Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

In short, both these amendments are designed to push forward the Government’s will, their desire, to boost the right to manage. But we have to lower the threshold—the number that one needs to take hold of that right. We also have to make sure that bad actors, bad landlords, cannot avoid that on a technicality by saying that the plant room or the underground car park, for example, means that the building cannot be managed separately. In many cases, it is managed separately and leaseholders often use that to demonstrate that they could take over the purely residential parts.

[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.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords—

[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.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 23 and 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. I can imagine the anguish that must be felt by leaseholders in blocks of flats who are facing the disruption of one or even two new storeys being built on the roof of their flats. With freeholders now having permitted development rights for upward extensions, residents face the disruption, noise and hassle of builders, lorries, cranes, skips, scaffolding and so on for months—and now they face the prospect of being unable to buy the freehold of the block because development, or the possibility of upward development, adds to the value of the block and can make enfranchisement prohibitively expensive. The extra value of adding new storeys, or the compensation demanded for not developing where there is potential to add them, generates additional freeholder profits but makes enfranchisement unaffordable, yet the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is all about giving leaseholders a better deal and easier access to enfranchisement.

I note that the previous Secretary of State promised to fix this specific problem through a clause in the Bill enabling leaseholders in a block to agree together that no upward extension should take place. In this way, they remove the extra value for the freeholder. It seems that in the drafting of the Bill the promised new clause, originally an option proposed by the Law Commission, has got lost. So, on behalf of the 2 million-plus lease- holders who could be affected, I strongly support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, which would fulfil the Government’s earlier promise.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I suppose I could say “#UsToo”. I support these amendments, which are simple in purpose, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who summed them up thoroughly, clearly and personally. As things stand under PDR, a freeholder can add two storeys to their existing building as a matter of right, with no planning permission needed: as I look round Watford, I can see evidence of that with my own eyes. But I also know that that can have very serious consequences. As well as the inconvenience of the building work going on for as long as it takes, you also discover that the top-floor flat that you paid a premium for is now worth less as you are a middle-floor flat. Then there is the pressure on communal space and amenities, including the dreaded bin store and the state thereof.

Adding two more storeys to a presumably well-planned block of flats, for a set number of residents, is not consequence-free. But the consequences are absolutely trivial compared with the knock-on effects of such development on the Government’s own stated aim, which is to encourage more leaseholders to buy their freehold. This is an additional and often insurmountable obstacle. It significantly raises the cost of enfranchisement, as has been said. The value of the block will have gone up. The leaseholders are now required to pay more for their freehold. In many parts of the country, this takes it way out of reach, as in the noble Baroness’s case.

The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, very thoroughly cited a positive trail of support: all the right noises from the Secretary of State in 2021, the Government’s complete recognition of the dilemma and a real promise of the ability to look into some restriction.

It is clear that there is a policy conflict here: the need for more homes, which we all agree on, versus the enfranchisement of leaseholders. As things stand, the homes policy is top trumps. Can the Minister advise on whether there will be a review of PDRs in general, including focusing on unintended consequences such as this and whether there is a way to sort this out in the leaseholder’s favour in the Bill? At the moment, it feels as if the freeholders are still very much holding all the aces and current residents have no voice at all in this significant change to their environment and, possibly, their life chances and finances.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Andrews for the collaborative way in which she has prepared and worked on her amendment, and drawn the attention of the House to what seems to be an omission from the Bill. We believe this needs to be rectified and my noble friend has not only set out, with her usual thorough approach and eloquence, exactly what the issue is, but has also proposed a straightforward and elegant solution, which we support.

My noble friend describes the Law Commission report as adopted by the Government in January 2021. Indeed, the government press release of January 2021 indicated that the Bill would strongly take account of this government commitment to release leaseholders from the straitjacket of hope of future development value. I quote from that press release:

“Leaseholders will also be able to voluntarily agree to a restriction on future development of their property to avoid paying ‘development value’”.


This is based on a Law Commission suggestion, which clearly indicates the direction of travel and which we believe the Government have accepted. To quote from the Law Commission recommendation:

“Premiums would be reduced at the date of the freehold acquisition claim. If leaseholders subsequently decided that they wanted to develop, they would pay a portion of any profit received on a subsequent development to the landlord, rather than (as at present) having to pay development value in respect of a speculative future possibility of development”.


The Law Commission also set out clearly the principle that leaseholders should not need to have to negotiate on a piecemeal basis for this restriction but should be granted it by right. The commission refers to leaseholders of flats acquiring the freehold to their block and states that,

“as they would not be required to pay the landlord an additional sum to reflect the potential to develop their properties, leaseholders would no longer be required to negotiate with the landlord to create such a restriction; rather, they would be entitled to demand such a restriction be included”

and

“disputes, negotiation and litigation about development value would be reduced”.

The Law Commission clearly believed that the election to take a restriction on development outweighed the disadvantages put forward by other consultees and that such an election was eminently possible to implement where there was agreement among leaseholders.

I also point out that this issue arises, in part, from yet another unintended consequence of the permitted development regime—a point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill—on which I have made my views clear in your Lordships’ House in the past. I am not an unequivocal fan of PD. Permitted development removes the step of local accountability through the planning system, often the contribution to local community infrastructure and almost always the contribution to local affordable housing which would be required through traditional planning applications.

At its worst, permitted development drives a coach and horses through local plans, resulting in residential property in inappropriate areas and buildings, and in taking buildings out of commercial use where it may not be appropriate to do so. In the case of the subject of this amendment, its very existence can create an added financial pressure on those wishing to exercise their enfranchisement rights. That is another reason why we believe that the solution proposed by my noble friend Lady Andrews delivers an equal and justifiable right to leaseholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome the new costs regime provided for by provisions in the Bill, because, as things stand, there is no balance of power: the playing field is tilted very much in favour of landlords rather than leaseholders, and that needs to be addressed. Under the current law, leaseholders are required to pay for certain non-litigation costs incurred by their landlord when responding to an enfranchisement or lease extension claim. That obviously does not reflect normal practice in residential conveyancing, where each party bears their own costs. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for explaining our rationale for this amendment in a bit more detail than is customary for me, but it is a point of real principle, and some technical detail is warranted.

