease extensions.
The schedule implements the Law Commission’s recommendation for the right to extinguish the ground rent only. However, we have brought an amendment that would delete the Government’s proposed 150-year threshold, to press the Minister on the reason for which the Government have decided to confer that right only on leaseholders with leases with an unexpired term of more than 150 years.
The Law Commission recommended that the threshold should be set at 250 years on the basis that the reversion is of negligible value at that lease length. The Government chose not to accept that recommendation and, instead, are proposing a threshold of 150 years. The Minister may provide us with a different answer in due course, but we assume the reason that they did so is simply that this will make the new right to extinguish a ground- rent available to many more leaseholders. However, if that is the case, it obviously follows that setting a threshold of, say, 125 or 100 years would make it available to even more of them.
As my honourable friend Matthew Pennycook MP stipulated in the other place,
“any long lease threshold for the new right is ultimately entirely arbitrary, as evidenced by the fact that the Government chose a different threshold from the one recommended by the Law Commission”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/02/2024; col. 201.]
There is a principled argument that we should trust leaseholders to make decisions based on what is right for them and their individual circumstances, rather than denying a broad category of leaseholders a new statutory right on the basis that Ministers know best what is in their interests.
If unamended, Schedule 9 will ensure that some leaseholders can enjoy reduced premiums and secure nominal ground rent ownership of their properties, without the need to go through the challenge and expense of repeated lease extensions. However, we remain unconvinced by the Government’s proposed conferral of this new right only on leaseholders with leases with an unexpired term of more than 150 years. There could be all sorts of reasons why someone with a lease shorter than 150 years might want to buy out only the ground rent, including simply that they are unable to afford the premium required to secure a 990-year lease. Denying them that right on the grounds that other leaseholders might advertently or inadvertently disadvantage themselves, by using the new right to extinguish only the ground rent, strikes us as overly paternalistic and misguided.
We remain of the view that there is a strong case for simply deleting the 150-year threshold entirely, given that the remaining years test that applies is arbitrary and the most common forms of lease are 90, 99 and 125 years. Amendment 57 would do that, thereby making the new right to replace rent with a peppercorn rent available to all existing leaseholders. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 57 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. As has been said, Schedule 9 confers on a qualifying tenant the right to buy out the ground rent and replace it with a peppercorn rent. Instead of the extended leases that are paid for each time, it is a decision to make a one-off payment—job done once and for all.
This is a welcome measure. However, as has been said, under paragraph 2 of Schedule 9, the tenant must have at least 150 years left on their lease to qualify. Amendment 57 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would ensure that all leaseholders, not just those with residential leases of 150 years or over, have the right to vary their lease in this way and replace it with a peppercorn rent.
The provisions on the variation of leases and removal of ground rent are complex, but they are based on the principle of granting leaseholders flexibility and a recognition that different solutions might be preferable for the different situations that they are in. The argument has been put forward that these provisions should apply to leases that are sufficiently long, with the Law Commission recommending a very long length of 250 years and the Government settling on 150. Therefore, Amendment 57 rightly probes that length. If not 250 years, why not 125 years, 90 years or indeed no threshold for length at all?
Data on this was hard to find, but DLUHC’s English Housing Survey of owner-occupier leaseholders for the year 2020-21 found that 45% of leaseholders had a leasehold term between 71 and 120 years, and that the median length of leases was 112 years. This suggests that there could be lots of leaseholders with reasonably long leases who would not be given these rights in relation to ground rent.
I would also like colleagues to note that mortgage lenders are now getting very active on ground rent terms and taking an ever more conservative view on ground rent clauses. They are refusing to lend on leasehold homes where the ground rent is seen as onerous—the definition of that might be that it continues to double or that there are other strictures in place. This means that some leaseholders will be left with flats that are difficult to sell, as well as an escalating ground rent.
