Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her thorough introduction to the Bill and, as always, for the way she has worked with opposition parties and Cross-Benchers in the weeks prior to the Bill coming to us, so that she could understand our concerns and issues. I thank the many organisations that have sent us briefings, and particularly the Law Commission for all the work it has done. I thank the individuals who have sent us their personal accounts of the impact of leaseholds. I also thank all the individuals and organisations that have campaigned so effectively and for so long on leasehold, including, of course, my noble friend Lord Kennedy.

The Bill is certainly not the leasehold Bill that the Labour Party would have wanted. Most importantly, it is not the Bill that the beleaguered legions of leaseholders wanted. To be candid, I do not think it is even the Bill that the Secretary of State wanted. He set out the original vision last year, stating:

“I don’t believe leasehold is fair in any way. It is an outdated feudal system that needs to go. And we need to move to a better system and to liberate people from it”.


The Secretary of State also made his views on ground rent quite clear in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, when he said:

“I was asked by the Select Committee last week what my favoured approach would be, and I believe that it should be a peppercorn”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/23; col. 659.]

The Secretary of State clearly wanted to see a scrapping of the feudal leasehold system and a capping of ground rent to peppercorn rents. From this original vision for the Bill, what we have before us today is a virtually eviscerated shell of a Bill, with little to give comfort to the people and families who had hoped to realise their dream of home ownership and have found instead that being a leaseholder simply does not offer the security and control of their lives that their dream promised.

I have been receiving many letters from leaseholders since the Bill was listed in your Lordships’ House. A particularly heartbreaking one yesterday was from an older couple, who said that they have been waiting patiently for this Bill for years to relieve the misery of their experience of leasehold, but feel now that it will not do what they wanted it to. They went on to say:

“We have an apartment where the freeholders changed last year and our service charges quickly increased and now amount to £8,602 per annum. But additional to this our already high Ground Rent charge of £4,000 per annum is currently being reviewed by our Freeholders who estimate this shall increase to £28,000 plus VAT per annum. If they win this review they shall then look to backdate this increase over 6 years”.


The impact of this type of sharp practice, whether on older people on fixed incomes or younger people who are juggling enough with the cost of living crisis, can be catastrophic. This couple face losing their home. It can taint the dream of home ownership, with a raft of excessive conditions, fees and charges. For many leaseholders these charges do not bring anything in return, and the charging regimes are complex and opaque.

I have received many representations from young people whose dreams of home ownership have been shattered, when they finally save their deposit and buy a home, only to find that the terms of their lease leave them, at best, shackled to a regime of unreasonable cost increases and, at worst, unable to sell their home because the lease conditions are too onerous. To quote again the Secretary of State,

“freeholds have become utterly torn away from the warp and weft of the capitalist system as we understand it in this country, and have become tradeable commodities that foreign entities are using to exploit our people who have worked hard and saved to get their own home”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/12/23; col. 660.]

In addition, the Competition and Markets Authority has already stated that it continues to consider that statutory intervention may be necessary to protect consumers associated with excessive ground rents. The CMA concluded that ground rent is

“neither legally nor commercially necessary”,

stating that it saw

“no persuasive evidence that consumers receive anything in return”.

With all that in mind, you might expect a Bill that gets rid of leasehold once and for all. But this Bill, although dating back to the Conservative manifesto in 2017 and the subsequent White Paper, is a very long way from what leaseholders have been waiting and hoping for: an end to the injustice in the anachronistic leasehold system. It does not ban the sale of new leasehold flats. It does not even properly ban the sale of new leasehold houses. The Government know that the leasehold model and market is broken; they have known that at least since 2017. This Bill was the opportunity to address that, so why is that not being done more comprehensively?

We could have had a Bill that fundamentally reformed the leasehold system, making leasehold obsolete by making commonhold the default tenure for all new properties and enacting the Law Commission’s recommendations in full. There seems to be a determination on the Government’s part to miss the open goal they are presented with here—one that my team, Stevenage FC, would certainly never miss.

What we have in the Bill are baby steps toward leasehold reform. We could not oppose those, because they will at least ease a little of the pain currently experienced by leaseholders. We will therefore not oppose the Bill’s progress, even if we have to finish the job later on. Your Lordships’ House can rest assured that we will attempt to use this House’s stages of its passage to make some more of the improvements that leaseholders desperately need.

I turn to the detail of what is in the Bill, before I go into more detail about what is not. Extension to lease terms is welcome, although the devil will be in the detail of how this operates. We welcome the steps towards right to manage, although they do not go the whole way towards commonhold. We believe that the changes to the calculation of lease extension premiums and the collective buying of freeholds will make it easier and cheaper for leaseholders to buy their homes and maintain long-term housing security. These are welcome, as are the 990-year leaseholds, which will offer the same security, taking away the hassle and expense of future lease extensions.

The further provisions on building safety—for example, replacing the regime for dealing with insolvent developers and orphaned buildings—are welcome. However, it could have afforded a lot less heartache to affected leaseholders if these were included in the Building Safety Act in 2022—but better now than never.

The end of marriage value will right the injustice where leaseholders had to pay the freeholder when extending their lease or purchasing the freehold, so that is also welcome. Additional rights for freeholders on private and mixed-tenure estates will be beneficial. However, I think we still have some way to go to ease the misery for freeholders of what is known as fleecehold.

The provisions relating to ground rent, while welcome as far as they go, are still subject to the outcome of a consultation that we do not yet have. Will the Minister be offering government amendments in this respect later in the progress of the Bill? We will certainly be trying to clarify the situation on ground rent for all leaseholders, including those who currently have lower ground rents, as the Bill progresses.

We welcome the change to the inclusion of leaseholders in the management of their homes, but there remain concerns about this and how it will operate. I know my noble friend Lord Kennedy will want to question the complexity of enabling the participation and enfranchisement of leaseholders as we go through today’s debate.

We will be looking at more fundamental improvements to the Bill in Committee and on Report. I will start with the disproportionate and draconian legacy of Victorian property law that is forfeiture. This mechanism allows landlords to ensure compliance with a lease agreement by using forfeiture of the lease as a threat, even for minor breaches of leasehold or relatively small amounts of arrears. Its continued use, and the chilling effect that results from its mere existence, continues to put landlords in a nearly unassailable position of strength in disputes with leaseholders. It is routinely used by landlords as a first resort when seeking to recover alleged arrears of payments from leaseholders. Worse still, the threat is often invoked to deter leaseholders from disputing any unreasonable costs and defending claims.

With the pledges to reform leasehold stretching back over so many years, the Government have had plenty of time to consider how they would deal with forfeiture in this Bill and yet in the other place Members were told as recently as February this year that the Government were:

“working through the detail of the issue”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/24; col. 197.]

I ask the Minister to set out how long this is going to take and say whether we will have a solution before we reach Third Reading. Too many of the Bills that come before this House now are subject to further work as the Bill progresses.

We will be seeking to remove deferment rates from the discretion of the Secretary of State. We believe that without having something on the face of the Bill which will deal with this issue, in future vested interests may still be able to attempt to introduce rates which are punitive to leaseholders, and that is not acceptable.

Unless the Minister is able to introduce government amendments in relation to the outcome of the ground rent consultation that restore the balance more closely to the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Competition and Markets Authority, we will want to extend the right to peppercorn ground rent to the most common leases—those under 150 years.

I know that many noble Lords are disappointed that the Bill does not go further in relation to the regulation of property agents. While new statutory rights relating to estate management companies are welcome, it is—as my honourable friend in the other place, the shadow Housing Minister pointed out—incomprehensible that the Bill does not incorporate the proposals from the Regulation of Property Agents working group in July 2019. This group, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, made recommendations that have widespread support in both Houses. I am sure he will want to say more about this himself, but it is hard to understand why the Government have not taken this opportunity to implement such a common-sense approach. It is a clear example of what I described earlier as missing an open goal.

Lastly, but probably most significantly, we hope to persuade the Government to rethink their decision not to extend the ban on leasehold to flats; 70% of leaseholders live in flats. To leave out new flats from the ban on leasehold justifies my description of an eviscerated Bill because it means that the Bill simply will not do what it set out to do. We will be proposing amendments to the exclusions the Government have included for the ban on new leasehold houses. We believe these are too wide and will almost certainly result in a way through for landlords who want to perpetuate the leasehold tenure for houses.

There is clearly a broad consensus in both Houses for a radical overhaul of leasehold, so the question is whether this Bill achieves that. Although it set out with worthy intentions and initiates some improvement, we do not believe it goes anything like as far as it should. With the parliamentary time left to us, and with the desperation of leaseholders to see at least some improvement in the catastrophic circumstances some of them face, it is not our intention to try to persuade Ministers to radically overhaul the Bill by means of the many hundreds of amendments that would be required to implement all the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, right to manage and commonhold. However, it remains our position that this will need to be done.

Whether this Bill receives Royal Assent or not before this Parliament is dissolved, a Labour Government will have to finish the job of finally bringing the leasehold system to an end by overhauling it, to the lasting benefit of leaseholders, and reinvigorating commonhold to such an extent that it will ultimately become the default and render leasehold obsolete. I reassure leaseholders across the country that we are absolutely determined to do so.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

Debate on whether Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to start Committee stage of this long-awaited Bill. I understand that it is not correct protocol to reiterate Second Reading speeches in Committee, so I shall not do that, but I believe that there are some long-standing unanswered questions relating to the Bill. Though we will probe some of them through our amendments, it is disappointing and unhelpful to reach this stage without some of those issues being clarified. If the Minister can comment, either in her early responses in Committee, or as the Bill proceeds, it would be helpful.