Noble Lords will remember that I quoted from a letter I had received from elderly leaseholders on the first day of Committee. I have received further representations in relation to excessive charges for non-litigation costs, which I will read out as they are a perfect illustration of the problem these amendments seek to address. I appreciate that this example relates to a ground rent dispute, but it would be the same issue for an enfranchisement or extension claim.

“After the Freeholder asks a ridiculous sum in increased ground rent with their ground rent review (every 4 years) this causes the leaseholder to then employ both a Solicitor and Surveyor to counter this high valuation which incidentally had no calculations to back it up. Therefore so far this year having paid £3,000 for a surveyor to dispute this figure and a lawyer costing so far £3,600, the freeholders haven’t even tried to justify their huge increase and valuation. Now after 4 months having passed and the 3-month negotiation ended and the Freeholders have made no effort to take part, negotiate or even contact our surveyor they now say this increase is NOT agreed …


If we lose with the third-party surveyor’s estimate and the increase is even only minimal we still have to pay the third-party surveyor’s fees plus the freeholder’s lawyer’s fees and our own lawyer’s fees, therefore it could end up costing as much as £15,000. Plus if they look to backdate the increase over the past 6 years’ Ground Rent charges this could amount to who knows what?


Even if we win we still lose a great amount of costs and fees plus we cannot look forward to a reduction in Ground Rent as the lease states an ‘Upward Only Revision’. Therefore freeholders know they can put in totally unrealistic figures for rent increase of whatever they want as the leaseholders are on a hiding to nothing … until they throw in the towel.


Additionally, to lodge a dispute at the 1st Tier Tribunal for any high unreasonable charges it is necessary to not pay the bill in question otherwise it is deemed you have agreed to this payment but then withholding payment runs the risk of forfeiture”,


which we will discuss later today. My correspondent goes on to plead that the issue of ground rent increases finally be resolved by the Bill, but their case illustrates the financial and legal minefield that leaseholders face.

The argument for imposing non-litigation costs has always been that, in enfranchisement or lease extension claims, a landlord is being forced to sell his or her asset, which would justify a departure from the practice in open market sales of residential property. However, when it comes to lease extensions or freehold purchases, a landlord is obviously not simply being compensated for the value of the asset they are being compelled to sell. They are instead securing, through the payable premium, a share of the profit to be made from selling to the leaseholders in question. In addition, as things stand, through capitalised ground rents, they are extracting funds from leaseholders over long periods—often decades —prior to securing that profit share, for no explicit services in return.

The valuations of lease extensions and freehold acquisitions under the existing statutory regime rely on prices agreed via an open market transaction, but those valuations do not account for the fact that leaseholders are expected to pay their landlord’s non-litigation costs. Therefore, landlords in enfranchisement or extension transactions receive the price for the asset being sold, which reflects the market rate without non-litigation costs factored in, and their reasonably incurred non-litigation costs on top.

In its 2020 final report on enfranchisement, the Law Commission is very clear that the effects of law and current market practice are that

“the landlord is over-compensated for the non-litigation costs that he or she has had to incur in order to transfer the interest to the leaseholder”.

In addition, many of those who are better resourced could use the fact that such costs are borne by leaseholders as leverage in negotiations on the price of the lease extension or freehold acquisition, confident that the expense of challenging those costs in a tribunal would dissuade many leaseholders from doing so.

The Opposition are clear that freeholders should not receive compensation in respect of non-litigation costs. A landlord selling his or her asset and receiving a share of the profit as a result is not sufficient justification for departing from an arrangement in which reasonable non-litigation costs are factored into the ultimate price. The decision to enfranchise or extend a lease is often not discretionary; it is often a requirement brought about by the fact that a lease is due to expire, because the payable premium is rising as the lease shortens, or as a result of the decision to move or remortgage.

We therefore fully support the intention in the Bill to provide for a new regime based on the principle that leaseholders are not required to pay the freeholder’s non-litigation costs in these circumstances. We note the Law Society’s concern that landlords are being asked to bear their own non-litigation costs, despite the fact that the proposed standard valuation method provided for by Schedule 2 will lead to payable premiums below full open market value because it caps the capitalisation rate. However—and this point touches on one of our previous debates—political decisions set the rules of the game for market competition. In our view, it is simply not the case that there is some kind of inherent market value for premiums entirely independent of legislation in this area. Every sale of a flat and every lease extension process relating to a flat since 1993 has been undertaken against the backdrop of the 1993 Act, which reduced ground rents to a peppercorn.

The market value for premiums is shaped by the laws that the House passes. It is right in principle that, to achieve the Bill’s objectives of making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders in houses and flats to extend their lease or buy their freehold, leaseholders do not pay non-litigation costs in addition to the payment of a premium, as determined by the new method proposed in Schedules 2 and 3. We believe that leaseholders should not be liable for these costs as a result of an enfranchisement or lease extension claim on principle, irrespective of the method by which the premium is calculated. That is why we take issue with the clause as drafted, because it does not protect all leaseholders from liability for costs incurred.

The clause as drafted entails only a selective extension of rights in this area, because it does not ensure that all leaseholders will no longer have to pay their freeholder’s costs when making a claim. Instead, it makes exceptions to the general rule, whereby the price payable for the freehold or extended lease is below an amount to be prescribed in regulations.

We understand the rationale—namely, that leaseholders should pay a freeholder’s non-litigation costs in such circumstances, so that low-value claims do not cost the freeholder money. The Minister has been very clear that the Government believe that this must happen to ensure that the process is fair for both sides. We also appreciate that there are risks in prohibiting a landlord from passing on non-litigation costs to leaseholders in cases where they would be required to spend more in carrying out the transaction than they received for the asset. The Law Commission highlighted a number of those risks, including the incentive created for landlords not to co-operate with a claim, or for them to transfer the low-value freehold into the name of a shell company and then liquidate the company.

However, we are concerned that exempting claims below a certain value will create a different set of practical problems. These include costly and time-consuming disputes in cases in which the price payable is close to the level of the non-litigation costs in question for low-value claims, and the potential for landlords to game the system by arguing for a price payable below the threshold in order to secure both it and associated non-litigation costs because of the burden of disputing the amount.

