Leaseholders: Management Companies

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government welcome the ongoing work being undertaken by the industry, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for the work she has done with her group on codes of practice. We have said that we will consider any code produced by her steering group, and come back to the House.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, the Competition and Markets Authority, in a recent report, was very concerned about the increasing practice of major housebuilders charging all the residents on new estates for common amenities such as roads, lighting and playgrounds, services traditionally provided by local authorities and paid for by council tax. Is the Minister confident that the measures in the Bill will ensure that prospective residents will be aware of the way that their new estate will be managed and the actual costs and services they will have to pay for before they buy? Does she agree with me that there is little justification for these residents to have to pay twice?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Through the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill the Government are legislating to make sure that freehold home owners who pay estate rent charges have the right to challenge the reasonableness, and to go to a tribunal to appoint a manager to manage the provision of those services, along with the transparency that they will also have in those charges. We are also carefully considering the response to and the recommendations of the CMA report published in February.

Renters (Reform) Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I declare my interest as a member of the cohort of Local Government Association vice-presidents. This has been an interesting, informed and wide-ranging debate. Noble Lords have shown their different expertise, in the time-honoured tradition of this Chamber. It is clear that the Bill has given us all food for thought and that we will have our work cut out during its passage. It is also clear that noble Lords have some serious concerns and that views are somewhat polarised.

The state of the private rented sector was clearly outlined by the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Truscott, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, so noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will not go into detail. But the bottom line is clear: there is a significant shortfall in the availability of homes for private rent. Rightmove data—nobody has quoted this, so I will go with it—tells us that the number of available rental properties is 26% below 2019 levels, and the number of people looking for a rental home is 54% above 2019 levels. Staggeringly, some 50,000 properties are needed to bring the supply back up to pre-pandemic levels. Yet, at the same time, agents are receiving three times as many inquiries about every home available to rent. This leads to a rationing of a scarce and precious resource, which one agent described to me recently as a “beauty parade”. Landlords can now pick the best tenants—and we all know who they are and, more importantly, who they are not.

As my noble friend Lady Pinnock and the noble Lord, Lord Best, said passionately, the real issue at the heart of this shortage is the lack of homes for social rent. What is noticeable about all the charities lobbying us about the Bill is their commendable protection of the most vulnerable in society: the elderly, those suffering domestic abuse, families on low incomes and those who need additional support to get and keep their lives on track, as well as, lately, students, who clearly feel that the Bill turns them into second-rate tenants denied the rights of other tenants. Excepting students, 10 or 15 years ago all those groups of people would have been living in social housing, with a landlord who would give them not only stability through security of tenure but additional support if needed.

Let us turn to the detail of the Bill. This is a selective gallop around the course to show our areas of concern on these Benches, and where we will be working across the House to try to persuade the Government to make some changes. To the Minister I would say, while I acknowledge that there are good aspects, and some very good aspects, I shall not be mentioning those.

The big one is the non-abolition of Section 21, which is the cruellest and biggest disappointment in the Bill for some of us, for sure. So much has already been said most ably by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and others. We know that Citizens Advice has seen significant increases in those seeking help with Section 21 evictions and facing homelessness, and that the numbers being served Section 21 notices have risen. We know that the number of families in temporary accommodation is rising month on month, and that those costs are spiralling, causing serious issues with the budgets of some councils. Of course, this has ultimately led to an increase in the number of homeless people on our streets. On what basis is that delay truly justified? We will be seeking to ensure that the Government put a date for ending Section 21 in the Bill, which should be no later than six months after Royal Assent. That is optimistic, you might say. Perhaps, but there is hope. We welcome the Labour Party’s announcement that it would introduce this on its first day in government.

The new tenancy regime was broadly welcomed by all stakeholders when the Bill was introduced in the other place, but I note today that the debate on the abolition of fixed-term tenancies will certainly exercise us in Committee. However, we have concerns about the government amendment whereby tenants cannot give notice until they have been in the property for four months. We understand that landlords will want to know that they get six months from each tenancy and, as the noble Lord opposite said, that tenants will want security. But things happen and circumstances change, and sometimes the property is not all that it should be.

It is worth pointing out that the present market conditions and the stresses of finding and funding a tenancy mean that a tenant will not usually give notice unless something is seriously wrong, either with the property or with themselves or their family. Most renters want that security of tenure, so they do not want to move unless forced to, as it costs them, as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said, around £1,700, according to figures from Generation Rent. We believe that it should be possible to make compassionate exceptions in cases of fleeing domestic violence, or illness or death, for example, as mentioned by several noble Lords. I was heartened by the Minister’s comments in her introduction.