We would therefore welcome further information from the Minister about whether these provisions could be extended to cover more leaseholders, especially given their own figures.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to government Amendments 58 and 59 in my name. Government Amendment 59 changes “premium” to “price”, referring to the sum paid for a ground rent buyout, to make the language consistent with the rest of the Bill. Government Amendment 58 makes a minor wording change to clarify that it is “the appropriate tribunal” that may make an order to appoint a person to vary a lease on behalf of the landlord or tenant in the case of a commutation following a ground rent buyout. I hope noble Lords will therefore support these amendments.
I turn to Amendment 57 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. This seeks to remove the threshold for the ground rent buyout right. I appreciate the concerns that lie behind this amendment and understand that the noble Baroness is seeking to ensure that as many leaseholders as possible can benefit from the new right. First, it is very important to note that all leaseholders, regardless of their term remaining, have the means to buy out their ground rent. They do so whenever they extend their lease or buy their freehold. It is only the right to buy out the ground rent without extending the lease or buying the freehold that is limited to leaseholders with 150 years or more remaining. The 150-year threshold exists to protect those leaseholders with shorter leases who will, at some point, require an extension from being financially disadvantaged by first buying out their rent, only having to extend later and paying more in total for doing so. However, we understand the argument that all leaseholders should be able to buy out their rent without extending their lease or buying their freehold if they want to, and we are listening carefully to that argument.
The Law Commission recommended 250 years, but it noted that the department might want to set the threshold lower. The department’s analysis showed that 150 years would enable more leaseholders to take advantage of the ground rent buyout right, while still being a long enough term remaining that the leaseholder does not need to extend if they do not want to. A lower minimum term would create a risk that poorly advised leaseholders might buy out the ground rent when an extension is in their best interest, then find out that they need to extend later and have to pay a higher premium, except for the extension, and two sets of transaction costs. We believe this is helping the leaseholder.
I hope that the noble Baroness will appreciate the reasons we have given for the existence of the threshold, and those assurances, and withdraw her amendment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to thank the Minister for her response. I appreciate the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. In the future, we will look to work with colleagues across the House to see where we are on this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would correct an error.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would reflect other amendments in the Bill to change references to the premium to references to the price.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would leave out the proposed new section 87B of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and so ensure that RTM companies cannot incur costs in instances where claims cease.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, our amendment in this group refers to the fact that the Bill currently makes an exception to litigation costs being borne by landlords in the case where right-to-manage claims have been withdrawn or otherwise ceased early and the right-to-management company has acted unreasonably in bringing the right-to-management claim, allowing the landlord to apply to the tribunal for any reasonable costs.
The key arguments for the amendment are that, first, leaseholders should not be put at risk of having to pay costs simply for exercising statutory rights, in this case the right to seek to acquire and exercise rights in relation to the management of premises in which one has a leasehold interest. There is also concern that unscrupulous landlords might use the rights provided for in new Section 87B of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 as a means of recovering costs from right-to-manage companies that act reasonably and in good faith and, by implication, that it would discourage right-to-manage companies from initiating a claim because of the financial risk it still entails for individual participating leaseholders. Put simply, the fear is that new Section 87B will incentivise unscrupulous landlords to fight claims on the basis that they are defective in the hope of recovering costs by means of it. Our main concern regarding Clause 48 is that the use of the words “reasonable fee” and “reasonable costs” would not allow either of the above situations to occur. I ask the Minister: who will determine the definition of “reasonable”, and how?
I will comment on other amendments. We think that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, are very reasonable, and we support his aims here. In fact, colleagues in the other place submitted similar amendments in Committee.
I also look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, introduce his amendments, which would incorporate local authorities and their properties, both within the HRA and without, but I ask whether he had discussions about this proposal with the Local Government Association or local authority stockholders. Most good local authority landlords already have substantial arrangements in place for liaison with leaseholders and tenants around the management of property, and there is certainly no issue with improving that through more effective right-to-manage arrangements. However, as much local authority property will be occupied by a mixture of local authority tenants and leaseholders, it would be important to ensure that there were no unintended consequences. I urge that that level of consultation takes place before any proposal such as this proceeds further. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will forgive me if he has already done that consultation, but it was not clear from the amendments. With that, I beg to move Amendment 60.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Baroness. I will come to answering her question. To give a blunt answer, I have not undertaken the consultation that she refers to, but I will explain when I get to that part of my introduction why I think that this stands on its own.