Taking a step back, we fail to see the logic in the Government’s position. On the one hand, they seem to be ignoring the Law Commission’s recommendations in relation to costs; they have chosen to provide for a general rule that leaseholders are not required to make a contribution to their landlord’s non-litigation costs, but have not chosen to adopt a valuation methodology that seeks to reflect open market value, which was the commission’s stated prerequisite for such a rule. On the other hand, they are following strictly the commission’s recommendations in respect of low-value claims.

Put simply, we believe that, by means of this Bill, we should take the political decision to remove any exception to the general rule that leaseholders are not required to pay the freeholder’s non- litigation costs in such circumstances. I hope the Minister will give this careful consideration; otherwise, this section of the Bill has the potential to undermine the stated aim to increase, simplify and reduce the cost of enfranchisement. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, when we started the debate today, I felt like I was wading in mud. I feel I am still in the mud—it has got thicker, and the fog has come down. This is a complex and complicated Bill. I have really enjoyed listening to the arguments and the debate; I have already learned a lot. Report will be a lot better—certainly for me.

I will try to keep my remarks short and my questions simple in order to seek clarification. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has, in her own style, ably illustrated the issue and set out the case for her amendments in great detail. I will not repeat those—some paragraphs have already been knocked out of my speech.

The newly inserted Sections 19A and 89A set out the general rule that neither a current nor a former tenant is liable for any costs incurred by another person because of enfranchisement or a lease extension claim. However, new Sections 19C and 89C set out the exceptions to this rule. The debate is around whether these exceptions are justified. We are seeking the Government’s justification for this variance. Amendments 47 and 48 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, would delete these exceptions, so that leaseholders would not be liable to pay their landlord’s non-litigation costs under any circumstances. We agree. Each side should pay its own costs; we are unsure as to why this is not the case.

When this was debated in the Commons, the Government argued that, while the main aim of the changes to the costs regime was to address the imbalance of power that has existed between the landlord and tenant, they had a desire to ensure fairness on both sides. Sections 19C and 89C prevent the landlord incurring a net financial loss when leaseholders exercise their rights to enfranchisement and lease extension, thus acknowledging that this really is a balancing act. We look forward to the Minister’s comments as to how the Government have managed to keep the scales level.

I agree with the comments made in the debates on the last two groups. Some of the problems are because much too much is being left for later regulations, in either guidance or SIs. I believe that we should have had a clear government position on issues as important as landlord costs, deferment and capitalisation rates. This is still too vague. Such uncertainty is bad, not only for the leaseholders but for us parliamentarians who would hope to scrutinise and improve the legislation. However, I note the explanation from the Minister in the last group.

The Law Commission’s report highlights that the current law means that the landlord is overcompensated for these non-litigation costs. We support the Government in saying that costs should be balanced. It has to be said that these amendments raise important questions as to whether new Sections 19C and 89C undermine this aim. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has made a good case to that effect.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for her Amendments 47 and 48, which seek to remove the exception on costs arising from low-value lease extension or freehold acquisition claims. While the Bill includes a new general rule that each side will bear its own costs, we believe that there need to be exceptions in certain circumstances so that the regime is fair for both sides. The low-value cost exception entitles landlords to receive a portion of their process costs from leaseholders in low-value enfranchisement and lease extension claims for flats and houses respectively. We believe that these are necessary provisions that protect landlords from unfair costs.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to this group, as the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, mentioned my name, although I have not yet spoken. He represents one viewpoint and the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow and Lord Sandhurst, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester represent another. They are often portrayed as being mutually exclusive but, in property terms, that is not necessarily the case. Clearly, there are perfectly good managers who look after not only their residential tenants but their commercial tenants, and there are some are rotten managers. Some are good corporates while others are rotten—some are good resident management operations while others are pretty poor—so it is very difficult to make a standard rule for them all.

If one looks at the large urban estates across London, it is evident that there is a clear sense of purpose in trying to preserve the value, appearance and general amenity represented by the running of that estate. That inevitably comes at a cost, but I hope that that helps not only the commercial activities but the amenity of the residents.

Let us look at what happens if things start going wrong and getting fragmented. First, there becomes a distinction, if one is not very careful, between the purposes of long-term management in the view of the residents and the purposes of long-term management in the view of the commercial operator or landlord. Under the purposes of this Bill, if the enfranchisement of a 50% commercial ownership block goes ahead, there will be an enforced leaseback to the original freehold owner. Straightaway, you have an enforced leaseholder, whose business model was not quite hypothecated on that basis, who is none the less obliged to take it on but does not need to have the primary amenity and visual appeal functions that might be relevant to the residents.

I have seen that happen in historic high streets, where ownership has become fragmented in this way. We tend to find that when a shop becomes vacant, and if there are difficulties in the letting market, it will be let to a charity shop, a slot machine operator, a tanning shop, or some other type of operator, because the person who has it needs to move it on quickly. There is not that fat on the bone associated with having the larger estate, nor is there the fat on the bone to take on some assignee, as I have had to deal with in the past, who really runs a rather low-grade sort of business but is well funded. Therefore, you have to work out whether you can afford to fight an appeal, or fight a case, on an assignment of a lease in order to see off that person and their particular trade. If you cannot, there is a general deterioration of the area. It might be a fast-food takeaway that opens late at night; the police might be around every now and again; there might be people congregating there because it is late at night, and that sort of thing affects residents. If one is not careful, things like emptying bins and delivery of incoming goods to a retail operation can start being operated at times that are not that helpful to the interest of residents, who once might have been part of this overall concern. I can see both sides of this, and we have to be careful not to make standard rules about things where the decision is much more nuanced and difficult. It really depends on where one is starting from, the circumstances, and everything else.

As I said earlier, my interest is in consumer protection. I do not want to see degraded environments; I want to see environments that are lively and looked after and where everybody has confidence in them being managed. Fragmented management very seldom achieves that. The issue is about management being a slightly different issue to ownership. It is a big issue that we need to address, because it will not be dealt with by a local authority. That has no function there. Beyond the planning functions of a change of use, or licensing for some premises that needs it, it has very few powers of control. If overarching control is needed, and there may be an argument that ecclesiastical, heritage or possibly other environments do need it, we should very careful that we are not chucking out that baby with the bathwater and ending up with a slow process of attrition that suits nobody and ends up degrading the value not only of the freeholders, who can look after themselves by and large, but of the area and its appeal, which is ultimately to the detriment of residents. I do not want to go down that road without being clear about what we are doing, and making sure that there is some way we can pick up on processes of deterioration before they take root.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, this is my first intervention today—I spoke at Second Reading. I regret that this is yet another Bill that was heralded with robust rhetoric from the Secretary of State which has now come face to face with reality. I regret that some of that reality is from those with vested interests and therefore we are getting a watered-down Bill. We certainly believe on these Benches that it is a missed opportunity.