I hope we do not have to reach Report before we know, for example, the outcome of the consultation on ground rent; whether the Government have given up on their proposals to scrap leasehold as a tenure for flats; how the Government propose to help freehold homeowners who find themselves trapped in what have become known as fleecehold charges for estate management, an issue raised powerfully by the Law Commission again in its recent briefing; whether the Government intend to use the Bill to put right some of the building safety issues around qualifying and non-qualifying leases, including those relating to buildings under 11 metres in height, which undoubtedly would have been better addressed by the Building Safety Act but were excluded; and why proposals for a regulator of property agents—supported across this House, and discussed again just last week—continue to be resisted. We would be grateful for clarification from the Minister on the commencement date of the provisions in the Bill, as she has indicated in a written response to my noble friend Lord Kennedy that it will not be until 2026.

It is worth opening this group by talking about the news reports over the weekend. We learned from the Times that the costly regime of ground rent will continue for a further 20 years. Although those ground rents may be capped at £250, we have not had any official announcement on that yet.

The amendments in this group relate directly to the ban that was introduced on Report in the Commons; it was added in late so it was not able to be properly scrutinised there. So our main question is: when exactly will the Government do what was reported over the weekend? Will they amend the Bill at an even later stage, with even less opportunity to scrutinise?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

12: After Clause 25, insert following new Clause—
“Report on providing leaseholders in flats with a share of the freehold(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report outlining legislative options to ensure that all qualifying tenants in newly-constructed residential properties containing two or more flats have a proportionate share of the freehold of their property.(2) The report must be laid before Parliament within three months of the commencement of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report outlining legislative options to provide leaseholders in flats with a share of the freehold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, just before I move my amendment, I should say that I omitted to thank the Minister for her collaborative approach to the Bill in advance of it coming before the Committee. I now do so and rectify that omission. I also thank the Law Commission, as she did, and the many groups that have a leasehold interest and met us in recent weeks. I hope the Committee will forgive me for not mentioning that earlier on.

Amendment 12 requires the Secretary of State to publish a report outlining legislative options to provide leaseholders in flats with a share of the freehold. I shall resist the temptation to go over the ground again of why the Government did not include flats in their ban on new leases, although it would be helpful to know from the Minister what level of consideration was given to enacting the recommendations of the Law Commission in full in regard to this matter, particularly as it was the stated intention of the Secretary of State—that is what he wanted to do. There has been a commitment to this ban on leasehold at least since 2017. One would think that there has been plenty of time to get the work done. Indeed, the Law Commission has done much of the heavy lifting on what would be needed.

Our later amendments seek to determine the Government’s appetite to move in due course to a more widespread system of commonhold as the default tenure. The successful adoption and implementation of this in other jurisdictions has been well debated and discussed in your Lordships’ House. It is certainly the clear intent of my party to move as quickly as possible to that tenure. However, that would be a policy decision, as distinct from the implementation of the Law Commission’s recommendations, and would necessarily have to follow the legal scheme that those recommendations would introduce. As that is not proposed in the Bill but follows the Secretary of State’s intent to do away with the archaic system of leasehold altogether, there is a strong case to make a start with a transitional regime.

The introduction of a mandatory share of freehold in all new blocks of flats, as proposed in our amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, alongside the requirement to establish and operate an RMC—a right to manage company—with each leaseholder given a share, would be a sensible staging post on a path towards a commonhold future. It would make conversion to commonhold at a later date a far simpler process. We urge the Government to accept these amendments as they would ensure that we have started on the path to confining leasehold to the dustbin of history, which is where we believe it belongs, and would make it clear that the Bill is not ruling in one set of homes and home owners to the ban and ruling out another. That other is affecting by far the greatest number of leaseholders, with 70% of leaseholders occupying flats. To be clear, this is not an alternative to leasehold. If such a measure were brought into force, any leaseholder resident in a new block of flats would own both the lease and a share of the freehold. It would ensure, in effect, that all new blocks of flats were collectively enfranchised by default, without the need for leaseholders in them to go through the process of acquiring the freehold.

The advantage of having a default share in the freehold is that it would give the leaseholder a direct say on what happens in their building, as is the case with those who have already been collectively enfranchised. It would also provide additional valuable rights, such as the right to a long lease extension on the basis of a peppercorn rent; in other words, the rights that will be accorded to existing leaseholders but without the cost of paying a premium to the freeholder that is still required to exercise that modified right.

We know that flat owners having a share of the freehold can cause tensions; for example, in agreeing how to proceed on crucial decisions, such as whether to cover the cost of major works through service charges. That is why it is essential that proper management arrangements are in place as a matter of course, to reduce the likelihood of damaging disputes between neighbours. That is why we propose mandatory RMCs on new blocks of flats as a corollary to the new clause.

Labour is unequivocal about the fact that commonhold is a preferable tenure to leasehold, in that it gives the benefits of freehold ownership to the owners of flats without the burdensome shortcomings of leasehold ownership. As we have heard, the Law Commission made 121 recommendations on commonhold, designed to provide a legal scheme that would enable commonhold to work more flexibly, and in all contexts. It is vital that if commonhold is to be the default tenure, it is enacted fully and properly, with full account of the Law Commission recommendations.

We have not sought to persuade the Government to incorporate any subset of the Law Commission commonhold recommendations into the Bill, but we need to reform the legal regime for commonhold in one go. Labour is committed to doing so if the British people give us the opportunity to serve after the next general election. In the meantime, it would be good to give current leaseholders a share in the management of their properties. I beg to move.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. I do not want to rehearse the reasons why I think that a mandatory share of the freehold is necessary, in the way that the noble Baroness laid out. I want to speak more to the contact that I have had with so many different groups and individuals who feel that they are trapped in their leasehold.

The number one thing that comes up is, of course, service charge abuse. Which? did a study in 2011 which suggested that 700 million service charges had been overcharged. The market for that has grown now to 6.7 billion, so we can only assume that this overcharging has grown along with it.

The challenge becomes: how do we make this market fair? How do we make sure that these abuses are washed away? That is to give the people paying the bills control, and not to lock them into the monopoly that leaseholders are currently locked into. Ultimately, the answer would be commonhold, but while commonhold is not on the table, we need to look at a share of the freehold. It should be mandatory, and it should happen straightaway. The noble Baroness laid out very eloquently the benefits that this would give to leaseholders.

We must understand that leaseholders do not want a landlord; that is why they have left the private rented sector—to avoid landlords. These amendments should stand. They really give leaseholders what they want. I have tabled an amendment which asks the Government to retain the power to bring forward a share of the freehold on new flats. That is the most important thing going on here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington for their amendments.

Amendment 12 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report, within three months of the commencement of the Act, into the legislative options for mandating that new-build flats be sold to leaseholders with a proportionate share of the freehold. We appreciate the benefits that share-of-freehold arrangements have over ordinary leasehold arrangements with third-party landlords, which is why we are making it simpler and cheaper for leaseholders of flats to enfranchise collectively and, therefore, achieve share-of-freehold arrangements. However, the commonhold framework has already been designed as the optimal legal vehicle for the collective ownership of flats. As such, the Government want to see the widespread take-up of commonhold, and for it to be the future preferred tenure for owners of flats, rather than share of freehold.

The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, asked why the legal framework was so complex. We need to determine precisely what property the mandate is applied to, exemptions, the processes for phased developments, the enforcement of developer liabilities for remedial works and so on. We would also need to prescribe the constitution for resident management companies—since they are presently unregulated—and to consider how the management functions are to be exercised by such companies, resident participation in decision-making, and the procedures and jurisdictions for dispute resolution. It is a complex issue, but one that we are working on—the Law Commission has worked on it for us for a number of years—and we feel that it is important that we continue with moving to commonhold rather than mandate share of freehold.

We understand the desire to offer leaseholders a share of freehold in the interim between leasehold and commonhold while the Government consider the Law Commission report and work on commonhold. However, we do not believe that mandating share-of-freehold sales would be a simple and quick undertaking. We also have concerns about using share of freehold across the whole housing market. It is not an optimum product for managing all types of shared properties, such as large and complex buildings—as we have heard—or buildings with extensive shared spaces. That is why the Government are committed to commonhold instead. We would prefer to work on one widespread take-up of a new tenure, and for that new tenure to be commonhold.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I will ask for some clarification, then. The policy was originally announced in 2017. The Law Commission did a great deal of work on what needed to be done to enact commonhold, and yet it is not in this Bill. The Minister has just reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to move to commonhold, so can she say how much longer it will take to get us to a situation where we have it?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I reiterate that the Government remain absolutely committed to widespread take-up of commonhold for flats. We have reviewed the Law Commissioners’ recommendations to reinvigorate commonhold as a workable alternative to leasehold, and I can assure noble Lords that we will set out next steps in due course.