As I said at Second Reading, I strongly support those parts of the Bill which facilitate the exercise of the right to manage on the part of leaseholders in residential blocks. There are several measures in the Bill which do that. The right to manage is, in some ways, the crucial key to unlocking the levels of dissatisfaction which some leaseholders have with the way in which their blocks are managed. I strongly support it.
There is a particular issue which the Bill does not address. As a consequence of my general support for this—contrary to my remarks in earlier debates— I hope that the Government will give me a softer and more welcoming answer. As a result of my proposal, perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will even give me one of those answers which invites me to attend a meeting. In fact, I have had a meeting with my noble friend about this, though she may not recall it. We met last summer to discuss this issue with officials, and she was very sympathetic to it. That gives me additional reasons for thinking that this might be a welcome amendment.
The amendment arises from a particular case, but it raises questions of general importance. I shall refer to the case later, but I want to address the question of general importance first. When the right to manage was introduced through the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, certain exceptions were placed on it. The Government intend to ease some of those restrictions, and I welcome that. One restriction was that the right to manage did not apply where the landlord of the building was a local housing authority.
I have tabled two alternative amendments—this is my point about consultation. Both amendments would reverse that assumption. One would eliminate it entirely. It would bring within the ambit of right to manage all blocks where the local housing authority was the landlord, including those within the housing revenue account. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said that this could raise certain difficulties in cases where a block had so many long lease holders that it could exercise the right to manage but would be left with certain local authority tenants in the block. I have experience of local government, as does the noble Baroness. I recognise that she is correct in saying that there might be certain sensitivities about this. I think it could be managed. Indeed, it would be liberating for all the tenants of the block in many ways. The local authority tenants would also have a say in the management of the block. They would not be excluded from it simply because they were local authority tenants.
Recognising that this is a slightly daring proposition, I have suggested an alternative which would simply take out of the provision local housing authority-owned blocks where they were owned simply as an investment. I have left it vague as to whether that is a commercial investment or one held in the local authority’s pension fund. These are probing amendments. I should be happy to discuss these issues with my noble friend the Minister.
I come now to a particular case. There are blocks where local authorities have acquired property as an investment. Doing so immediately extinguishes the right of the long lease holders to exercise their right to manage—there are no local authority tenants. I think that is wrong. The case I am thinking of concerns a block acquired by a London local authority from a commercial property investment trust, bought at market value as an investment. The local authority, the new owner, was dissatisfied with the accounts inherited from the previous manager—it had their own manager for the block. As a result, it has not been able to put satisfactory accounts together for the last three years. As a consequence, it has not had the legal standing to issue invoices to its tenants for its service charges. It has been running the building’s operating costs out of the capital sums that had been set aside as a sinking fund to pay for future improvements to the building. It is all very unsatisfactory.
That is a classic situation in which long leaseholders would normally exercise the right to manage but, completely arbitrarily, are precluded from doing so. That is wrong. We should facilitate this.
At the very least, my noble friend should welcome my second amendment, Amendment 62, and say that where a local authority acquires a property for commercial purposes—not for the housing of its tenants but as an investment, either in its own name or as part of its pension fund—the right to manage would be restored. The financial interests of the local authority would be preserved, as they are under the current arrangements. It is simply that the right to manage the building would be taken over by the long leaseholders, as elsewhere, and they would manage it in just the same way as in all the other right-to-manage arrangements we are so much in favour of.
I will stop at that point because I have simply made my case, but this is a strange omission from the current arrangements, and one that we now have an opportunity to correct. I would be very happy to attend the meeting.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 65A and 65B. The Government should be applauded for their ambitions as laid out in the Bill. Let us hope that we can achieve them all. I put on record that I am pleased with the Government’s direction of travel, because some of my interventions up until now may have seemed slightly belligerent, but can my noble friend the Minister provide some reassurance around the Government’s stated aim of a revolution in the right to manage? That would help to address what, for me, is at the heart of what I consider the leasehold scandal, which is really about control. Leaseholders in England and Wales are unique in the lack of control that they have. Worldwide, leaseholders and those with commonhold and many other types of tenure have much more control. I believe that is something the Bill can address, and the Government have to demonstrate that they want to deliver on it. Indeed, it was our own Secretary of State who said that he wants to see a revolution in the right to manage.