In lieu of the abolition of Section 21, Section 8 will contain the grounds for terminating a tenancy, and those grounds have been extended in the Bill. We have concerns, particularly about grounds 1 and 1A, and landlords evicting a tenant if they wish to move one of their family into the home or sell it. Both are entirely reasonable scenarios, but the Bill as it stands means that a tenant can be out after six months. We would seek to extend that period, I hope to a year. We are concerned that these two grounds will be used in much the same way as Section 21, because of the very low burden of proof on the landlord. Who do we think will be checking that the home is sold, or that a family member has moved in? What will be in place to prevent landlords gaming the system? We will support amendments requiring landlords to prove the use of those grounds. We note that the Bill provides for a three-month ban on landlords letting the property following the use of these grounds, but that simply is not long enough to disincentivise its use.

Whether the Government will agree to a longer protected period or not, we believe that the notice period for eviction under grounds 1 and 1A should be extended to at least four months to give a little more time to sort a new place to live. Shelter has said that, under the present circumstances, it takes 40% of renters with families longer than two months to find a home. We fear that, without this extension, even more renters will be forced into homelessness—so the burden on councils increases, not to mention the very human cost. I remind the House of the letters signed by more than 100 council leaders asking for a similar extension period because of the rising costs of temporary accommodation and the lack of suitable properties. We hope the Government will think again on this.

Unfortunately, the dire situation in the courts, as very well amplified by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has led to this back-pedalling. It is true that the length of time a landlord currently waits to get a court hearing varies, with the mean time being seven months. We agree that this is far too long, but we do not accept that this should lead to a delay in abolishing Section 21; rather, the Government must and should be investing in the courts and, in particular, housing legal aid. The situation regarding access to legal aid is particularly poor in rural areas. The Law Society has drawn attention to this, stating that almost 44% of the population of England and Wales do not have a housing legal aid provider in their area.

We are concerned that, while the Bill seeks to introduce stronger powers to evict anti-social tenants who are persistently disruptive—we completely agree with that—the definitions are not suitably defined and appear too subjective or open to abuse. There are also serious issues regarding victims of domestic abuse where such abuse is regularly mistaken and reported as ASB. These need to be listened to and taken seriously. We cannot just ignore the unintended consequences of this Bill on such a group—remembering that, on average, two women a week are killed by a former or current partner. On this, I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, said in her excellent contribution.

It is good to see that the Bill will make it illegal to have blanket bans on renting to tenants on benefits and those with children. Let me say to the noble Lord opposite, I do not see what is in this Bill that could possibly make a landlord not want to rent to a family. Perhaps he can explain it to me afterwards.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I would be happy to speak to the noble Baroness afterwards.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

This will hopefully end that discrimination towards—yet again—the most vulnerable.

We would, however, urge the Government to look at several other practices where discrimination occurs. If a landlord insists on several months’ rent up front—and they do—that disadvantages many people for obvious reasons. Likewise, on the use of a guarantor, not everyone has family or friends willing or able to act as a guarantor. Both these measures in effect marginalise the less well off.

On rent rises, we feel that the Bill does not go far enough. The proposed annual limit of one rent rise is positive, but it still gives no guarantee as to how much the rent could rise, and the process to challenge an unfair rent rise is complex and lengthy. I was concerned by the statement that tenants could find themselves in a position where the First-tier Tribunal could say that the rent is worth more. That felt like a bit of a veiled threat that this would act as a deterrent to challenge a rent rise. Surely, to link increases to CPI or median wage growth would be fairer and transparent, and would obviate the need to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal at all.

We cannot escape the fact that the real issue is lack of supply. We know that much supply has been lost to short-term lets, which was expanded on very well by the noble Lord, Lord Truscott. There are no incentives in this Bill for landlords to return to long-term rentals—as opposed to the damaging overprovision, in some areas such as Cornwall, Cumbria and other tourist spots, of the more lucrative Airbnb. These should include making the playing field level between the two tenures using taxation, regulation and health and safety requirements.

There is much more to say and time to say it in detail at later stages, but I end by reinforcing the words from my noble friend Lady Pinnock and others regarding the role of local authorities in making this Bill work. As things stand now, they cannot do the job that we or they want them to do. These additional demands will only make things worse. The fact that the Bill—at last—expects the private rented sector to meet the decent homes standard and has given some additional powers to councils will come to nothing without the resources to do the job properly. Likewise, extending the homeless duty on councils sounds admirable, but some councils are barely coping now.