Amendment 15B from my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington would require mandatory share-of-freehold arrangements to be made for block of flats in instances where flats are subject to long leases or collective enfranchisement. I thank him for this amendment and for his interest in this specific instance. We are aware of the interest in this and appreciate the desire to ensure that more leaseholders can obtain control or ownership of their building. Although we understand the benefits that share-of-freehold arrangements can have over ordinary leasehold arrangements with third-party landlords, we are also conscious that mandating share-of-freehold sales on new builds would require a complex legal framework to be constructed and to accommodate the mandate. As I have said, we do not believe that mandating share of freehold would be a quick or easy fix for leaseholders. The Government consider that the best option, as I have also said before, is to continue to work towards the widespread use of commonhold in future, rather than mandating share of freehold.

My noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington was particularly keen on service charges. The Government will bring forward, through this Bill, a number of measures to require landlords to provide further information to leaseholders on a very proactive basis and to increase the transparency of their service charges and administration charges, as well as providing more information to leaseholders on a reactive basis. Those measures include the introduction of a standardised service charge demand form to standardise the information that freeholders are required to provide to leaseholders. We will mandate the provision of an annual report that sets out key information of importance to leaseholders. We will compel landlords to provide more relevant information to leaseholders on request. We will ensure that service charge accounts are provided within six months of the end of the previous accounting period that they cover, regardless of the lease terms, and this will be subject to a number of exemptions. We will require freeholders to proactively disclose—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

All I can say to my noble friend is that that is exactly what the Government are working on and that further details will come forward in due course.

A number of things in this Bill will affect the transparency and accountability of freeholders to leaseholders, particularly on service charges, which is the one thing that my noble friend brought up. For these reasons, I hope that the noble Baroness and my noble friend will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I found it a bit of a frustrating debate in many ways. As I said, this policy was announced in 2017; we have had a very detailed Law Commission review and endless discussions in this House about how we move to commonhold. In a sense, my amendment was set out to probe whether we could have some route map towards commonhold, and this might be a first step towards that, to provide leaseholders with at least a share of freehold with a view to moving towards commonhold in the future. It seems that the Government want neither to set out what their route map to commonhold is or what the steps on it might be, nor to give us a timescale for that route map towards commonhold. Now we are faced with an indefinite timescale to get there and a Bill which could have enacted it but has not. I wonder how much longer we will have to wait. The seven years we have already waited is quite long enough.

It has been frustrating to unlock that but worth probing the Government’s intentions. I am grateful for the reassurance that commonhold is still the aim, but I would like to know how long it will take. However, in view of the discussions here today, I will for the moment withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, to be clear, the Bill already removes the automatic 12-month bar on leaseholders that stops them making another enfranchisement claim, should an earlier claim have been withdrawn. My Amendment 16 supplements this by removing the right for a voluntary 12-month agreement to be made between parties to restrict further enfranchisement claims for a leasehold house. Removing the ability for a voluntary 12-month restriction makes sure leaseholders are not put under undue pressure to withhold their claims. This is an important protection for leaseholders and makes it clear that they can make fresh claims as needed.

I look forward to hearing from noble Lords as to how they think that our enfranchisement reforms can be further improved. I beg to move.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, our Amendment 17 would enable the Secretary of State—or, in Wales, Welsh Ministers—to change the description of premises that are excluded from collective enfranchisement rights. Such a change would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for all his time in discussing the Bill with me, and I acknowledge his expertise in this area.

Clause 28, which our amendment targets, makes changes to the non-residential limit for collective enfranchisement claims. At present, Section 4(1) of the 1993 Act excludes from the right to enfranchise buildings in which 25 % or more of the internal floor area, excluding the common parts, can be occupied or are intended to be occupied for non-residential use. The clause increases that non-residential use percentage to 50%. We welcome the change, which enacts recommendation 38 of the Law Commission’s final report on leasehold enfranchisement and was supported by the National Leasehold Campaign, among others.

Of course, if the purpose of the non-residential limit is to confine enfranchisement to predominantly residential blocks, the Law Commission determined that the existing 25% limit does not achieve that purpose. There is a significant amount of evidence that, instead, it regularly prevents leaseholders from undertaking collective freehold acquisitions because a sizeable proportion of buildings fall slightly above it and that 25% is a significant bar to the ability of leaseholders to undertake a collective freehold acquisition. The Law Commission further argued that

“the arbitrary nature of the limit makes the bar to enfranchisement a source of considerable frustration for many leaseholders”.

We accept that there is no easy or non-arbitrary way in which to determine where that bar should be. However, it is the stated intention of the Bill to bring as many leaseholders as possible into enfranchisement, and it is therefore questionable as to whether limits under 50% would feel inherently fair. We would hope that a 50% non-residential limit would mean that the number of genuine cases excluded would be small and would remove the opportunity for developers to play the system, because only a genuine split between commercial and residential would apply.

Our main concern on this clause is that there is no flexibility built into it, and we are keen to probe whether a review after a period of time to determine whether the non-residential policy as set out is working in practice could be undertaken, or another mechanism used, so that changes for the limit in respect of collective enfranchisement rights do not require primary legislation but can be enacted through regulations. Enacting small but necessary changes that may occur in relation to the Government’s proposed limit—for example, whether that relates to individual cases that fall just above the limit, or a change in the criteria on using internal floor area to determine the rights, or changing altogether the criteria on which the limit is based—may need alternative mechanisms to resorting to future primary legislation. That is the purpose of our amendment.

I will comment briefly on the other amendments in this group. We understand the reasons for the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Thurlow, and look forward to hearing the comments of the Minister on those amendments. In relation to the Question on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, to be put by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, we understand the Church position as a landholder, but we feel it would go against the spirit of increasing the enfranchisement through the Bill to retain the 25% limit.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 17A. I am sorry that I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I should also say that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who is unavoidably detained, has added her name to that amendment. We therefore have her support as well. Amendment 17A is directed at Clause 28 on mixed-use premises with substantial proportions of business and residential tenants. Currently, collective enfranchisement and lease renewal is not permitted where more than 25% of the premises are business premises. That figure is going to be changed to 50%, thereby making it easier for residential tenants to go down the collective enfranchisement route.

That will introduce management issues—I do not say that they are necessarily problems, but they are certainly management issues. The Bill proposes that, if 50% of the occupants are residential, that will be enough. That will mean that, unless more than half of the building is occupied by business premises, all residential tenants will be entitled to be enfranchised. That will create issues for management and, in particular, problems where some of those residential tenants are overseas companies. We know that there are increasing numbers of those, particularly in London.

Mixed-use buildings pose greater management challenges than purely residential ones. Freeholders need to be responsive and active property managers. Business tenants require swift responses so that they can manage their businesses. If they want changes to the premises and so on, they need their landlord’s consent so that they can go ahead. If there are difficulties with obtaining that consent because, for example, some—or possibly a large number—of the residential tenants are overseas companies, then one can see how unattractive such premises will become as business premises for the business occupiers.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[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 Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for drawing our attention to the fact that when you make complex changes, the consequences cannot always be predicted and may not be ones we would wish to support.

The issue is one I hope the Minister will be able to help us resolve. The right reverend Prelate cited the balance between justice and simplicity. He said to always come down on the side of justice, and so would I. However, in this case, we have competing justices. The principle being advocated throughout the Bill is the justice of rebalancing the rights and responsibilities between freeholders and leaseholders to the benefit of leaseholders—a principle most of us support. The difficulty is that the justice we support has a consequence we would not support: reducing the funds available to charities whose income is based on freehold property. So, there is a conundrum for us.

The right reverend Prelate listed the charities that he thought were affected by these changes. I noted they were all London-based, no doubt because of land values in London. It is important for us to know whether this is a more extensive problem, or a London-based one. The first question we need to ask is, what other charities will be affected?

I do not have an answer to the next question: is there a workaround that mitigates the effect of the principal changes the Bill seeks to implement? I am sure the bright young things in the department could come up with a way of mitigating the outcome, so that charities do not lose their income, which is in nobody’s interest. I am confident that somebody will come up with a great way of overcoming this problem, while retaining the other justice: fairness towards leaseholders.

So, there are questions but no answers, and I look forward to hearing what the Government might be able to do.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, this debate has again outlined what a huge benefit it would be to have proper, detailed pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills such as this. I hope that will take place when we get a commonhold Bill, whoever brings it forward.

In principle, I am in much of the same mind as my noble friend Lord Truscott when it comes to special pleading on marriage value. I fear that the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester are in danger of being an almighty sledge- hammer to crack not a very big nut, and my comments are made on that basis.

First, I thank the right reverend Prelate and Lynne Guyton, from John Lyon’s Charity, for meeting me yesterday to explain the issue in more detail. The issues set out by the right reverend Prelate affect a very small number of charities, such as the ones in central London that he has outlined. They have been in place for centuries and, as was explained to me, use marriage value on lease extensions as a critical contribution to the funding of their charitable work. The leaseholders of these properties are largely offshore companies or non-residential wealthy owners, so the argument put forward by the charities is that, in this case, the benefit of marriage value has what the right reverend Prelate described as the “reverse Robin Hood effect”. The benefit currently accrues to the beneficiaries of the charity, such as youth clubs, arts projects, emotional well-being initiatives, supplementary schools, parental support schemes, sports programmes, academic bursaries and similar projects. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, for his personal testimony in this respect.

The fear is that, after the Bill has passed, the benefits will then accrue to the said wealthy offshore companies and leaseholders. I believe the Government have been in conversation with the charities concerned and have promised to look at what can be done to ensure that a very limited exception is considered. However, it is our understanding that this has not been forthcoming, and I hope the Minister will tell us where the Government have got to. Have the Government carried out any impact assessment of the way the Bill will affect charities that have long-standing property endowments solely for the purpose of enabling their charitable aims?