I turn to the group of amendments on enfranchisement. We on these Benches support the Government in Amendment 16. We need to see as many restrictions as possible on leaseholders’ ability to enfranchise removed by the Bill. After all, they have bought a home and should be able to extend their lease and buy their freeholds in a way that is easy and affordable, to use the Government’s own words.

It is perhaps no surprise that we also support Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, in so far as it would allow the Secretary of State to give more leaseholders rights to collective enfranchisement, and we note the detail of the noble Baroness’s reasons. However, the power cannot and must not be used to narrow the qualifying criteria or to exclude more leaseholders from freehold purchase. We are pleased that it would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as this includes public consultation and the involvement of both Houses.

However, we know that cohorts of leaseholders will still not even qualify to buy their freehold under the Bill. For example, MPs in the Public Bill Committee in January heard from experts and campaigners that there really is a problem with leaseholders in mixed-use buildings—from our debate today, I would say we have a problem with mixed-use buildings that needs to be sorted out. The Government are admirably using the Bill to try to liberate leaseholders in mixed-use blocks by, as we have said, moving the 25% rule on non-residential premises to 50% and introducing mandatory leasebacks on commercial space to slash the cost of collective enfranchisement, but—and I find this strange—they have not lifted the restrictive regulations in the 1993 Act that mean that shared services, such as a plant room, would disqualify leaseholders from buying out their freehold. Apparently, there is even a regulation stipulating that the mere existence of pipes, cables or other fixed installations connecting residential and commercial premises in a mixed-use building would block leaseholders from buying their freedom. That means that many leaseholders who would otherwise stand to benefit from the changes on mixed use will be blocked from securing collective enfranchisement and being in control of their buildings. I ask the Minister whether we can discuss this aspect before Report.

Turning to what I will call the three “tricky” amendments, I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, wisely hedged her bets on these. I suspect that it is because, like me, she knows that the intentions of the noble Lords speaking on them are based on good experience and a genuine wish to see the measures agreed, but she worries whether, in fact, they are just another means of putting commercial interests before residential interests and not getting that balance right.

Instinctively, like the noble Lord, Lord Truscott—I was relieved when he made his comments—we oppose these three amendments, because in our view they seek to row back. But I have listened attentively to what has been said and I am completely changing what I was going to say: I genuinely believe that there are some serious areas that need looking at. There is much experience in the Committee, but I am concerned that we have been subject to special pleadings.

Impact of Environmental Regulations on Development (Built Environment Committee Report)

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Friday 19th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Banner, to our Chamber; I appreciated his extremely pertinent contribution. Likewise, I echo my thanks to my committee members and to Kate and Kelvin, who kept the herd of cats focused. I am no longer a member of the committee, but I really enjoyed my time with them.

This has been a stimulating debate with some excellent contributions, kicked off most incisively by our indomitable and knowledgeable chair, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. What is clear from the contributions of all noble Lords is that this report has laid bare the failure of government to meet either its environmental objectives or its housing targets.

As has already been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, the Office for Environmental Protection—whose representatives were of excellent calibre—gave evidence in the annual report saying that the Government remain largely off track to meet their environmental ambitions, including those set out in the 2021 Act. Sadly, we were not surprised by the Secretary of State’s admission to the committee that the 300,000 housing target will not be met in this Parliament. This is a failure on both objectives.

As the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, strongly stated, we found the Government’s response disappointing, to put it mildly. In fact, I go so far as to say that it felt like there was a collective giving up on trying to engage with the issues, and many answers were just assertions that they rejected the committee’s findings. Despite very strong evidence that both sets of targets would not be met, they did not engage with the evidence that we put forward.

It was a challenging inquiry in different ways, but it was soon established that this was a battleground, and entrenched positions were taken up. Regrettably, because their respective roles are so important, Natural England versus Defra and the Environment Agency and/or the greedy developers featured as the villains of the piece, depending on which side of the battle you were on, with poor council officers stuck in the middle of the fray trying to referee.

Some of our witnesses were clear that with the right policy levers and leadership from government, the objectives were not mutually incompatible. But lack of policy co-ordination and implementation were exacerbating the problem and hampering delivery, as several noble Lords have mentioned.

As we have heard today, the report identified very clear policy conflicts between the Government’s food security ambitions, in particular, and steps to offset nutrient pollution or to deliver biodiversity net gain. Both are resulting in active farmland being taken out of use, including through Natural England’s own mitigation schemes.

There is no doubt that the impact of water pollution measures and nutrient neutrality rules has resulted in fewer homes being built. The former has been the reason for some councils in effect calling a moratorium on housebuilding in their area. This has been to great fanfare and whoops of delight from nimby residents and their councillors in some areas.

A quick study of the councils is revealing. I am not aware of any parties’ political leaflets going out saying, “Boo, hiss, the nasty Government are stopping us building lots of much-needed new homes—shame on them”, but rather the opposite. I would be grateful for the Minister’s update on the Government’s position with those councils. Is there actively any engagement with councillors who sit on the planning committees that make the decisions?

It was clear to us that finding solutions to allow housing to go ahead is technically challenging. For example, I learned about the science of working out how many nutrients can be offset by creating a wetland. There is undoubtedly a shortage of people in individual councils with the right skills and knowledge, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. For councils it has been a steep learning curve, as it has for the private sector and public bodies.

Developers looking for a way to meet their obligations find a complex, complicated and inconsistent system. This particularly impacts on SME builders, as has also been said. The market in schemes providing mitigation and selling credits to housebuilders has not materialised or grown quickly enough to meet demand. Some of the designated catchments are still without schemes, such as the River Eden and Bassenthwaite catchments in the north-west. Even in areas with relatively mature credit markets, availability is not always good.

Part of the problem is the lack of central standards and accreditation. It seems that it is up to each individual local Natural England team as to whether the proposed solution is acceptable. Will the Government consider an independent set of standards and accreditation to circumvent the need for Natural England to have to approve every single solution, which inevitably leads to delays and inconsistency?