Finally, we do not feel that the Bill as it stands has rebalanced the relationship between landlord and tenant. It still feels to us like the landlords have the upper hand, which is perhaps why, in their briefing, they wish to see the Bill passed as soon as possible, and why the Renters Reform Coalition has branded it a failure.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 92 on behalf of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. This new clause would ensure that leases on new flats included a requirement to establish and operate a residents’ management company responsible for all service charge matters, with each leaseholder given a share. The amendment has dual purposes. It would remedy two significant current flaws in the leasehold system that the Bill does not address, and it would provide a step forward to commonhold, without doing so in a piecemeal way.

I turn to the current flaws. First, unless leaseholders in blocks of flats acquire the right to manage, collectively enfranchise and then establish a residents’ management company, or buy a property in a development where a residents’ management company has already been set up, they have no control whatever over how their money is spent. This is despite having to pay all the costs to maintain and manage their buildings. Secondly, the rights that leaseholders do have to exercise control over how their buildings are managed—whether through a tribunal, the appointment of a manager or the right to manage—are locked behind difficult and often costly legal processes to which many will not have access.

Our amendment would address both these problems by requiring that when a new residential block of flats was constructed and its units sold the development should be a three-way lease between the freeholder, the leaseholder and the new residents’ management company. Each leaseholder in the block would then own a share of the residents’ management company, and it would be under their exclusive control, giving them full responsibility for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance and the cost of managing their building. This would give them control over how their money was spent. This ability to influence the management of their building would come at no additional cost.

The Minister will no doubt say that our amendment leaves no space either for limited cases in which a mandatory residents’ management company is not appropriate or where leaseholders simply do not want this responsibility. The Government have said many times that they are keen to give more home owners control over the management of their buildings, and we welcome that the Bill is moving in the right direction. Would it not make sense to have leaseholder management of their buildings to be the default?

Where mandatory residents’ management companies are not appropriate, could the Government not put forward such cases to be incorporated as exceptions? In the case of leaseholders not wanting to be compelled to manage their buildings, could there not be a provision for leaseholders to use the power of the management company to appoint a manager or simply return management to the freeholder? I would be keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on these alternative options.

The real importance of this clause, however, comes from it being a key way of laying the groundwork for a future where commonhold is the default and leasehold becomes obsolete. It would help to create a cohort of leaseholders who have experience in running their buildings, as they would under a commonhold arrangement, even if that experience is limited both in time and the extent to which they have carried it out.

This is certainly not a perfect solution. It would do little for leaseholders who have already purchased their flats and do not currently have a residents’ management company. We need other solutions, building on measures already in the Bill to address the challenges they will continue to face. I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move Amendment 92.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and explained so well by the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. The right to manage was first introduced in the leasehold reform Act of 2002. From the start, it was, as the noble Lord said, intended as a simple and cost-effective alternative to collective enfranchisement, but, despite the happy intentions of that Act, the reality was quite different. Take-up has not been what we would all have hoped for or expected, because the right to manage has proved incredibly problematic in practice.

These problems culminated in the Law Commission’s final report in 2020—time has marched on—on exercising the right to manage. It summarises the difficulties as follows:

“The ‘simple’ RTM process envisaged in the original consultation which led to the 2002 Act has not come to pass. The requirement for strict compliance with the statutory procedures, such as the service of certain notices on particular parties, can be unforgiving to leaseholders. In many cases, small mistakes made by the RTM company have afforded landlords opportunities to frustrate or delay otherwise valid claims. The Court of Appeal has noted that while the procedures ‘should be as simple as possible to reduce the potential for challenges by an obstructive landlord’, in fact they ‘contain traps for the unwary’”.


This is not a good advert for anyone seeking to exercise the right to manage, which we believe is fundamental to the change we need. The Law Commission subsequently made 101 recommendations, of which the then Government adopted two.

Whole swathes of actions could be happening to make this process simpler and to encourage residents to take this up. We have no doubt that the process is not an easy one and that the provisions in the Bill as it stands are actually quite limited. The uplift from 25% to 50% is welcome, as are the beneficial changes in cost provision, and minor changes to courts and tribunals. They are all positive but underwhelming—a far cry from the 101 recommendations.

In debates throughout the course of the Bill we have heard numerous instances of excessive charges and unfair practices, from both Houses. The Law Commission summed it up best when it said that

“the landlord and leaseholder have opposing financial interests—generally speaking, any financial gain for the landlord will be at the expense of the leaseholder, and vice versa …Their interests are diametrically opposed, and consensus will be impossible to achieve”.