I put on record my colleagues Nickie Aiken and Barry Gardiner, who brought a very similar amendment in the other place. Amendment 65A seeks to ensure that leaseholders in mixed-use property who would otherwise qualify for the right to manage because 50% or more of the floorspace is residential, but because of a technicality—a boiler or an underground car park—are prevented from having that management given to them, still have that right. The current test means that you have to demonstrate that your building is self-contained or that the residential part is partly self-contained, but the layout of the building might suggest that it is not self-contained due to an underground car park or boiler room, when actually it is.
The Law Commission saw these two tests as too strict. It suggested that a third test could be set whereby, if it could be demonstrated that people are reasonably capable of managing the residential area fully independently, they should be given access to this power. As I have stated in most of the debate, the thing that most drives me is the potential for the abuse of service charging. Giving residents control over their assets is clearly the answer to that.
The amendment does not mean that leaseholders can take over the management of shops, hotels or commercial premises. That is not the idea of the amendment. The right to manage applies exclusively to the residential parts, such as corridors and lift lobbies —parts of the building used only by residents. The amendment does not seek to change that position.
At Second Reading, I made the point that even the leading freeholder lobby group pointed out that free- holders own, at best, only 2.5% of the capital interest in the buildings they have the freehold of. That leads me to my other amendment, Amendment 65B. We must lower the threshold at which a group of people can take over the management of that lease. It is currently at 50%. I suggest that it should be at around 35%—again, to help the Government achieve their stated aim of a revolution in right to manage.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I have asked to speak to the amendments in this group, which is a bit shorter than it would have been had the Clause 47 stand part notice remained. That was certainly something on which I would have urged the Government to stand firm.
We strongly support Amendment 60 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Anyone who has done a bit of googling on the right to manage can see that right-to-manage claims by leaseholders are often fiercely opposed by freeholders. What is meant to be a so-called no-fault process can involve costly and stressful litigation for leaseholders, as freeholders drag the right to manage claim into the tribunal system. Freeholders gameplay and try to block RTM bids, because the right to manage signifies loss of their control and ability to rip off leaseholders in perpetuity.
Against this backdrop of right-to-manage cases going to tribunal and becoming the subject of “lawfare” by freeholders, it is surely reasonable to ensure that right-to-manage companies cannot incur costs in instances where claims cease. The way things stand, it is clearly intended to be a disincentive to leaseholders to seek the right to manage, and that imbalance cannot be right. Some noble Lords may remember the Canary Gateway case: it took an outrageous four years for the shared-ownership leaseholders to secure their right to manage, with the freeholder-driven litigation going as far as the Court of Appeal.
Turning to Amendments 61 and 62 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, we on these Benches would support them in principle as they are increasingly sold as access to the right to manage. However, they stand in stark contrast to the noble Lord’s other amendments, which sought to reduce leaseholder access to collective enfranchisement and right to manage.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I hesitated and thought about cutting that bit out, but go on.
Lord Moylan (Con)
The noble Baroness could not expect to get away with that. Any attempt to cast me as a as a poodle of freeholders and opposed to leaseholders is bound to be foiled because it is untrue. I have made it clear throughout that I strongly support the right to manage and its extension. This is very different from expropriation of somebody else’s property. This is simply a technique for managing a building and managing it well.
I should also say while I am on my feet that when we exercised the right to manage in the block in which I live, many years ago, the freeholder was highly supportive because they were sick to death of the managing agent as well, and realised that their building would be managed a great deal better by us, as it has been. They have an interest in the building being well managed: they want the roof to be repaired; they want the facade not to fall off in chunks in the street because, after all, they, too, whatever else is said, have a long-term interest in the building.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My comments were not about right to manage. That was a good segue into another short speech by the noble Lord.