As ever, funding is clearly an issue. The Government have set aside a £110 million nutrient mitigation fund, but as always it is a competitive bidding process, which those of us in local government know is a barrier and does not always result in those with the greatest need getting the appropriate amount of money to make a difference. As yet, there is no timetable for when these local authority schemes will be operational.

Do the Government have an assessment of the availability of both local authority and commercial credit schemes in each of the nutrient-sensitive areas, including when they expect the local authority-funded schemes to become operational and how many homes are expected to be supported? Unfortunately, there is real uncertainty and inconsistency with local authority schemes, not least regarding the cost of credits, which I was surprised to find varies considerably. This is exacerbated by the paucity of credits and the lack of competition in this area.

It came over strongly in the report that collaborative working was the key to success—there is no surprise there. Councils need clarity over the roles of the regulators, as this is critical to stopping nutrients entering the water systems in the first place, coming mainly from agriculture and water treatment. To make this effective, there have to be more formal data-sharing agreements between councils and water companies, as the lack thereof is hampering progress.

Are the Government acting now on changing agricultural practices that would help in the short term? Perhaps the Minister can update us. It must be said that housebuilding contributes a very small amount to nutrient emission. The biggest source of pollution is farming at 70%, as we know, with 30% coming from the activities of the rest of the built environment, including existing residents.

This is a significant and bold report. Much more could be said, and I have just scrapped a couple of paragraphs. In truth, noble Lords have given it a good critique today. It seems we agree that the two objectives are currently incompatible, and it will probably take another Government—and perhaps a few decades—to pull everything together, to get a grip and to reconcile the very valid goals of reducing pollution and building more homes. If we do not, we face the lose-lose situation of pollution continuing to accumulate unchecked, with our rivers facing total ecological collapse while our housing crisis gets worse.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, with her meticulous attention to detail. I too thank all those who have contributed to getting the Bill to where it is now. It is noticeable that MPs across all parties have worked tirelessly on this Bill— I will not name names because you always miss someone out—in the other place. That is a sure sign that there really is a consensus and a need to drive this forward.

To say that this Bill is needed and well overdue is an understatement. The Secretary of State himself said that the leasehold system was “outdated” and “feudal” and a lot more besides. Millions of property owners own their homes through leases in England and Wales, which along with Australia are the only places in the world where this system still exists. As there have been numerous parliamentary and independent reports from organisations ranging from the aforementioned Law Commission to the Competition and Markets Authority giving incredibly similar recommendations, you would think this Bill would be relatively straightforward—but not so. We are disappointed that there are no proposals to really reinvigorate, which is the word being used, commonhold nor a clear pathway to it becoming the main tenure.

Liberals have actually been campaigning against leasehold since—wait for it—Lloyd George’s People’s Budget—

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Of 1909.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

Of 1909—I am glad that my noble friend Lady Pinnock knows that.

This system is so engrained in our history that there is inevitably going to be a chasm between the Secretary of State’s theatrical rhetoric and harsh reality. There are also going to be winners and losers. Indeed, the Secretary of State pledged to

“squeeze every possible income stream”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/23; col. 659.]

that freeholders have under the unfair feudal leasehold system. But we do not feel that the Bill as it stands does this. As has already been said, the devil will be in the detail, and we will hope to work with some of that detail.

The Government are demonstrably vulnerable to extensive lobbying, and this has weakened both the Government and the Bill, most recently regarding ground rent, which we feel should eventually be abolished. There is no hiding our disappointment that promises to abolish leasehold have been watered down, particularly the fact that flats are exempt; we would seek to include them, the more so because they make up 70% of leasehold properties. Retirement homes are also exempt. Why developers of retirement properties get a special carve-out is beyond me—surely the Government should be on the side of the elderly and vulnerable, at that time in their lives, who have downsized, freeing up family homes. However, they are unwillingly extorted in their new home and when they or their relatives come to sell, there are further charges—the so-called event fees.

The exemptions will mean that significant numbers of leasehold homes will still be built. The rhetoric has turned to “reform” rather than “abolish”. It is a disappointment but perhaps understandable in a Government that are now too weak to deliver big changes such as this and perhaps have too many of those with vested interests in their ranks or on their donor lists. Add to this the quiet death of the Renters (Reform) Bill—I hope the Minister will have an update on that—and it certainly leaves much for the next Government to get their teeth into.

On these Benches, our biggest concerns are building safety and cladding, which my noble friend Lady Pinnock, of Cleckheaton, will continue to work on as she has done since the very early days of the Grenfell tragedy.

The other big one for us is the lack of real reform regarding regulation of property agents and their management fees. These are a right rip-off and a licence to print money for doing nothing or next to nothing. The report from the noble Lord, Lord Best, in 2019 made many sensible recommendations as did the Law Commission in the same year. These should be implemented in full.

My own recent casework reminded me sharply of how vulnerable elderly leaseholders are when demands are made for payment for repairs that they deemed were completely overpriced. To prove their point, they went to the trouble of getting three quotes from local builders for the same work. The range within the local builders’ quotes was very little, but the difference between the landlord’s quotation and the most expensive local builder was thousands of pounds—for fencing.

A closer inspection of the last years’ invoices revealed the kind of stories we are now all too familiar with: huge sinking funds; many contingency cushions; eye-watering rises, all with no reasonable—an interesting word that we will no doubt talk about during the passage of the Bill—explanation. The residents decided collectively not to pay their most recent management bill. The company responded with threatening letters, which of course were intended to intimidate them into paying. I will not name the company, as following my involvement things began to be sorted out—we do have our uses—and moneys were reimbursed to residents. But this Bill will offer them very little to ensure that they are not ripped off again, and in this situation the fact that the digging was done by two retired accountants, who have now left the scheme, made me realise that even with the right to manage some residents may not want to manage for themselves and will need to employ a property management company. These are currently unregulated and unscrupulous in far too many cases.

I will, however, praise the work of the Property Institute, which represents thousands of property managers and aims to raise standards and improve transparency for residents. We need to remember that there are always good guys—and gals—out there who also hate their reputation being trashed by those less scrupulous.