This amendment is quite realistic: it is starting only with new build, but what it does is symbolic, in that it draws a line under the past and clearly points the way forward. Noble Lords will notice that I am not wearing rose-coloured spectacles, and we are not saying that the residents’ right to manage will be any easier—but it will be fairer. Those paying the bills control the bills and can remove any poorly performing providers. We believe that a leaseholder-controlled resident management company with an elected board, accountable to all leaseholders, is a far more democratic arrangement than one middleman freeholder controlling block management, spending leaseholders’ money freely and not involving them in the decision-making processes. It is fundamentally a better way to go, and there seems to be widespread support for it.

We support this amendment because we believe that it is a step in the right direction and could reinvigorate right to manage with the right support. It seems that the Government are finding reasons not to do something instead of working to enable something better to happen.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, for speaking to Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and I am grateful for both contributions in this brief discussion.

The amendment seeks to require the establishment of leaseholder-owned management companies for all leasehold flats. I understand the intention to ensure that, by default, all leaseholders of new flats would be responsible for the management of their buildings. The Government support the desire to give more home owners control over the management of their buildings. This Bill is intended to do just that, and will make it cheaper and easier for more leaseholders to own and manage their homes should they wish to.

In some cases, developers have voluntarily set up residents’ management companies to transfer management responsibility to leaseholders. We welcome this, and encourage the industry to adopt this model where appropriate. However, we believe that the best way in which to achieve resident-led management for new buildings is not for government to mandate change to leasehold but to reinvigorate and improve the uptake of commonhold. Commonhold does not require involvement from a third party.

We will reinvigorate commonhold so that it is a genuine alternative to leasehold for new flats. However, there are limitations in the current legal design of commonhold which can limit its use in some settings. We must get any changes right, and preparing the market for the widespread uptake of commonhold will take time. Existing leaseholders can already use the right to manage to take over management responsibility for their building. This is an established, no-fault right that allows leaseholders to take over management responsibility when a majority of leaseholders wish to do so.

There are some situations where the right to manage is not available because leaseholder-led management is not considered appropriate—for example, in largely commercial buildings or where there are social tenants. We believe that it would not be appropriate to apply a blanket provision requiring residents’ management companies for all new buildings without considering where equivalent protections should apply.

Further practical challenges include determining at what point during development and the sale of units management responsibility would be transferred; what position the freeholder would have in the management company if they retained non-residential units or those on short leases; and what protections would be required should leaseholders not wish to take up management responsibilities. Answering these questions would require significant additional consideration—consideration that is ultimately unnecessary because a reinvigorated commonhold is the answer for new buildings, and the right to manage for existing leaseholders makes sure that home owners can already control the management of their building.

--- Later in debate ---

The electrical engineers tell me, and Mr Watts wrote, that one reason that training and guidance have been poor is the “economical compromise” by industry stakeholders. There we have it. The small number of NCDs means that the DNO and HSE keep quiet and pay up when they occur—but what about the hundreds of thousands of people living in these unprotected high-rise blocks? Leaving aside the cladding and delays—it must be done quickly—they are vulnerable to neutral current diversions. Nobody knows, nobody is testing and nobody is checking—well, I think they should be testing and checking.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, before I get into the detail of these amendments, I will comment on some significant absences from our Benches. First, my noble friend Lady Pinnock is up for re-election tomorrow. She has been a passionate and doughty fighter from the beginning and throughout this tragic journey.

The second absence, as has already been mentioned, is due to the recent shocking death of Lord Stunell. His expertise and attention to detail, often peppered with a gentle sense of humour, were a perfect foil to my noble friend Lady Pinnock: they worked well together. We have missed him significantly during the passage of this Bill; I am truly a poor sub from the bench.

In truth, the significant contributions from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, are grounded in solid evidence and reality. We support and endorse them and I have no intention of going anywhere near the detail that they described. I admit openly that I have learned a lot.

All the amendments in this group relate to building safety and to the fallout of the Building Safety Bill and the gaps that were created as a result of it. Noble Lords have outlined them very well and I am certain that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, will too.

After the tragic events at Grenfell Tower in 2017, in which 72 people lost their lives, it became clear that millions of leaseholders would need to make their buildings safe and habitable. The campaign group End Our Cladding Scandal—some of its members are here today—estimates that as many as 3 million leaseholders are caught up in the scandal. That is a huge number of families and people and, if you think of the people who they know, care for and love, you will be talking about considerably more.