However, we are conscious that expanding right to manage to leaseholders under local authority landlords was never considered by the Law Commission, nor put out to public consultation. We are unsure whether the Government have done policy work in this area. It is a whole other ball game and will be challenging. But, in principle, given that many local authorities have been guilty of significant and tragic failures of service, to put it mildly, this should be a right of local authority tenants too. But it will be complex, for many of the reasons that were well outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor.
It is also worth reminding ourselves that local authority leaseholders have, since 1994, been able to take over management through tenant management organisations. I do not believe any work has been done regarding their success or otherwise. But such a review could ignite and inform this topic on another occasion. We welcome the probe by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and also the subtleties of his alternative proposals, and will certainly attend the said—and very popular —meeting.
Finally, I come to Amendments 65A and 65B, in the name of Lord Bailey of Paddington. The aim of Amendment 65A is a good one: to ensure that leaseholders in mixed-use buildings can avail themselves of the right to manage. At the House of Commons Public Bill Committee in January, MPs heard that many leaseholders in mixed-use buildings would still be unable to benefit from the reforms in the Bill to take over management—because, as the noble Lord said, of the existence of, say, a shared plant room or car park, under rules regarding structural dependency and self-containment. The existence of a plant room or other infrastructure is something decided by the original developer and leaseholders have no control over these factors, so it feels unfair to exclude them from right to manage based on the way a block has been designed, especially if they qualify under the new 50% non-residential premises limit.
Amendment 65B would put rocket boosters under the right to manage, opening it up to far more leaseholders. We on these Benches support the amendment and the intent behind it. Members in the other place have raised concerns that the 50% trigger is too high. The 50% participation limit on right to manage was also flagged as an issue by leaseholder campaigners at the Commons Public Bill Committee in January.
There may be concerns about 50% being less than a majority, but, as the noble Lord said, many leaseholders will never be able to obtain 50% support because of the high levels of buy to let in their block. But ultimately the Committee was persuaded of the case to bring down the 50% threshold. It is not right that just one person—the freeholder or landlord—has such control over leaseholders and can impact almost at will on their finances. As the noble Lord’s amendment suggests, 35% of leaseholders triggering a right to manage, with a right to participate for remaining leaseholders who did not originally get involved, is a far better situation than rule by one freeholder, whose interests, as the Law Commission concluded, are diametrically opposed to that of the leaseholder. Leaseholder self-rule with right to manage and a 35% participation threshold is a much more democratic state of affairs. Let us be honest: many councillors and MPs are elected to govern on much less than 50% of the vote—in fact, usually around 35%.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for Amendment 60, which would leave new Section 87B out of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. This is a new power, inserted into the 2002 Act by the Bill, for the tribunal to order the repayment of a landlord’s process costs for right to manage claims which are withdrawn or cease to have effect in circumstances where a right to manage company has acted unreasonably.
The noble Baroness asked who would decide what was reasonable or unreasonable and the level of reasonableness. The costs will be determined by the tribunal, as is the case with other kinds of litigation or court proceedings.
While we strive to reduce costs for leaseholders, we do not believe it is right to do so where the right to manage company acts unreasonably in bringing a claim and the claim also fails. For example, landlords should not have to meet their own wasted process costs where leaseholders clearly make an unfeasible claim or fail to bring the claim to an end at an earlier stage.
The noble Baroness should be assured that the new power for the tribunal does not automatically entitle landlords to repayment. If the tribunal does not consider that costs should be payable, it can decline to make an order. Removing new Section 87B would expose landlords to unfair costs. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness kindly to withdraw her amendment.
I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his Amendments 61 and 62. The amendments seek to remove or amend the existing exception to the right to manage for local authority premises so that the right can be used by their long lease holders. I should explain that there is a separate right to manage scheme for local authority secure tenants and leaseholders under the Housing Act 1985 and its relevant regulations. The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 therefore excepted local authority leaseholders from the long-leasehold right to manage to avoid creating conflicting schemes.
The Bill delivers the most impactful of the Law Commission’s recommendations on the right to manage, including increasing the non-residential limit to 50% to give more leaseholders the right to take over management, and changing the rules to make each party pay their own process and litigation costs, saving leaseholders many thousands of pounds.