However, as with group 2, these amendments would amend Schedule 4, which is where the market value element of the premium for any enfranchisement claim is determined. The second amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has also applied it to the later section on loss suffered, in paragraph 32, which refers back to assumption 2. Straightforwardly, these amendments would disapply assumption 2 for charities, and thereby include marriage and hope values in determining market value.

As I said during the first Committee sitting on the Bill, we genuinely appreciate the intention behind supporting what is argued to be the unique circumstances of this small group of charities. However—and it is a big “however”—the amendment as drafted is almost certainly far too broad to encompass only their very unusual circumstances. Perhaps the Government will continue to work with right reverend Prelate and the charities concerned to see what can be done to support them; otherwise, we fear that a general amendment such as the one tabled could open a big Pandora’s box and encourage those wishing to avoid the new system of enfranchisement—which we support, of course—and there may be plenty who wish to do so, to misuse charitable status for that purpose.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to exemptions created for the National Trust, which the Government felt were justified. Presumably, the Government feel that some exemptions are justified.

While we do not feel that the amendment as tabled would avoid some of the obvious pitfalls of creating a loophole in the stated aims of the Bill—with which we agree—I look forward to the response of the Minister about whether any progress can be made in this respect.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

47: Clause 37, page 33, leave out from line 12 to line 6 on page 34
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would leave out the proposed new section 19C of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, and so ensure that leaseholders are not liable to pay their landlord’s non-litigation costs in cases where a low value enfranchisement or extension claim is successful.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

The exception for low-value claims is a necessary provision to protect landlords from unfair costs and, as has been noted, it implements the Law Commission’s enfranchisement recommendation 84. I kindly and respectfully ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that reply to my amendments. I am grateful for his reassurance about the costs relating to the difference between the low-value claim and where it ends up. That is a useful clarification. However, we will think through the possible implications of this before we get to Report. It seems iniquitous that the leaseholder is taking all the burden of any reduction in the value of the property and in the value of the lease, while the freeholder is exempted from that because they will then get their costs paid if that happens to be the case when the transaction takes place. We will give that some more thought before Report, but for now I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

55: After Clause 45, insert the following new Clause—
“Abolition of forfeiture of a long lease(1) This section applies to any right of forfeiture or re-entry in relation to a dwelling held on a long lease which arises either—(a) under the terms of that lease, or(b) under or in consequence of section 146(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.(2) The rights referred to in subsection (1) are abolished.(3) In this section— “dwelling” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, or outhouses and appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it;“lease” means a lease at law or in equity and includes a sub-lease, but does not include a mortgage term;“long lease” has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would abolish the right of forfeiture in relation to residential long leases in instances where the leaseholder is in breach of covenant.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, our amendments in this group go to the heart of one of the current serious injustices relating to leasehold: that of forfeiture. It is quite simply anachronistic, wholly disproportionate and complete imbalance in the relationship between leaseholders and landlords. In some circumstances, a debt of a few hundred pounds can trigger the ability to take possession of the property. What my honourable friend the shadow Minister for Housing in the other place called

“the chilling effect that results from its mere existence”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/24; col. 203.]

puts landlords in a nearly unassailable position of strength in disputes with leaseholders, as I hope I illustrated in my earlier quote from an elderly leaseholder. Unfortunately, the threat of forfeiture is too often used routinely by landlords as a first resort when seeking to recover alleged arrears in payments from leaseholders, and so often invoked to deter leaseholders from disputing any unreasonable costs and defending claims.

Our first amendment is reasonably straightforward: it is basically a matter of disproportionality and consistency. A real estate solicitor summed it up very neatly in his evidence to the Commons committee. He said:

“It is extremely welcome to see the government’s proposed clause 59 and amendment NC4 relating to the abolition of remedies relating to rentcharges. It is also very welcome to see the proposed amendment NC1 which would abolish forfeiture in long residential leases, which is long-overdue. However, there is a key point that does not seem to be addressed: forfeiture in relation to rentcharges. Rentcharge deeds often reserve a right of forfeiture for non-payment which operates in the same manner as a forfeiture clause in a lease. The Committee clearly recognises that the expropriation of somebody’s property as a remedy for breaches of a lease on an extra-judicial basis is entirely inappropriate and unfair. Therefore, it should equally concern the Committee that the same remedy is available in many cases in relation to rentcharges. Therefore, I would ask that the Committee either add to proposed amendment NC1 or propose an additional clause to abolish any right of forfeiture under a rentcharge”.


This amendment would ensure that leaseholders are in no worse a position than anyone else subject to a challenge to ownership would come under. So, while we accept the principle that legal remedies should be available, we do not believe that forfeiture provides adequately for leaseholders to challenge or defend themselves from repossession.

Our other amendments are a bit more complicated on paper, as they would replace Clause 111, which currently provides remedies for arrears of rent charges where the rent charge remains unpaid for a period of 40 days, one of which is the ability for a rent charge owner to take possession of a freehold property in instances where a freehold homeowner fails to pay a rent charge. But in essence it is very simple. It would simply mean that debts have to be sued for, as you would for any other kind of debt. In short, the 1925 Act provides for the power to seize freehold houses for non-payment of a rent charge, even if the arrears are merely a few pounds, and allows the rent charge holder to retain possession or render it, in effect, worthless by means of maintaining a 99-year lease over it.

In our view, the remedies provided in the 1925 Act are a wholly disproportionate and draconian legacy of Victorian-era property law. The 1977 Act prohibited the creation of new rent charges and provided for existing rent charges to be abolished in 2037, but 13 years from now is still a long time away and any lease granted prior to the abolition will remain in force. Rent charges are therefore an area of law in respect of which legislative reform is long overdue and the need to protect rent payers from what amounts essentially to a particularly severe form of freehold forfeiture as a result of the relevant remedies provided by the 1925 Act is pressing.

We understand that the Minister in the Commons called this argument “reasonable” and implied that it could be revisited if the Government were able to consider the potential consequences of such a change, so I press the Minister that, if we are asked to withdraw our amendment today, she will at least consider whether the Government can deliver the effect we all want to see via a government amendment. We feel very strongly about this issue and I hope it will not be necessary to continue to press this point through to Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I wish to address the issue of forfeiture and support Amendment 55 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Pinnock, and Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. I absolutely agree that leaseholders should not be subject to forfeiture in the case of a debt of a few hundred pounds or a temporary breach of covenant. Indebtedness can be dealt with by the county court and bailiffs. For that reason, I support Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. However— I know this may be controversial with some noble Lords—I am concerned that a blanket ban on forfeiture would remove an effective deterrent preventing some leaseholders persistently and wilfully breaching their leases by, for example, anti-social behaviour.

Let me give three practical examples I have come across in my years as a leaseholder. The first concerns a landlord who was letting out his flat on Airbnb, in breach of his lease. He knew he could make more money doing this than letting it on a long lease. As noble Lords know, Airbnb can cause a serious nuisance in blocks of permanent residents, due to excessive noise, wear and tear and lack of security impacting on quiet enjoyment. The landlord/leaseholder in question stopped only when threatened with forfeiture for breaching the lease.

The second involved a leaseholder putting a hot tub under a neighbour’s window, in clear breach of the lease, as only patio furniture was allowed to be displayed on the terrace, and threatening their quiet enjoyment. When challenged, their approach was dumb insolence. “What are you going to do about it?” was their approach. The threat of forfeiture ensured its removal.

The third example is more personal. My wife was attacked in our own garden by a neighbour’s tenant’s large dog, which was in a flat in breach of the lease. The gardens are open, with no boundaries, so dogs wandering around under no control are a problem. Let me be clear, I am a dog lover—I had two dogs as a child—but I am also conscious that there has been a massive increase in dog attacks in recent years. Official NHS figures reveal that, in the year to March 2023, there were 9,277 hospital admissions in which the patient had been bitten or struck by a dog. The number of people killed by dogs has also risen dramatically. In the last 20 years or so, the number of fatal dog bites has averaged about three per year; however, by 2022, it had risen to 10 fatalities and is still climbing. These cases are horrific and worrying.

Many blame the owners, not the dogs. Too many owners seem unwilling or unable to control their dogs and this behaviour is unfortunately widespread, as I have witnessed myself on a number of occasions. The dog in our block stayed, but when the leaseholder/landlord tried to introduce another tenant with another large dog, after the first attack, again in breach of the lease, it was only the threat of forfeiture that resolved the situation. Dogs may be appropriate in many surroundings, but in others they are excluded in leases for a reason.

Thus there are occasions when the mere threat of forfeiture, rarely used in practice, is useful to ensure compliance with lease obligations. Other legal routes can be extremely costly, lengthy and ineffective. So I ask the supporters of a complete ban on forfeiture how they propose to enforce compliance with leases and prevent breaches in the future if this proposal is carried.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I am not saying they are not positive. At the end of the day, to make progress we need a government amendment, or an amendment that somebody else tables that the Government will support, at the next stage. That is progress; that is what I am trying to push. I know the Minister is very generous with her time, and wants to get this right, and wants to meet colleagues. I am just trying to get it on the record, that is all. I know the Minister has been good every time that colleagues have raised this issue in the House, and I have a Question on it again on, I think, 22 May. I thank her very much.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for supporting these amendments and the noble Lords, Lord Truscott, Lord Kennedy and Lord Bailey, for their comments.