The Building Safety Act sought to protect leaseholders from the cost of remediating these safety defects but, as has been amplified, the scheme has a glaring issue: a huge number of affected leaseholders are not included. We support the amendments that are clearly designed to widen that pool—if we do not just say “Let’s do the whole caboodle”.

Estimates included in a briefing from the National Residential Landlords Association suggest that there are approximately 1.3 million leaseholders of buildings less than 11 metres in height who are not able to qualify for support. This is in addition to the 400,000 leaseholders in high-rise buildings who are non-qualifying due to other eligibility criteria, such as, as has been mentioned, the enfranchised leaseholders and leaseholders owning more than three flats. On learning about that a little bit more, it seems to me that this is a travesty. As has been stated by others, these leaseholders are facing eye-watering sums and many are living in unsafe buildings that are unmortgageable, uninsurable and unsellable. That they have been abandoned is unconscionable.

Amendments 93B, 96, 97, 99, 100, 105 and 107 seek, in different ways, to expand the number of leaseholders eligible for remediation support. This is the right thing to do. It is also obvious that some small adjustments can be made to make things better for more: for example, simply looking at the wealth—what is known as the affordability test—or the issues of joint ownership.

Amendment 93B, tabled the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, is very clear that only a building remediation scheme will ensure that all buildings with safety defects undergo remediation, irrespective of ownership or building height. We agree with that. Too many people are falling through the gaps that have emerged post the Building Safety Act. Insurance has already been mentioned, so I will not make any more comments on that.

It seems to us that the pragmatic Amendments 96, 97, 99 and 100 from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, are arguably the neatest way of achieving this aim. They simply amend the Building Safety Act so that these non-qualifying leaseholders are included in the support available to other leaseholders.

Amendment 102, in the name of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, would require the Government to report on progress relating to the building safety remediation. I am sure that she would probably agree with the comments made by the right reverend Prelate. This amendment was drafted in response to concerns raised by End Our Cladding Scandal, namely the speed at which remediation is occurring, alongside the progress in ensuring that leaseholders have access to a robust and independent dispute resolution process, and the fact that not all affected leaseholders are able to access protection.

I note that the Government publish monthly figures relating to the remediation of building safety defects, but there is no clear target for when these works should be completed. It would be appreciated if the Minister could perhaps clarify this. I am reminded of the saying that you do not fatten a pig by simply weighing it. To us, the lack of speed or a plan or any sense of urgency is clearly the impetus behind the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. It seems that no one is holding anyone’s feet to the fire.

The Government also promised a robust and independent resolution process that would allow leaseholders to challenge building assessments or remediation. This has arguably not come to pass, with the process being more ad hoc and without sufficient leaseholder representation. It is vital that leaseholders are able to hold developers to account and ensure that remediation is completed safely, in a timely manner and at good value, but they need more government clout.

There was something mentioned only briefly that I would like to expand on a little. It seems to me that developers are getting all the flak. We all agree that lease- holders are blameless, but developers are not the only party to blame. Many of us still need to be brought to the table, preferably with cash, to provide the funding that will fix the problem. I am talking about product manufacturers, architects and designers, contractors, building control, testing houses and insurers. They all have a part to play and they should all play their part.

I suspect that, when the Grenfell Tower Inquiry reports later this year, the role that successive Governments, to be fair, have played will also be unavoidable. We feel that it is time that the Government really stepped up and gripped this problem comprehensively. They are the ringmaster, after all.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She mentioned a list of people who had a degree of responsibility. One of them, of course, is building control. My experience of building control in local authorities is that they can be extremely pernickety and difficult, and can enforce very high standards. All of us, in our different cities, will have seen examples of absolutely grotesque omissions and failures. But is it not the case that a local authority has a statutory liability, through building control, and that that, in and of itself, could and should be a source of remedy for a person who finds themselves in this position? On top of that, is there not an incentive for a developer, having built a structure and sold on the units, to wind up and move on to a different company to build the next one? We end up with people slipping out of the net entirely.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to offer Green support for this clear, obvious and essential amendment, which already has strong support across the Committee.