An alternative route to management is available in some local authority blocks that contain a mixture of tenants and leaseholders, where a prescribed number and proportion of secure tenants are in support of exercising the right. This involves setting up a tenant management organisation. It would complicate a system that we are trying to simplify if two separate routes were to apply to a single block, and the Law Commission made no recommendations on local authority leaseholders.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have some familiarity with the Housing Act 1985 from my time in local government. I am reasonably well aware of the obligation to create tenant management organisations, which are often not block-specific but estate-wide or, in many cases, spread across the entire local authority council housing stock. It seems a strange way to go about trying to exercise the right to manage if we are discussing a block held as an investment that has no local authority tenants. Can my noble friend assure me that the Housing Act 1985 is an effective means for leaseholders in the circumstances I describe to exercise their right to manage, when in fact it is an obligation on a local authority rather than a right granted to long lease holders?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We believe this is the correct way of doing it. I would be very happy to meet my noble friend to discuss this further but, with the evidence we have, we agree this is the correct way forward. But I really am very happy to meet with the noble Lord.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
I have heard what my noble friend the Minister has had to say and I am minded to do as she asks—if I could get one of those meetings that she has to offer. I am sure then that we could come to an accommodation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I will be very happy to spend a week in here so that noble Lords can come in and out and speak to me as they like—and I would love to meet my noble friend to talk about this further. He talked also about transparency and it not being terribly necessary. The problem is that, if you do not have transparency, sometimes you do not know you are being ripped off, because you do not have the required information—so I think transparency is actually really important.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, it was not that I do not like transparency. I agree with my noble friend that transparency is very useful so you know whether you are being ripped off. I was making an appeal for the ability to intervene in the process of being ripped off. I have been on the other end of this situation, where people have quite happily told us what they are overcharging us for, but we had no mechanism to interfere in that. That is what I was more concerned with.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that but, for the reasons I have put forward, I kindly ask him not to press his amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the Minister for her responses. It seems she is going to be very busy over the next few weeks, having all these meetings with all of us. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for reminding me that, had the right reverend Prelate been here, I too would have objected strongly to the proposals he was making on Clause 47, because they would simply have opened the door to retaining the 25% limit, virtually across the property sector. I believe that would have gone against the intentions of the Bill, so she was right in what she said there and I thank her for her support for my amendment.
From this side of the House, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, that we welcome belligerent interventions from either side, but especially from the Benches opposite, so just keep going with those. We particularly agree with his Amendment 65B. If his meeting does not achieve the desired effect and he chooses to pursue this, he will certainly have our support.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, very much for his explanation. I had not realised that these were either/or amendments, but I understand his point about property owned as an investment by a local authority or pension fund. I agree with his point about the principle of right to manage being extended as far as possible. That is absolutely right, although anything affecting local authorities needs to have some consultation with the sector, because we just do not know what any unintended consequence of that might mean. I hope he will consider that if he chooses to pursue this amendment, but perhaps the meeting with the Minister might allay his concerns in that regard. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Pinnock
“Report: restrictions around ground rent investments(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining the impact of this Act on ground rent investments.(2) The report in subsection (1) must also make an assessment of the impact of—(a) prohibiting future ground rent investments, and(b) encouraging divestment from existing ground rent investmentson leaseholders and freeholders.(3) In this section “ground rent investment” means investment by a pension fund or other type of fund in leaseholds for the purpose of collecting ground rent.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment that would require the Government report on the impact of this Act on ground rent investments, and the impact of prohibiting future ground rent investments and encouraging divestment from existing ground rent investments on leaseholders and freeholders.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 63 in my name was tabled to probe the impact of the proposals in the Bill on ground rent investments, and the effect of prohibiting future ground rent investments, and encouraging divestment from existing ground rent investments, on leaseholders and freeholders. The Government’s intentions appeared to be clear. In 2022, the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act effectively set the ground rent on new leases at zero, so the direction of travel seemed set. Further, last November, the Government launched a consultation on ground rents, which included capping the charge at a peppercorn rate for existing leaseholders.
