Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Debate between Baroness Thornhill and Baroness Fox of Buckley

Committee stage
Monday 29th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, my Amendment 104 is very much part of the amendments I have—both today and on other days—that look at the way the law, as it was previously made, might not be doing what it is intended to. I am interested in restoring Section 24 management for leaseholders suffering at the hands of some predatory freeholders, suffering sky-high service charges and run-down buildings—some of the things we have been talking about.

Like many other noble Lords here, I still have the scars from scrutinising the Building Safety Bill when I first arrived here. It was the most hugely complicated piece of legislation, but it went through the House relatively quickly because of the importance of the topic. As I think we are all aware now, that speed probably led to a number of unintended consequences that have since come to light. One surely unintended consequence of the Building Safety Act is the way that its accountable person regime undermined Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Due to the wording of the Act’s accountable person policy, Section 24 court-appointed managers are barred from assuming their duty-holder role. Until that point, these tribunal-backed managers would be entrusted with all of the building’s management, when it was determined that the freeholder could not be trusted to remain in control of a development and leaseholder service charges.

I am not commenting in general on the accountable person policy per se, although there are problems with it. But it is odd that there is such a wide range of entities that can be the accountable person, including leaseholder-controlled resident management companies and right-to-manage companies, yet strangely, the Act prohibits a Section 24 manager from taking on the role, despite the fact that a Section 24 manager would have been appointed by a tribunal panel, which was satisfied that they had the credentials and experience needed to steward a development that had fallen foul of a poor freeholder. I do not understand how this happened, or why.

It is important to note that Section 24 has been a lifeline right for ripped-off leaseholders unable to buy their freehold or claim the right to manage because of costs or strict qualifying criteria. This is an attempt to ensure that Section 24, which is the ultimate backstop scheme, is restored in the Bill, to give leaseholders a clear route to remove freeholders and their management agents if it has been shown that they have actually been ripped off and it is the only route open to them.

This issue came to my attention in February, when Melissa York in the Times reported a devastating story of Canary Riverside in Tower Hamlets. This story really made an impact on me, because there the leaseholders have benefited from court protection, with Section 24 management, since 2016. A Section 24 manager was installed because the freeholder, a Monaco-based billionaire, John Christodoulou, had lost the confidence of the tribunal due to his company’s seeming financial mismanagement and poor estate maintenance. After years of fighting by the leaseholders, in March this year the Upper Tribunal found that the freeholder had used a related firm to overcharge the development by £1 million in secret insurance commissions—the kinds of issues we were discussing earlier today.

Yet despite this and other well-evidenced service charge abuses, and the fact that the leaseholders have benefited from independent Section 24 management, The Times reports that

“an oversight in the new Building Safety Act means the same court that removed his management company could put Christodoulou back in control of service charge moneys and safety works, including £20 million for cladding remediation”.

It seems to me that the Building Safety Act’s seemingly arbitrary exclusion of Section 24 managers from its accountable person regime did not intend to do this, but its effect is that those Canary Riverside leaseholders, among others, are faced with the prospect of their landlord staging a comeback and regaining control over block management, even though the leaseholders’ work over years, accumulating evidence to prove fault, has been accepted at tribunal level. That work is now undermined because a statutory right that leaseholders relied on for years is now blocked by the Act.

This is so frustrating, and it needs to be tackled in Parliament, as the courts are bound by the laws we make here. In December, in the first test case on this—Canary Riverside—the First-tier Tribunal confirmed that the Building Safety Act does not allow a Section 24 manager to be the accountable person. In March the Upper Tribunal agreed. Despite those tribunal decisions going against them, I commend the leaseholders at Canary Riverside, and say all power to them. They are still appealing in order to keep their Section 24 protection.

This is heroic work, which should remind us all of the real-life toll of the sort of issues leaseholders have to take on. They are ordinary people who bought leasehold flats, and who have ended up going in and out of court regularly—and there is not just the toll, but the costs. Nearly £200,000 has been committed in legal fees already. This is a sharp reminder that the unintended consequences of laws we make here can have wide-reaching, even devastating, effects on real people’s real lives.

We need to put right this wrong, here in Parliament, and to use the Bill to do so. The Section 24-accountable persons clash was raised in January with MPs on the Public Bill Committee by Free Leaseholders, End Our Cladding Scandal and Philip Rainey KC, who all drew this to our attention. As a consequence, the MPs Nickie Aiken and Barry Gardiner moved amendments on this issue in the other place. I would really appreciate it if the Minister looked into fixing this, because I do not think it is what we ever intended to do with the Building Safety Act. It is a loophole, and it has the most devastating consequences for leaseholders, which I am sure we could simply put right.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I admire the persistence of my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath in his indefatigable pursuit of the perhaps unsexy but very important issue of electrical safety defects, as evidenced in his Amendment 95A.

The first group of amendments relates to building safety—a subject that we have debated many times in this Chamber in recent years, following the tragic events of the Grenfell Tower fire. Amendments 82C to 82M, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, relate to a proposal that higher-risk buildings should have a building trustee. The trustee would be an impartial figure, whose role would be to ensure that the interests, rights and responsibilities of the landlord and leaseholders were balanced, that the building was properly maintained, and that the service charge provided value for money—a practice that exists elsewhere. We find the noble Earl’s proposal interesting, and certainly worthy of consideration in the future. However, it is quite a detailed proposal which may not have the chance to be scrutinised further in the context of the Bill.