The Bill will ban the sale of leasehold houses, but not so-called fleecehold estates: the practice that has developed over the past 10 to 15 years of the public spaces that were once adopted and maintained by the local authority now being in private hands—a management company—with the residents footing all the bills for communal repair and maintenance. What a nasty surprise for them on moving into their new home. First, they may not have known that they were liable for such costs. Often, people are told, “Oh, you’ll just be paying for the grass to be cut a couple of times a year”, before they realise that it is also for the playgrounds, roads, fencing and everything else. There is evidence to show that there is mis-selling in this area. Secondly, those people may not have realised that they would be paying for services that have already been done by the council. In effect, they are paying twice for facilities that others can also use, as well as paying full council tax. Freeholders refusing to pay the so-called rent charge could find their freehold changed to leasehold.

To be fair, the Bill really is trying to put some of this right, but it is all a little bit uncertain—there are more consultations, and more this and more that—as to how things will work; for example, on the ability to appoint a substitute manager. I look forward to the details of how that will happen, along with the proposals that give leaseholders a new right to request information about service charges and the management of their building. That is good but it, too, will need fleshing out, as it feels like the power of what is released and how is still very much in the hands of the management company.

Likewise, the proposals for right to manage will come to naught if leaseholders are not supported to transition. Current charities, such as the Leasehold Advisory Service and others, will need more tools and resources to help this transition and make it work. It is disappointing that commonhold has not taken off in the way that we expected, so we clearly need to give more support to make these really positive changes work.

Key to all of this working at all is to regulate managing agents. Without that, many of the measures will not be successful, or not as successful as they could and should be. We must raise standards and increase competence across the sector and, ultimately, have a fair and transparent system that residents feel is fair—and, if not, that there is a simple and accessible form of redress, unlike the current recourse to the First-tier Tribunal, which, when I explored it for those elderly residents, was neither simple nor accessible. We feel that this fleecehold practice should be abolished altogether and revert to local authority control, with developers contributing to the council coffers towards the upkeep of the estate.

I make a final plea to the Minister that there are potentially thousands of leaseholders who are in a bit of a quandary at the moment about whether they should extend their lease or wait for the legislation—will they be be winners or losers?—depending on which way things go. If the Government could give clear guidelines and guidance as soon as possible to all those who are thinking of selling or remortgaging, I am sure that would be welcome.

Of course, it would be churlish not to say that there is much to welcome in the Bill. I am sure that, by the end of it, we will all be a lot wiser as to marriage value, the extension of leases, enfranchisement, forfeiture, and much more. We look forward to working across the House to table amendments to improve this well-intentioned but somewhat disappointing Bill. In particular, we would like to ensure that the rhetoric around the Bill is borne out in reality.

Housing: Young People

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy for her contribution. I know how she feels: when one is speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, in the wings, one knows that all the bases will not only have been covered but covered very well.

One of the most powerful cultural myths over the past century has been the belief that if you work hard, you will earn enough to buy yourself a house and start a family. For a long time, it held true. Between the end of the First World War and the turn of the millennium, rates of home ownership climbed rapidly, topping out at about 70%, as young adults flew the parental nest and set up homes of their own. It was what we did.

We now know that in most respects this is no longer true; the myth has been well and truly busted. There is a powerful and growing body of evidence from a wide range of academics, think tanks and charities working in this area that the opposite is in fact true; the breakdown of the housing conveyor belt has already happened, and is already causing huge and diverse impacts. Studies show that the inability to afford a home causes people to postpone starting a family or not to have children at all. High housing costs also divert individuals away from productive places and activities, and dramatically increase inequality in wealth and between regions. Housing affordability—the ratio of what you earn to what you can afford to rent or buy—was last as bad as it is now when Queen Victoria was on the Throne.

In 2021, the Resolution Foundation did a crucial stocktake of generational differences, and found that millennials were far less likely than previous generations to own their own home and more likely to find themselves in the private rented sector. They are the first generation who are in a worse position than previous cohorts in terms of home ownership, obtaining social housing or finding a secure, affordable, private rented home wherever they might live. It makes depressing reading.

Interestingly, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the biggest shift has been with millennials on middle incomes—the people who hitherto would have expected to own their own home. Student loans, high deposits and higher interest rates have locked many into the rental market. The sector has seen increasing rents, making it difficult to save a deposit, as the percentage of income taken up with rent also increases. Recent data shows that people under 30 are spending more than 30% of their gross income on rent, more than any other group—30% being defined officially as unaffordable.

This has put pressure on the rental market; one estate agent described it to me as a beauty parade. Landlords can and do pick and choose; in the circumstances, who can blame them? Rents are rising and demand is growing. A recent Generation Rent survey showed that bidding wars and mass viewings are much more common. An anecdotal comment from estate agents is, “There’s always competition for rentals now”.

At the same time, we also hear that landlords are leaving the sector, or will leave if the Government remove Section 21 evictions. But are they? We have mixed messages. It is clear that they are moving to more lucrative short-term lettings such as Airbnb. The question for policymakers is: how do we actively incentivise landlords to move from short-term letting back to long-term, more secure tenures? I believe that this needs both carrot and stick, but I feel that government policy is concentrating on the stick. All the trends show that we need more private rented accommodation.

If even renting is not an option, young adults are back at home trying to save for a deposit, which in some areas is likely to take many years. This figure has also increased significantly. Results from the 2021 census found that more adults were living with parents in England and Wales than a decade previously. The ONS reported in 2021 that this equated to 4.9 million young adults—dare I say, young voters.

For me, a worrying trend is that we now seem to have a divided population of young people, and the inequalities between them are growing, as is their discontent. If you live in an affluent family, you will be fine. You will probably be helped with your deposit and regard it simply as getting your inheritance early. For those comfortably off, you might take equity release to give the youngsters their deposit or raid your retirement cushion that you have worked so hard to save, which now is not looking quite so plump.

Time was when low-waged young couples, such as the bus driver—my dad—married to the care assistant, might have been eligible for social housing, but no longer. The reduction in socially rented homes over decades has meant that a secure home to rent and put down roots in the community where you were raised is no longer possible for many, and it has changed the nature of social housing. In my home town of Preston, people were proud to have a council house. If you were on the Larches Estate, close to a beautiful park and rubbing shoulders with the posh parts of Ashton, you had hit the jackpot of affordable rent and secure tenure.