The Secretary of State said at the time that the aim was to help protect those leaseholders who
“can be faced with ground rent clauses in their leases which result in spiralling payments with no benefit in return”.
Now, apparently, the Government have backed off from a fundamental reform and seem set on phasing out ground rents over a period of 20 years and setting a cap on ground rents at £250 per annum.
The fundamental question we have to ask is: what benefit do leaseholders accrue from paying a ground rent of, for example, £250 a year? The answer, is, of course, that ground rents really are a something-for-nothing payment—I bet you would not get away with this in Yorkshire. If the Government are determined, as they initially said they were, to bring fairness to leaseholders, then ground rents would be consigned to history.
However, on the other hand, ground rents provide a steady income for institutions as well as individual freeholders. It seems that the pressure on the Government to row back from abolition or peppercorn was sufficient to cause considerable backpedalling.
The Society of Pension Professionals—which the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, referred to six hours ago—has examined this issue as a result of much being made about the potential impact on pension funds of reducing ground rents to either £250 or zero. The following is a statement from the Society of Pension Professionals:
“Freeholders are already prevented from charging ground rents on new long leases (of more than 21 years), so it’s perhaps understandable that the government wants something similar for existing long leaseholders. The government estimates that capping ground rents at £250 a year would decrease the value of affected property assets by £14.6 bn or £27.3 bn if rents are reduced to a peppercorn. If these proposals become law, there may be some short-term impact on pension fund investors through asset values being written down. Certain pension funds may also be impacted where they own freehold titles directly, although that will be less common. The effect of these proposed adjustments is likely to be more significant for such investors than the loss of annual ground rent income over the term of the lease”—
I emphasise this next part—
“but the scale relative to total assets is probably not that significant for most in the long-run”
That is an authoritative statement, and I would like to hear a full response from the Minister—probably in writing given the late stage of the evening—as this reform is a critical part of leasehold reform. Before Report, we need to see the detailed proposals from the Government and a full explanation of their reasons.
In conclusion, these Benches want the iniquitous system of ground rents to be abolished or at least reduced by introducing a peppercorn as the set fee. I beg to move.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, at this late stage of the evening, I will be brief in speaking to Amendment 65 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. The amendment would require the Government to publish their response to their consultation on a cap on ground rents and set out its implementation within a month of the Bill passing. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. She described ground rent as something for nothing and something that you would not get away with in Yorkshire. Let me assure her that the noble Lord opposite can confirm that you would not get away with it in Lancashire either.
In the past five or six days we have seen a lot of press in relation to the new £250 yearly ground rent cap for 20 years. However, we still have not had confirmation here at this stage of the Bill from the Government. I want to press the Minister on the comments of the Secretary of State, who said in November that the
“consultation was launched to help protect those leaseholders who can be faced with ground rent clauses in their leases, which result in spiralling payments with no benefit in return”.
How are those press announcements happening, when we have not had a consultation analysis and we have not had feedback on the findings of the consultation? We find out in the media what the Government are thinking, and that is not right; we challenge that operation and procedure as a way of working, whereby we find in the media numerous reports about the Government’s intentions.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support Amendments 63 and 65 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Pinnock, who outlined again the position on pension funds. I wanted to support what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. There has been a lot of scaremongering recently about the impact on pension funds, and I wanted to reinforce that with the Minister. Quite frankly, all this talk of pension funds and pensioners being hammered by low or peppercorn ground rents is rubbish, and it should be called out for what it is.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I shall take Amendments 63 and 65 together, if noble Lords do not mind, as they both concern ground rents. Amendment 63 would require a report to be laid before Parliament, and Amendment 65 would require the publication of the Government’s response to the recent ground rent consultation and the laying of a Statement before Parliament. Before I move into what I am going to say, I want to say that I am not making any comment on any media speculation, as I said on Monday.