In relation to the Minister’s comments about the time it takes to do this, I repeat that the Conservative Party has had this in its manifesto since 2017, so there has been quite a lot of time to think this through and have a look at this. It is a bit disappointing that we are in Committee in the House of Lords with some of these key issues still unresolved.

I ask your Lordships to reflect on, first, the example I gave in the earlier debate, of the elderly couple who told me they have a dispute with their landlord and are being threatened with forfeiture. They potentially have a £15,000 bill for the costs. If they pay that charge it is taken as agreement, but failure to pay it means that the landlord can invoke forfeiture, so where do they go? That is an awful position to put people in.

My second example is a young lady who I was out with the other day doing our political work. She lives in a leasehold flat; she put a political poster up in her window and then, almost immediately, received a letter from the landlord threatening her with forfeiture because that breached the terms of her lease. That seems an onerous way of dealing with a relatively small issue.

I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and he is right that there needs to be some form of resolution to this that means it does not need to go to the High Court—but it should certainly not be forfeiture, which is totally disproportionate. There may be a need to consider remedies other than the big sledgehammer of the High Court. Threatening to repossess people’s homes is certainly not an answer to technical breaches of lease.

Regarding rent charges, they will still be in place until 2037. We have to look at this and see whether we can find some way of getting rid of them before then.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, if we have to bring this amendment back again, we will, but I would rather the Government did so. That said, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 55 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

60: Clause 48, page 57, leave out from line 23 to line 23 on page 58
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would leave out the proposed new section 87B of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and so ensure that RTM companies cannot incur costs in instances where claims cease.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, our amendment in this group refers to the fact that the Bill currently makes an exception to litigation costs being borne by landlords in the case where right-to-manage claims have been withdrawn or otherwise ceased early and the right-to-management company has acted unreasonably in bringing the right-to-management claim, allowing the landlord to apply to the tribunal for any reasonable costs.

The key arguments for the amendment are that, first, leaseholders should not be put at risk of having to pay costs simply for exercising statutory rights, in this case the right to seek to acquire and exercise rights in relation to the management of premises in which one has a leasehold interest. There is also concern that unscrupulous landlords might use the rights provided for in new Section 87B of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 as a means of recovering costs from right-to-manage companies that act reasonably and in good faith and, by implication, that it would discourage right-to-manage companies from initiating a claim because of the financial risk it still entails for individual participating leaseholders. Put simply, the fear is that new Section 87B will incentivise unscrupulous landlords to fight claims on the basis that they are defective in the hope of recovering costs by means of it. Our main concern regarding Clause 48 is that the use of the words “reasonable fee” and “reasonable costs” would not allow either of the above situations to occur. I ask the Minister: who will determine the definition of “reasonable”, and how?

I will comment on other amendments. We think that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, are very reasonable, and we support his aims here. In fact, colleagues in the other place submitted similar amendments in Committee.

I also look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, introduce his amendments, which would incorporate local authorities and their properties, both within the HRA and without, but I ask whether he had discussions about this proposal with the Local Government Association or local authority stockholders. Most good local authority landlords already have substantial arrangements in place for liaison with leaseholders and tenants around the management of property, and there is certainly no issue with improving that through more effective right-to-manage arrangements. However, as much local authority property will be occupied by a mixture of local authority tenants and leaseholders, it would be important to ensure that there were no unintended consequences. I urge that that level of consultation takes place before any proposal such as this proceeds further. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, will forgive me if he has already done that consultation, but it was not clear from the amendments. With that, I beg to move Amendment 60.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Baroness. I will come to answering her question. To give a blunt answer, I have not undertaken the consultation that she refers to, but I will explain when I get to that part of my introduction why I think that this stands on its own.

As I said at Second Reading, I strongly support those parts of the Bill which facilitate the exercise of the right to manage on the part of leaseholders in residential blocks. There are several measures in the Bill which do that. The right to manage is, in some ways, the crucial key to unlocking the levels of dissatisfaction which some leaseholders have with the way in which their blocks are managed. I strongly support it.

There is a particular issue which the Bill does not address. As a consequence of my general support for this—contrary to my remarks in earlier debates— I hope that the Government will give me a softer and more welcoming answer. As a result of my proposal, perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will even give me one of those answers which invites me to attend a meeting. In fact, I have had a meeting with my noble friend about this, though she may not recall it. We met last summer to discuss this issue with officials, and she was very sympathetic to it. That gives me additional reasons for thinking that this might be a welcome amendment.

The amendment arises from a particular case, but it raises questions of general importance. I shall refer to the case later, but I want to address the question of general importance first. When the right to manage was introduced through the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, certain exceptions were placed on it. The Government intend to ease some of those restrictions, and I welcome that. One restriction was that the right to manage did not apply where the landlord of the building was a local housing authority.

I have tabled two alternative amendments—this is my point about consultation. Both amendments would reverse that assumption. One would eliminate it entirely. It would bring within the ambit of right to manage all blocks where the local housing authority was the landlord, including those within the housing revenue account. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, said that this could raise certain difficulties in cases where a block had so many long lease holders that it could exercise the right to manage but would be left with certain local authority tenants in the block. I have experience of local government, as does the noble Baroness. I recognise that she is correct in saying that there might be certain sensitivities about this. I think it could be managed. Indeed, it would be liberating for all the tenants of the block in many ways. The local authority tenants would also have a say in the management of the block. They would not be excluded from it simply because they were local authority tenants.

Recognising that this is a slightly daring proposition, I have suggested an alternative which would simply take out of the provision local housing authority-owned blocks where they were owned simply as an investment. I have left it vague as to whether that is a commercial investment or one held in the local authority’s pension fund. These are probing amendments. I should be happy to discuss these issues with my noble friend the Minister.

I come now to a particular case. There are blocks where local authorities have acquired property as an investment. Doing so immediately extinguishes the right of the long lease holders to exercise their right to manage—there are no local authority tenants. I think that is wrong. The case I am thinking of concerns a block acquired by a London local authority from a commercial property investment trust, bought at market value as an investment. The local authority, the new owner, was dissatisfied with the accounts inherited from the previous manager—it had their own manager for the block. As a result, it has not been able to put satisfactory accounts together for the last three years. As a consequence, it has not had the legal standing to issue invoices to its tenants for its service charges. It has been running the building’s operating costs out of the capital sums that had been set aside as a sinking fund to pay for future improvements to the building. It is all very unsatisfactory.

That is a classic situation in which long leaseholders would normally exercise the right to manage but, completely arbitrarily, are precluded from doing so. That is wrong. We should facilitate this.

At the very least, my noble friend should welcome my second amendment, Amendment 62, and say that where a local authority acquires a property for commercial purposes—not for the housing of its tenants but as an investment, either in its own name or as part of its pension fund—the right to manage would be restored. The financial interests of the local authority would be preserved, as they are under the current arrangements. It is simply that the right to manage the building would be taken over by the long leaseholders, as elsewhere, and they would manage it in just the same way as in all the other right-to-manage arrangements we are so much in favour of.

I will stop at that point because I have simply made my case, but this is a strange omission from the current arrangements, and one that we now have an opportunity to correct. I would be very happy to attend the meeting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful, as ever, to the Minister for her responses. It seems she is going to be very busy over the next few weeks, having all these meetings with all of us. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for reminding me that, had the right reverend Prelate been here, I too would have objected strongly to the proposals he was making on Clause 47, because they would simply have opened the door to retaining the 25% limit, virtually across the property sector. I believe that would have gone against the intentions of the Bill, so she was right in what she said there and I thank her for her support for my amendment.

From this side of the House, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, that we welcome belligerent interventions from either side, but especially from the Benches opposite, so just keep going with those. We particularly agree with his Amendment 65B. If his meeting does not achieve the desired effect and he chooses to pursue this, he will certainly have our support.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, very much for his explanation. I had not realised that these were either/or amendments, but I understand his point about property owned as an investment by a local authority or pension fund. I agree with his point about the principle of right to manage being extended as far as possible. That is absolutely right, although anything affecting local authorities needs to have some consultation with the sector, because we just do not know what any unintended consequence of that might mean. I hope he will consider that if he chooses to pursue this amendment, but perhaps the meeting with the Minister might allay his concerns in that regard. That said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister understands that this has dragged on and on, and we are now at a very late stage of a Bill that has already gone all the way through the Commons. Quite frankly, the degree of uncertainty and instability that is being caused to leaseholders—and to freeholders, to be fair to them—is unacceptable. Yet again in this Chamber, we hear the phrase, “in due course”. I do not know what that means; it can mean anything from tomorrow to in three years’ time when we get round to sorting it out. That is not acceptable either.