In a recent government survey of tenants, it was shocking to see that tenants now feel shame and stigma for being a social housing tenant. Bold solutions are needed. There is widespread clamour for more social and affordable homes; I would add shared ownership homes. In my view, mixed tenures and mixed estates are a positive way forward. Economic think tanks have also waded into the debate, pointing out the economic benefits of a significant increase in building these homes. It is win-win.

What worries me is that, shockingly, young people are the group most likely to experience homelessness. According to Centrepoint, more and more young people are approaching their local council for housing: 112,000 in 2021, an increase of 8% on the previous year. The data shows that unless they are afforded priority status by the local authority—for example, because they have come out of care—young people are frequently locked out of an already limited social housing supply. This means that they have to turn to sofa surfing, the unaffordable private rented sector, temporary accommodation or risking homelessness.

Government, housing providers and charities must work together in the long term to build a lasting coalition that aims to reinvigorate the social rented market and deliver new youth-specific housing products, which include one- and two-bedroom flats. My residents in Watford used to say, “Who wants to live in them?” Noticeably, as soon as they are erected, they are all filled. This should also be part of any mixed-tenure community.

Simply building more homes is not the answer. We need to build more social, affordable and shared ownership homes. The current emphasis on targets and numbers is demonstrably not working. Lots of expensive market-rate housing will not bring housing costs down to an affordable level for millions of people trapped in poverty by sky-high rents. Politicians are in a target-setting bidding war which perpetuates the myth that we can build our way out of this if only the planning system would improve, or this or that. But ramping up housebuilding will take many years to deliver and many more years to impact on house prices. In reality, nobody who wants a home wants that to happen, and the large housebuilders’ financial model will not let that happen. They build what they know they can sell in places where they know it will sell, not where it is needed or at a price that locals can afford.

We need to build and fund this housing differently, with much more diversity. We need to be braver and bolder and at least try to take the public with us and change the conversation towards those who are the future. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Young: in my experience, when it comes to opportunistic campaigning, no party has a monopoly on exploiting nimbyism.

My fear is that we have created a whole generation who increasingly feel politically isolated because their needs are not being met and their aspirations are unfulfilled. In short, they are being ignored by politicians because they are not home owners, and it is home owners who vote. They are yimbys, but the system forces politicians to listen to the nimbys, so no one is hearing their voice. Politically, that is a dangerous place to be. That is a subject worthy of its own debate.

Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 (Consequential and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Grand Committee

Last week, the Housing Minister gave a figure of 172,000 social homes built since 2010, and we all know that there are more than 1 million people on housing waiting lists. The increasing demand for temporary and emergency accommodation is overwhelming council and DWP budgets. How is it credible or rational to cut off one of the very limited sources of funding for new social housing? Can the Minister tell us what assessment was carried out, before that decision was taken, of the impact on local authority housing finance and of the impact of fewer social homes being delivered, which would have helped ease the housing crisis? We all want to see better regulation of social housing, but we would like to see more of it as well.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows, this Act has been well received by all sectors concerned with social housing, and it is supported on our Benches. As she said, this is due largely to the Grenfell tragedy, but also to subsequent high-profile failures of social housing, including the tragic death of young Awaab Ishak. Let us not forget the recent deaths in temporary accommodation, which are truly shocking.

We know that the devil will always be in the detail, and we all hope that the rhetoric accompanying the Act will live up to the reality. The Minister is clearly aware that there have been several consultations since last July, when the Bill was passed, and issues have emerged, which the sector is rightly bringing to the Government’s attention in this process. It appears that the full and cumulative impact of the new changes thus far has been evidentially to expose the wide variation in the quality of provision of social housing by registered providers and councils. This was recently outlined very robustly by the deputy social housing regulator. Is the Minister confident that the new approach to inspections and the C categorisation will allow for a nuanced approach to allow those lagging behind to learn from the best and hopefully catch up, or will it be an adversarial system—a weeding out of the worst? In short, what will the approach to inspections be? I know from experience of Ofsted in schools and the CPA in local government that they can vary.

It is no surprise that there are concerns about the additional costs associated with all the changes, which I am sure the Minister will be aware of. What is in place to ensure that landlords can make progress without financially falling over, as we are seeing with some local authorities? Regrettably, we are already hearing that they are cutting back on development plans to focus on the detail of the new regime, which itself is a separate concern due to the considerable shortage of social housing. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, with which I wholeheartedly agree. In fact, I add that I found that announcement bitterly disappointing because I believed that this Government had genuinely shaped the agenda towards a real understanding that social housing was one of the first bricks we needed to get in place to unblock the logjam and the housing crisis.

Does the Minister accept that there is also a recruitment and retention problem, highlighted and exacerbated by the professionalisation of housing management and maintenance? That is a good aspect of the Act and had cross-party support, but not surprisingly it is having an impact, as some people are jumping before being pushed—probably a good thing in some cases, I am not afraid to say, having had to do the pushing sometimes—or feel that perhaps now is the time to retire rather than go back to the classroom, but it is a very real and relevant issue.

The speed and breadth of the changes cause me to ask how confident the Government are that the sector can and will have the capacity to cope with these genuine changes.

Briefly, on the Awaab’s law changes, I thank the Minister for her detailed letter in response to my question in the Chamber and her generous offer of her time. On a tangential issue, the consultation that has just closed proposed an extension to hazards beyond mould, damp and condensation to include the 29 hazards in the—this is a bit of a mouthful—housing health and safety rating system. This has caused considerable disquiet for the National Housing Federation and the Chartered Institute of Housing, to name but two. They have given convincing reasons why this extension should be reconsidered. Does the Minister agree that it is probably best to see how the sector copes with mould and damp before extending the hazards further?

It seems that there is still much to do to clarify these changes, particularly around the regulator’s use of powers and the approach to inspections. Further clarity is needed on how the regulator will interact with other sector regulators, such as the building safety regulator and the Housing Ombudsman. This will take some getting used to. Such clarification is particularly important for tenants, who will also have an important role to play. In fact, the Act enshrines in law their rights to have a safe and decent home, to make their voices heard and to influence policy so that tenants can shape the homes they live in and the services they receive. I have a pertinent, but perhaps tricky, question. Does the Minister feel that the residents panel—I notice that it is currently recruiting new members, so the current one has not been in action for very long—is a strong, independent and influential voice for tenants or just a sounding board?