These amendments relate to the issues considered in the Government’s recent consultation entitled Modern Leasehold: Restricting Ground Rent for Existing Leases, which was published on 9 November 2023 and closed on 17 January this year. It sought views on limiting the level of ground rent that residential leaseholders can be required to pay in England and Wales. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government do not believe that it is appropriate that many leaseholders face unregulated ground rents for no clear service in return. There is no requirement for ground rents to be reasonable, and they can cause problems when people want to sell, buy or mortgage their properties.
The Government have already legislated to put an end to ground rents for most new residential properties in England and Wales through the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022. We have also encouraged work, led by the Competition and Markets Authority, to investigate abuses of the system such as mis-sold “doubling” ground rent leases, securing commitments from freeholders to remove these costly terms, benefitting more than 20,000 leaseholders.
It is not right that many existing leaseholders are still facing these charges for no discernible service in return, which is why we have just consulted on a range of options to cap ground rents for existing residential leases. The Government are currently considering the responses to the consultation and we will set out our policy in due course. I hope noble Lords will understand that it would be inappropriate for me at this point to comment on or pre-empt any decision of the Government before a formal response to the consultation has been published, and that, given where we are, it would be premature to impose the requirements proposed in these two amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, is right: we do not think it is appropriate that many leaseholders face these unregulated ground rents for no clear service in return. We recognise that our proposals would have some impact on the freehold market and explored this impact through our consultation. This impact is obviously being factored into the considerations of the options and is being taken into account in reaching our final policy position. The noble Lord has some very clear views on this, which I think we agree with.
At this late hour, I therefore ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Taylor, for their continued patience as we consider what is a very complex issue. I trust that, in the light of the assurances I have given, they will be content not to press their amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sure the Minister understands that this has dragged on and on, and we are now at a very late stage of a Bill that has already gone all the way through the Commons. Quite frankly, the degree of uncertainty and instability that is being caused to leaseholders—and to freeholders, to be fair to them—is unacceptable. Yet again in this Chamber, we hear the phrase, “in due course”. I do not know what that means; it can mean anything from tomorrow to in three years’ time when we get round to sorting it out. That is not acceptable either.
We had a very detailed report from the Competition and Markets Authority, which roundly condemned the use of ground rents as a mechanism. We have heard in this Chamber over and again that this is money for nothing and that it has resulted in the most dreadful exploitation. The example I gave in Committee on Monday of an elderly couple virtually being held to ransom by the freeholder is absolutely shocking. That will be going on in millions of homes across the country. This is just not acceptable any longer. I hope that the Secretary of State will very rapidly make up his mind as to what he is going to do about this, stop being bulldozed by freeholder interests in his own party, make a decision and get rid of ground rents, once and for all. This would let people sleep easy in their beds, which they have not been able to do while this debate has been going on.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I think there was a question there, and my response is that we went out, quite rightly, to consult, and the consultation did not finish until towards the end of January. This is a complex issue. If we do it badly or wrong then we will make mistakes and these people will potentially be in a more difficult situation. From the end of January to April is not a long time. We are doing it as fast as we can, and we will come back to the House with further details.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
I understand the response the Minister has given, but she has to understand that this consultation has its own process and in due course we will look at the analysis. I do not know whether I am accidentally calling for another meeting here, but how did we end up with reports in the newspapers? That causes more uncertainty and instability for people in their homes who are getting their information from the media. Surely there needs to be a statement or some clarification through the next stages of the Bill, so that, very early on, we can look at getting a clear, certain message out to the millions of leaseholders who have been adversely affected by the ground rent situation.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The Government have no control over what goes into the media, and it is something that the Government have to accept.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Let us end on a positive. I thank the Minister for her response. There is agreement that unregulated ground rents are unacceptable, and that some freeholders are unscrupulous and exploit their leaseholders, holding them to ransom, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said.
However, it would be really helpful if, as we complete the various stages of the Bill, the Minister could confirm that the Government will be able to bring forward a detailed amendment regarding ground rents before Report; otherwise, those of us who raised this issue in Committee will raise it again on Report. Unfortunately, this will put the Minister in a difficult position, one in which she has to say, “In due course, something is going to turn up”. Let us send a message to the department that “in due course” means “before Report”.