We had a very detailed report from the Competition and Markets Authority, which roundly condemned the use of ground rents as a mechanism. We have heard in this Chamber over and again that this is money for nothing and that it has resulted in the most dreadful exploitation. The example I gave in Committee on Monday of an elderly couple virtually being held to ransom by the freeholder is absolutely shocking. That will be going on in millions of homes across the country. This is just not acceptable any longer. I hope that the Secretary of State will very rapidly make up his mind as to what he is going to do about this, stop being bulldozed by freeholder interests in his own party, make a decision and get rid of ground rents, once and for all. This would let people sleep easy in their beds, which they have not been able to do while this debate has been going on.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think there was a question there, and my response is that we went out, quite rightly, to consult, and the consultation did not finish until towards the end of January. This is a complex issue. If we do it badly or wrong then we will make mistakes and these people will potentially be in a more difficult situation. From the end of January to April is not a long time. We are doing it as fast as we can, and we will come back to the House with further details.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

64: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to establish a Right to Manage regime for freeholders on private or mixed-use estatesIn Section 71 of the CLRA 2002, after subsection (2) insert—“(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to enable freeholder owners of dwellings to exercise a right to manage in a way which corresponds with or is similar to this Part.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would permit the Secretary of State to establish a Right to Manage regime for freeholders of residential property on private or mixed-use estates.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group concentrate on yet another aspect of the regime that fleeces home owners with unexpected and extortionate charges, but in this case, they are levied on residential freeholders living on private and mixed-tenure estates.

I had one or two such encounters as a councillor. In one case, there was a five-year battle to get an estate through-road adopted as a public highway because the residents were facing extraordinary and unaffordable costs for highway repairs; and in another, a series of children’s play spaces were abandoned by developers as soon as their sales were completed, with no provision made for maintenance, health and safety checks or upgrading to meet the latest safety standards. But it was not until I campaigned for my honourable friend Alistair Strathern, now the excellent MP for Mid Bedfordshire, that I saw the volume of housebuilding that had gone on with the assumption that new residents would be responsible for a wide range of maintenance to highways and public spaces, and other exceptional costs that had clearly not been set out in a transparent way at the time of purchase.

As my honourable friend put it,

“Across the country, homeowners in a state of adoption limbo are being left exposed to exploitative and often unaccountable management companies. Despite their warm words, sadly the Government did not take any of the actions that the Competition and Markets Authority urged them to take in order to end the issue of fleecehold once and for all”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/24; col. 631.]


My honourable friend pointed out that residents of estates across the constituency are trapped in extortive relationships with unaccountable private management companies, while their estates go unadopted.

Of course, this sharp practice is not limited to Bedfordshire. The Conservative MP Neil O’Brien has written of this:

“Across the country many people are moving into new build homes, only to discover something nasty which they didn’t expect.


Often the first they know of it is when a large bill comes through the door, from an obscure company they’ve never heard of.


The bill demands that they pay a large sum for the maintenance of their new estate, and warns them that they could lose their house if they don’t pay up.


These bills can be of a scary size, and the bills often escalate sharply over time.


To add insult to injury, residents often find that the work they are paying for isn’t actually done, and then find that trying to get any redress is impossible: the firm sending the bills is opaque and uncontactable. People are sometimes billed for baffling things”.


Mr O’Brien went on to look at the large numbers of those affected. The estimate is about 20,000 housing estates, so this could affect up to 1.5 million home owners. The Competition and Markets Authority has examined this in great detail, and commented on the fact that

“over the last five years 80% of the freehold properties built by the 11 largest housebuilders … are likely to be subject to such charges”.

Our amendments in this group seek to address the fleecehold issues still outstanding, which we believe the Bill must address to avoid a continuation of this escalating trend, which is simply providing another method of extorting money from hard-pressed home owners, effectively making them leaseholders of the public space on their estates. As my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for housing said in the other place,

“Underpinning all those issues of concern is a fundamental absence of adequate regulation or oversight of the practices of estate management companies”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/23; col. 193WH.]


and the fact that residential freeholders currently do not enjoy statutory rights equivalent to those held by leaseholders.

There was cross-party support for the fact that this situation is untenable, so I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to amendments in this group so that we can make some progress. Our Amendment 64 would give residential freeholders on private and mixed-tenure estates the same right to challenge the reasonableness of estate management companies and their charges as leaseholders have. As Matthew Pennycook said in Committee:

“We also believe that it is right in principle that there is parity between residential leaseholders and freeholders when it comes to the right to manage”.—[Official Report, Commons, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill Committee, 30/1/24; col. 436.]


Our Amendment 87 would prevent developers building to a lower standard. The government amendment would remove estate charge costs that should be borne by local authorities, and then expect private management companies to pay for them themselves, as they can no longer pass the costs on to the occupants. However, this would motivate developers to leave degradation of buildings rather than repairing them. Further, our amendment would put the onus on the developer to ensure high standards are in place from the moment they pass the estate over.

Amendment 93 asks the Government to carry out a review of such non-standard terms and charges included in freehold deeds, including those relating to estate management companies. The alternative is that the Government implement the recommendations so clearly set out in the report of the Competition and Markets Authority.

We support the other amendments in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, which are essentially driving at the same issue of tightening up on those dreadful fleecehold practices. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, relate to the kind of issue I mentioned earlier, when developers sometimes provide public amenities that are not of an adoptable standard. It is not reasonable for leaseholders to be required to make up the difference. The noble Baroness’s second amendment refers to the money-for-nothing culture of leaseholders being charged for services that they do not receive. We would support both of those amendments, and we look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and to hearing the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. I shall speak to Amendments 87A and 87B, in my name. The first amendment seeks to prohibit future freehold “fleecehold” estates, where freehold home owners can be tied into expensive maintenance costs for public amenities and open space, without recourse. I recognise and welcome the provisions in the Bill that currently provide additional redress for people trapped in fleecehold, but it is important to make sure that no more people become accidental fleeceholders. Fleecehold has become prevalent not because of any policy decision by an elected Government but rather as a way for developers and managing agents to make more money at the expense of unsuspecting home owners. My honourable friend Neil O’Brien has spoken out many times about the fleecehold estate scandal. He has compared it to the Post Office scandal, in that it is an injustice that has ruined so many people’s lives, yet nothing has been done.

The way that the fleecehold system works is now well known. In recent decades, the builder would normally build a new estate, make sure that the roads and other facilities were up to spec and pay a Section 106 charge, and the council would then take over the running of it. Under the fleecehold model, however, the developer agrees to hand over the company to another company, which it may or may not own, to run many parts of the estate, such as roads, open spaces, play areas and even sewers. The developer thus pays less in Section 106 charges and the council abdicates the responsibility to maintain the road and other amenities but not, of course, council tax. The developer and council, in essence, split the profits while the residents and new tenants get the bill. This is not only collusion between the council and the developer but an extremely inefficient way to run things. Many of the people on these estates end up with a huge bill to sort problems that have arisen because the amenities were not sorted properly in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, and I am grateful to her for going through each amendment in detail. However, having spent many hours in this Chamber debating what is now the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act before this Bill, we hear the same refrain again: things are either too complex to deal with, they are the subject of another Bill or they need further work.

Today’s debate has indicated yet again—and I am sure there will be later debates in a similar vein—that these types of Bills need very effective pre-legislative scrutiny so that the great expertise contained within this Chamber can be used to make the Bill better before it comes to the House. It would mean that we are not faced with being told something should be in another Bill or needs further work. The subject of this Bill has been a manifesto commitment of the Government since 2017, so there has been plenty of time to do the other work before the Bill came before the House. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 64 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

We fully understand the passion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, about criminality and having a last resort. We must think of it in regard to the worst rogue landlord offences, of which there are many, and I am sure several noble Lords have seen things worthy of that description. While we do not entirely go along with the noble Lord, we are interested to understand why the Government are using the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill to do away with a long-standing leaseholder right to bring a private prosecution against a landlord who has refused service charge and accounts transparency; it is surely a sign that they are trying to hide something.

The Government are bringing forward a new regime for service charges, under which landlords’ failure to comply with the requirement will be subject to damages of no more than £5,000 per leaseholder, which to us feels too low. Why does this policy have to strip leaseholders of a right to pursue a persistently abusive landlord with a private criminal prosecution? If the right was poorly drafted in the first place, surely it should be retained and made effective in the Bill?

We agree to a certain extent with the amendment’s attempt to bring local authorities into scope. As we know from past tragedies, local authorities are often treated far too leniently by leaseholder legislation, receiving exemptions from basic requirements. We broadly agree, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to the amendment.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, for his passion on this matter, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. It is appropriate to bring a probing amendment on this, to seek out some clarification from the Government about their intentions. It is clear that service charge accountability sits right at the heart of much of the Bill, and we would not want to do anything against that. It does seem a little odd that part of the Bill’s intention is to remove that right of private prosecution, so I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

The other point raised by the noble Lord was that we are going to have a hiatus when the Bill is passed, because it is not going to come into force until 2025-26. Can the Minister comment on what leaseholders can resort to in that interim period, in order to get matters justified if they have a persistent rogue landlord? Otherwise, we will have a gap where the original provisions are repealed and these ones have not yet come into force.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about council leaseholders. There are other protections in force for council leaseholders. The health and safety Act and its provisions should sit there to protect council leaseholders from any poor landlord practice from councils—I know they have not always done so, but they should.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to this very good probing amendment.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington for Amendment 76A, which seeks to retain the existing enforcement provisions concerning a landlord’s failure to provide information to leaseholders. I am grateful to other noble Lords who took part in this very brief discussion.