Lastly, I look forward to the day when private sector landlords are also subject to the same regime because it is long overdue and much needed.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank the noble Baronesses opposite for their support, not only today but when we were taking the Bill through, and their challenge on what could be made better. We took some of those things on board.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Taylor of Stevenage, brought up the pressures on the sector. We totally understand them, which is why we work closely with the sector, but my view is that it is the sector’s responsibility. It is the sector’s stock. It needs to keep that stock up and its tenants deserve the very best. So, we will support the sector, but we will not stop challenging it to ensure that social housing tenants live in safe, good accommodation. That is what has come from the Secretary of State right the way through this process.

On right to buy, all I can say is that there were many pressures on the Budget this year. The percentage did not get extended but, again, we are working with the sector to see how we can make the building of more social houses, particularly by local authorities, affordable into the future. I think that noble Lords will hear more on that.

Moving on to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, am I confident in the approach to inspections and learning from the best? I think learning from the best is the important thing and, yes, I am confident. I talk regularly to the social housing regulator, and it gets it and understands its role. I do not think it will go in heavy to begin with; it will allow the sector to begin to understand this important new regime. However, I think it is important that it can go in quickly if it thinks there is a particular issue to deal with and that it will do regular inspections throughout the sector in future. We will weed out the worst providers, but it is also a matter of helping them to improve and learn from the rest of the sector.

I understand the pressures on the sector, particularly for building new houses, as it has quite rightly had to put more money into making sure that the stock it has is of good quality, so there is possibly less money left for building more houses, but we have a fund of more than £11 million to do that. Housing providers are looking to use that fund continually, and we are supporting them to do that.

Recruitment and retention is out for consultation. We will listen to the sector. This was extremely important to members of the Grenfell community, in particular. They felt that their housing officers were sometimes as important as people working in social care in the council. We listened, and we found a way through that one. We also need to listen to the sector and the regulator as we move forward about the timeliness of implementing this. It is not going to be done overnight, so we will work with the sector after the consultation and listen to what it is saying on that one.

It is the same with Awaab’s law, although I am very passionate about getting Awaab’s law in place as soon as possible. I probably agree with the noble Baroness that perhaps we should start with the timings on damp and mould; that may be something we can look into further. We have only just finished that consultation. I have not seen the responses yet, so I do not want to pre-empt what will come out of that, but we will look, listen and do what we can to get that important part of the Act in place as soon as possible.

The noble Baroness also brought up the interaction between the Housing Ombudsman, the building safety regulator and the social housing regulator. In the department, I have talked many times with officials about the communication on this because it is a new regime; we want it to work and to work well for the tenants concerned. I think noble Lords will see a lot more communications with tenants about who to go to. Of course, if they have a problem, they should first go to their housing provider. We want to make sure that they do that and, if it is an individual case, go to the ombudsman, and then to the building safety regulator which will be working very closely with the ombudsman to make sure that it is picking up any themes coming out from a particular provider or group of providers. That is the way it will work, but communication to the tenants about this regime is important.

Finally, I turn to the residents’ panel. I have been to the residents’ panel, and I do not think that it is a talking shop at all. It is quite challenging. That is why we are extending them for a further year beyond just one year. What the panel says is very important not just for us as a department but for our partners, including the social housing regulator, the ombudsman and the building safety regulator. It is important to listen to the panel; it certainly tells us what it thinks.

I think that I have covered everything; I will check and, if I have not, I will write as usual. To conclude, these changes will ensure that the statute book remains accurate following the passage of the 2023 Act. This is just a small part of our wider mission to drive up the quality of social housing and ensure that all tenants are treated with fairness and respect.

Housebuilding

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, let me make it clear that we have delivered 2.5 million extra homes in the last 14 years. Since 2018, we have also delivered the four highest annual building numbers for 30 years, and we are on target for 1 million more homes in this Parliament. We are delivering, but we have been through an economic crisis. We are coming out of it, and we will start to build more homes in the future.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the report highlights the now widespread practice by local authorities of the non-adoption of public amenities, such as roads and playgrounds, on all new-build estates. Does the Minister accept that councils have been pushed down this road by significant cuts to their budgets over many years? More importantly, what steps are the Government taking to reverse that trend, which has resulted in an explosion of unregulated management companies ripping off residents who are, in effect, paying twice for public facilities usually provided via council tax?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right and, like me, she understands this system. Since about 2015, there have been more councils that are not taking control. I believe that that is about council priorities and not about money, because not all of them have. It is up to the developers and the local planning authority to agree the appropriate funding, delivery and maintenance arrangements for these public areas. That is why, through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill, we are taking firm action to ensure that estate management companies are more accountable to their freeholders for how their money is spent.

Housing: Section 21 Evictions

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The noble Lord is right that landlords have nothing to fear from the removal of Section 21. Where they have a valid reason, landlords will be able to get their properties back. As well as removing the inherent unfairness of Section 21, our reforms will improve existing Section 8 possession grounds, which is a key ask of landlords. In response to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, we need to bring in the ban on Section 21 alongside the new possession grounds as part of a coherent package, so that it works for tenants and landlords.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to hear the Minister mention fairness. For renters, often struggling to make ends meet and facing losing their homes, access to a legal aid provider is vital to fighting their case in court. Given that, according to the Law Society, 42% of the population cannot access a legal aid provider, can the Minister assure us that the Government are investing in the courts and legal aid, so that the proposed reforms are fair and work for both landlords and tenants?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, we are not only putting more money into the courts system but strengthening the rights of tenants and seeking to put in place a process that avoids the need to go to court altogether. That will be the best outcome for both tenants and landlords.

Local Authorities: Financial Difficulties

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Wednesday 14th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I repeat that we have said that we will look at funding in the next Parliament. There is an 18% increase in budgets per dwelling in the most deprived areas, compared to the least deprived. Through the settlement, places such as Birmingham are getting a lot more money.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, councils have been receiving money from the Government’s household support fund, which has provided many thousands of families with essential sharp-end help with their bills and food, for example. However, it is due to end at the end of March. Will the Government seriously consider extending that effective and targeted support for at least another year? Have they taken into account the increase in child poverty they anticipate will result from the withdrawal of this much-needed, much-used fund?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right to say that the current household support fund runs out on 31 March. However, the Government continue to keep all existing programmes under review in the usual way.