I fully agree with my noble friend that it is important to have effective enforcement measures in place where a landlord fails to provide relevant information to leaseholders. The existing measures, including the statutory offence under existing Section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, have historically proven to be ineffective. Local housing authorities, as the enforcement body, are reluctant to bring prosecutions against landlords, and the cost and complexity of doing so are a significant barrier to leaseholders bringing a private prosecution. That is why we are omitting Section 25 and replacing it with the more effective and proportionate proposals set out in Clause 56 of the Bill. Therefore, I am afraid that we cannot accept the amendment. Not only does it require—

--- Later in debate ---

The costs faced by leaseholders is also the subject of Amendment 103, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, which would impose a cap on the charges that can be passed on to leaseholders as a result of the Building Safety Act. The Act introduced important changes to the regulatory framework, but it has had a knock-on effect on the charges leaseholders face. As my noble friend Lady Pinnock has said time and again, it is the leaseholders, who have done nothing wrong, who are paying the price of this crisis. We welcome amendments that would protect leaseholders from those costs, and we look forward to assurances from the Minister that the Government are taking action to ensure that all leaseholders affected by the building safety crisis get the support they need—sooner rather than later.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to our Amendment 103, and comment on others in this group. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his careful and thoughtful consideration of how we might use the Bill to rectify some of the glaring building safety omissions that are an unfortunate legacy of the Building Safety Act. His proposals on building trustees warrant close consideration, especially as he has carefully set out how they might be funded. Taken together with proposals in later amendments for a property regulator, this could deal with a number of the loopholes that have caused an overall descent into property chaos, which has been the subject of much debate in this House, by matching independent local oversight with a national property regulator.

The noble Earl set out in his customary forensic way his justification for the amendments. I respect his professional expertise in this area, and I do not think I need to say any more than to welcome the issues he has covered. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, those could have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny—but sadly, they were not. As was said earlier today, it is a mark of how your Lordships’ House can contribute to legislation that we have them before us today. It is a shame they could not have been incorporated at an earlier stage, because it is late now to debate such detailed proposals. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope she will, as she always does, take the amendments seriously and tell us what the Government are going to do when they consider them.

Noble Lords would have received the excellent briefing, as I did this morning, from the National Residential Landlords Association. It says that “it is more critical than ever, in the context of the Government’s Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill” that the building safety remediation scheme “is implemented without further delay to resolve the failings of the Building Safety Act’s leaseholder protections”. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said that he is not particular precious about this structure but, if we do not have it, what will the Government put in its place to do that?

We are now seven years on from the dreadful tragedy at Grenfell. It is shameful that so many leaseholders are still living with the fear of fire risks and the unbelievable pressure from the uncertainty around the financial commitments that they will face for their building remediation. It is the most terrible indictment of this Government’s failure to recognise the unconscionable impact on the lives of those affected, let alone the issues raised so many times in this Chamber of those who live in non-qualifying buildings but, nevertheless, have the leasehold sword of Damocles hanging over them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, already mentioned the excoriating article in the Times this weekend. Martina Lees gives an incredibly thorough and well-researched account of the impact of the cladding scandal. Her investigation points out that

“15,000 residents have been forced to leave homes due to fire or fire safety defects”,

and that escalated last year with the evacuation of at least 21 buildings. She also says:

“Despite £9.1 billion of government grants being set aside to help fix homes, only £2.1 billion has been spent. The building safety crisis has trapped 700,000 people in dangerous homes and left almost three million owners with flats they cannot sell. Almost all are properties built or refurbished since 2000, with defects such as flammable cladding systems, combustible balconies and faulty fire barriers”.


I am familiar with faulty fire barriers from Vista Tower in Stevenage. She also points to government manipulation of figures, in that they

“cite a total of 4,329 buildings or 248,000 flats over 11 metres high with unsafe cladding. Of these, 23 per cent have been fixed”.

However, as Ms Lees points out,

“previous government data added up to 375,000 flats over 11m, making the number fixed just 8 per cent. The new total excludes more than 1,000 buildings where the developer must pay for repairs but does not know whether work is needed. It also precludes hundreds of blocks that did not get taxpayer help because they had the wrong type of fire risks … or were deemed below 18m … It leaves out up to 7,283 mid-rise buildings that the government had previously estimated to be unsafe”.

I am sure that the Minister will tell us that she does not respond to press stories in the Chamber, but the headline issues raised here are that affected leaseholders continue to endure this misery, with some having to pay rent for properties that they have been evacuated to, on top of the thousands of pounds of service charges that they face. Amendments in this group would at least provide some longer-term solutions to these issues.

My Amendment 103 seeks to recognise that financial pressure and ensure that there is at least a cap on the charges that leaseholders are expected to bear. Our preference going forward would be that developers are held ultimately accountable for any fire or other safety defect remediation in the buildings. In future, we hope that even greater consideration is given to how that might be achieved.

We also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foster; it is surprising only in that it is not already the case that buildings with electrical defects cannot be sold. If that is the case, surely this should be urgently rectified through the building regulations regime. I hope that we do not have to wait another two years to implement that.

Amendment 101 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young, although he did not speak to it. It seeks to impose a deadline of June 2027 for remediation of fire safety defects. That is not an unreasonable target, as it would mean that an entire decade had passed since the Grenfell tragedy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made a very powerful case for the unintended consequence of the removal of the Section 24 manager. Her amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey, seek to improve accountability. As this is one of the stated aims of the Bill, we look forward to the Minister’s response to their proposals.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their various amendments on building safety and for the debate. I will respond to the amendments in turn.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for his amendments relating to a building trustee. Amendment 82C requires some buildings to have a building trustee, while Amendments 82D to 82M cover the process of appointment, duties, rights to information and how these trustees will be funded. The building safety trustee will either replace or complement the functions carried out by the landlord or a managing agent. I fully agree with the view that landlords and managing agents must manage and maintain buildings for which they are responsible and provide a good-quality service to tenants. However, I believe that this proposal would create additional complexity with little relative gain. The proposed mechanisms for funding these trustees increase the risk of pushing more landlords into escheat and it is hard to see how the levy proposals can be delivered. Secondly, we consider that there are better ways to deliver the desired outcome. As I have previously mentioned, we are bringing measures forward in the Bill that will drive up the accountability of landlords and their agents, so we do not agree with the noble Earl’s amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, for his amendment, which seeks to improve electrical safety standards in buildings by identifying whether there is an electrical defect prior to sale, and for his continued interest in this very important issue for housing safety. This amendment would require a specified person to acquire an electrical installation condition report or electrical installation certificate prior to marketing the property, unless it is being sold for demolition or a full electrical rewire has been completed in the last five years. This is an important issue; we know that improving electrical safety is paramount to helping prevent fires and making sure that occupants feel safe in their homes.

As the noble Lord said, the Government have already taken firm action in the private rented sector by requiring PRS landlords to acquire an EICR at least every five years and to organise remediation works where necessary. We have also consulted on equivalent electrical safety standards in the social housing sector through our 2022 consultation and call for evidence. Here, we examined proposals to require social landlords to obtain an EICR for their rental tenants at least every five years and then to carry out remedial works within a set timescale. Our call for evidence also explored extending the proposed requirements to owner-occupier leaseholders within social housing blocks, so that the whole block is subject to these increased standards. We are aware of the noble Lord’s concerns about the sector that we have not yet hit—the owner-occupied sector. The Government are still considering responses to the consultation and the call for evidence, and we will update this House in due course.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, for their Amendments 104 and 105B—I will also speak to Amendment 98, although my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is not here—relating to changes of the definition of accountable persons under Section 72 of the Building Safety Act 2022 and other changes protecting the position of managers appointed under Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

I trust that noble Lords will understand that the Government cannot accept the proposed amendments. First, defining a Section 24 manager as an accountable person would move financial and criminal liabilities away from the existing accountable person to the Section 24 manager. It was the intent of the Building Safety Act that financial and criminal responsibilities for certain aspects of maintaining the building should always remain with the accountable person, and the accountable persons cannot delegate this responsibility to a third party. As drafted, the amendments could also mean that Section 24 managers would not be able to recover funds from the accountable person for the incidents of remediation works. I assure noble Lords that the Government are looking closely at this issue and at options to ensure that Section 24 managers can take forward building safety duties and get funding, where needed, from the accountable persons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

In the interests of time, I shall be very brief. I agree with much that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and, of course, by the noble Lord, Lord Best, who has, as always, put his finger right on the key issues with his considerable expertise. We look forward to the task force report he mentioned. Successive Governments have, quite rightly, promoted downsizing: the freeing up of a house for families who desperately need a larger family property. However, we have not done anything like enough to investigate the state of retirement housing in this country and certainly not yet got policies right.

Many of the problems in the retirement housing sector have already been mentioned: high service charges and management fees actually hit elderly residents hardest. They are also suffering withdrawal or reduction of the in-house resident manager, who is frequently now off-site. Their property is more difficult to sell because prospective buyers are obviously a smaller target group, but mainly because of the so-called exit fees or event fees charged when the house is sold. So people can find themselves in a position where a retiree’s heirs are locked in to paying for the flat years after their parent has died, because they simply cannot sell it. Ultimately, all this is related to the iniquities of leasehold tenure, which should and must be abolished.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that this will not finally be resolved until we get rid of this leasehold regime. Some of the most heart-rending cases I dealt with as a councillor were from older leaseholders, often on fixed incomes and subject to the most extraordinary hikes in service charges, ground rents and all sorts of other charges that were imposed on them. I have cited cases in previous debates in your Lordships’ House. The experience of the 90 year-old cited by my noble friend Lord Khan earlier today was from Hitchin in my local area.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

The noble Lord has hit on a point; in some estates, you build one building that might just meet the requirements, and then more and more are built, and it expands the problem. I agree with a lot of what he said. I was trying to point out that we tend to say it is all on the developers, but I think this is a systemic failure of a series of accountable people. That is what I am trying to say.

Ultimately, I am saying that, sadly for democracy, this is yet another state failure—like WASPI, blood contamination and Windrush, to name but a few. The harsh reality is that the impact of this is felt every day by some people, and is growing: when a leaseholder decides that they want to reinsure or somebody decides that they want to sell, suddenly they are faced with, “Wow, I didn’t realise that there was all of this”. Therefore, the number of people affected is actually growing.

I will end on what my noble friend Lady Pinnock always says: leaseholders have done nothing wrong and everything right. Excellent campaigning from groups such as End Our Cladding Scandal and the non-qualifying leaseholders group has helped us achieve the progress we have made on remediation support. We owe it to them to keep pressing the Government on making sure that all leaseholders are protected from the costs of a situation they did absolutely nothing to cause.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my tribute on the sad and sudden passing of Lord Stunell. We worked very closely with him on the levelling-up Bill, and he was such a great asset during the passage of that Bill. Looking at his record over the years, his was a life dedicated to public service, to both national and local government. I hope the noble Baroness will take our condolences back to the Liberal Democrat group, and we will pass them on to his family as well.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is right to call this issue a sorry tale of shame. It is clear from the number of building safety amendments in this group and this Bill, and previously in the levelling-up Bill, that there appears from our debates to be a cross-party consensus from most of us, except the Government Front Bench, of such deep dissatisfaction with building safety in general and the glacial progress on remediation in particular. It was carefully calculated in the recent Times article by Martina Lees, referred to earlier, to show that only 8% of buildings in need have been remedied, not the 21% that the Government claim, and which was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln.

As important is the huge number of non-qualifying leaseholders whose dreams of property ownership have turned to nightmares, as the horror of their uncertain financial position, the escalating costs of remediation and the impossibility of selling homes—I have seen evidence of this, as valuers are currently placing values at zero or negative—snatch away their aspirations and leave behind only extreme anxiety. Numbers vary, but the Times estimates the number of affected homes to be up to 1.5 million and, as other noble Lords have said, upwards of 4 million people are affected.

An excellent briefing from the National Residential Landlords Association points out that data remains lacking and estimates that there are approximately 1.3 million leaseholders in buildings less than 11 metres in height and 400,000 leaseholders, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, in high-rise buildings who are non-qualifying because of other eligibility criteria. Many leaseholders are unaware of their non-qualifying status or are alerted to it only when they receive an invoice for remediation works or attempt to sell their property. It is important to remember that many leaseholders are understandably reluctant to speak out on this issue for fear of further devaluing what they thought was going to be a very valuable property asset.

The scale of this problem is eye-watering. I agree with comments made previously by Members of your Lordships’ House that, unless this is addressed urgently, as more and more leaseholders discover their liability, another enormous injustice scandal will unravel, which will scar whole generations of home owners. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to the fact that this will escalate over time to the detriment of freeholders and leaseholders, but with the balance of personal financial risk sitting with leaseholders.

The system the Government put in place, which was subject to an update in your Lordships’ House at the end of March, may have made some progress, but as a spokesperson for Grenfell United said:

“Government’s shockingly slow progress towards remediation shows a complete lack of political will to keep people safe in their own homes”.


Giles Grover, of the excellent group End Our Cladding Scandal said:

“The majority of unsafe buildings across the country still don’t have plans in place to fix all issues”.


The 7,283 mid-rise buildings that the Government have estimated to be unsafe are missing from any plan for remediation as they are deemed non-qualifying, and the unbearable pressure of remediation is falling on the ordinary people who make these flats their homes. While the Government have brought forward legislation and statutory instruments to deal with this situation, progress has been slow because issues are being dealt with piecemeal as they arise. Even when legislation has been considered, such as the Building Safety Act 2022, which should have been a comprehensive solution, too often amendments were rejected with serious impacts and consequences for leaseholders only now becoming more apparent.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, proposes a comprehensive and detailed framework to encompass the whole situation around building safety remediation that would give more structure to the current piecemeal approach. While I understand that the level of detail that he proposes in this scheme will almost certainly not be greeted by the Minister with the wholehearted approval that it probably deserves, I hope the principle of having such a framework in place and the thorough approach set out by the noble Earl will at least be a matter for reflection and future consideration as the Bill progresses.

Amendments 96 and 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, his Amendments 99 and 100, to which I have added my name, and Amendments 105E and 105F, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, are aimed at ending the iniquitous distinction between qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders. We cannot simply allow the nightmare that many non-qualifying leaseholders are enduring to continue.

We totally support the aim of Amendment 102, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in terms of holding the Government to account for the building safety remediation programme. The reporting mechanisms so far do not appear to have accelerated progress on remediation, although it has to be said that the bringing to justice of some of the worst developer offenders, such as those involved with Vista Tower in Stevenage, is welcome. I hope the Government will accept this amendment and bring regular updates before your Lordships’ House, but it would be even better if there could be target dates for outstanding work to be completed. The fact that remediation has dragged on for so many years is a cause of great frustration, anxiety and financial hardship to those affected. Do the Government have a view about a projected end date for these works to be completed? A deadline, even if it is not met by everyone involved, is great for concentrating the minds of those involved in remediation.

In response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is not just developers who are responsible for this issue. But a big problem here has been the deregulation of the building control function, taking it away from local authorities and allowing developers to pick and choose who their building control inspectors will be. That has been greatly responsible for some of these issues.

Our Amendment 105 is simple and straightforward in its aim. It would bring the beleaguered non-qualified leaseholders, who are in desperate need of remedies for their building defects, within the remit of the Building Safety Act 2022. Surely, if we are concerned about ensuring that people feel safe and are safe in their homes, we can all support that. It remains our position that it should not be the responsibility of leaseholders to suffer the financial consequences of defective building. Amendment 105C in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has a similar aim.

I support my noble friend Lord Rooker in his campaign to highlight the danger of—I was going to call them electricity surges, but I had better not now because I will get into trouble with him—neutral current diversion. I want to come back to the case that Martina Lees quoted of Viv Sharma and his Ukrainian wife Julia, who had to leave their nine-storey block when the fire service deemed it unsafe. It had more than 17 defects, caused by the original developers, which should never have been approved by building control. They have been offered less for their property than they bought it for 15 years ago, and they have had to pay for temporary accommodation. Julia has said:

“I’m now 50. How am I supposed to rebuild my life?”


That situation—which is morally wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said—remains in place. Such situations should have been remedied by the Building Safety Act but were not. We now have another opportunity to put things right, so I hope the Government will do so by accepting the amendments before us today.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Baroness Scott of Bybrook) (Con)]

My Lords, I first add my tribute to Andrew, Lord Stunell. I have sat opposite him for many hours in this Chamber and in Committee, being challenged by him in a detailed but always good-humoured way. I am going to miss him. I did not know where he was this week to begin with, and I asked questions. He will be sorely missed, particularly on the issues that we talk about as a group of Peers. I send his family, friends and colleagues our best wishes. May he rest in peace.

I thank noble Lords for the amendments on building safety and for this thoughtful debate. It is an important issue. I will take all the amendments in turn and put the Government’s view. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for Amendments 93B and 107. Their aims were debated extensively during the passage of the Building Safety Act 2022 and the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. I thank the noble Earl for his years of important campaigning on building safety, and for tabling these amendments again and speaking to them in such a detailed way. We continue to consider his arguments and are always willing to listen carefully to the ways in which we could improve the current regime. That is why the Government tabled several clauses in the other place to clarify and extend the protections in some particular areas of this Act.

However, I reiterate that implementing a new building safety remediation scheme would reverse what has been achieved by the regulatory regime set out in the Building Safety Act. Creating a system which mirrored the existing regime would delay essential remediation already being carried out. It would also create uncertainty for leaseholders across the country. The responsible actors scheme, the developer remediation contract, remediation orders and remediation contribution orders are already delivering many of the noble Earl’s objectives, requiring developers to fix problems that they have caused.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to jump in front of my Front Bench, but this is not a Bill that I have followed in detail. I did not take part in the Second Reading, and I have not taken part so far in Committee, but I was in the House this afternoon, and that is why I am standing up to very briefly address your Lordships on Amendment 94, which should be fully supported. I declare a personal interest, and your Lordships will see how I can link that to supporting this amendment. My wife and I are both freeholders and leaseholders of five flats, which are in an adjacent house to our own house. We personally manage them and know all the tenants well, and we try to deal with all their needs and circumstances, but the time will come when we have to sell. It is that stage that I am worried about, to ensure that these leaseholds are properly managed under the auspices of the regulator.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate and to hear from such eminent experience across the Committee on this issue. On one of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, about how far back this goes: one of my very first jobs in the early 1970s was at an estate agent. It was a family business run by somebody who had trained as a journalist and had a career in journalism, but he did, at least in that case, have the grace to train as a chartered surveyor as he carried on his business as an estate agent. You would have thought that things would have changed a bit over the subsequent years—it is quite a long time ago now—and it is ridiculous that it can still happen that people with little experience or qualification can be in charge of huge sums of other people’s money and property, and I hope that we can move matters on, at least in that respect.