I want to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about how both buyers and sellers desperately need confidence and how that confidence is utterly lacking at the moment. A lot of our discussion has focused on the problem of estate management, where there are clear and obviously pressing problems, but to focus a little on sales of properties and the need for some oversight there, I note that, last year, trading standards warned that many agents were not passing on the best offers that they had received from purchasers, as they are legally required to do, because they were getting commission fees from mortgage brokers, solicitors, surveyors and other third parties. They were choosing to go with what would produce a better result for them but a lower price for the seller. The only way that this is generally uncovered is if the would-be buyer who did not succeed in purchasing the property happens to look at the Land Registry sales price, says “but that’s less than I was offered” and creates a fuss. That is a sign of just how utterly cowboy the current situation is without regulation.

A report out yesterday noted that for 34% of the “for sale” stock on some major websites there had been an asking price reduction. People often need to sell for all kinds of reasons—including divorce, bereavement or perhaps because they need more bedrooms for extra children. These are all stressful, difficult situations where delays can cause damage and create uncertainty. We have a cowboy situation out there, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, the people in the industry who want to do the right thing know that there are cowboys out there who are a threat to them. Therefore, the amendment is clearly essential to making our housing sector less of a cowboy environment than it is now.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I too support Amendment 94 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which was so well outlined by him with his usual clarity and reason. It is an amendment that I was determined to put my name to, but its popularity was such that I was too late. However, I listened intently to the informed contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and look forward to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. This will therefore be possibly my shortest and easiest contribution to the Bill, simply saying that, between them, the proposers have nailed this issue with an amendment that should be workable and which we hope that they will take forward on Report.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, listed the broad coalition of support for a regulator and indeed it appears that it is ready to go. This is something which the noble Lord has campaigned on for years. His report was widely accepted and praised for its thoroughness and its remarkably workable plan for the way forward, which he has stated in detail. Interestingly, the recommendations of his working group went much further than this amendment, so the movers of the amendment are being pragmatic and measured because they want to see change now—we support that.

I found the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, on redress, particularly interesting. It reminded us that, currently, regulation in the property sector is voluntary and sanctions are limited. This Bill will not change that enough. Do your Lordships not think it is shocking that anyone can set up a firm from their bedroom and very soon be handling hundreds of thousands of pounds of leaseholders’ and taxpayers’ money while being largely unaccountable to the leaseholders who, on the whole, do not choose them to manage their block or control their service charges? This cannot be right. An individual can set up in business as a property manager without any formal qualifications, experience or even insurance.

It seems shocking that there has been so much good legislation to protect much smaller sums, such as deposits for renters, but nothing to protect leaseholders’ funds. We have regulations and regulators for individuals and companies handling much smaller amounts of people’s money. Leaseholders are usually required by the terms of their lease to make advance payments towards the service charge and to contribute to a sinking fund or reserve fund. These sums can be substantial, especially if major works are planned, which is why we supported the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, earlier in the Bill on consultation on major works. The Federation of Private Residents’ Associations has asserted that there is no other area in the UK in which money is held by a third party that is not regulated—unless somebody can tell me otherwise. The federation suggests that moneys held by unregulated and unprotected third parties may well exceed £1 billion.

If we want to change the behaviour of such property agents, there needs to be a much more professional approach to training and development, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, exemplified well. Mandatory professional standards should be set, along with the oven-ready code of practice.

Even within the sector, the good guys—and there are good ones—do not want the rogues giving them a bad name and tarring everyone with the same brush. It is clear that the Government are procrastinating on this issue, so much so that several years after the report from the noble Lord, Lord Best, very little has happened. The fact that the Government have not taken the opportunity with this Bill to introduce relevant property agent regulations proves that they have probably yielded to the anti-regulation voices among their ranks, despite their acceptance in principle of the case for regulating property agents, which has also been accepted by the majority of interested and affected parties. We are all seeking a solution, and Amendment 94 is certainly worthy of consideration, and we urge the Government to give it that consideration. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and to Report, definitely.

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I have not heard a voice in the Chamber this afternoon against the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Best. It is such a refreshing amendment, it is long awaited, and we have heard, and we all knew, that his report was kicked into the long grass many years ago by the Government, and that is something of a disgrace. Even in the Levelling- up and Regeneration Bill debates last year, this subject was much discussed. We must not overlook that large cohort of hugely responsible and professional property managers—and there are many—but our focus must be on those who fail to adopt high standards, those who knowingly overcharge, those who take discreet commissions, and those in the pockets of clients with dubious standards.

This subject of rogue managing agents has come up again and again in this Bill; the time has come to act. The amendment clearly has strong cross-party support, and we have heard that the Government want to do it in principle. If the Government really want to do something for leasehold occupiers, this is it: simple regulation of property managing agents and other related property advisers; no one to practise without registration; a no-nonsense, strictly monitored and enforced system of effective supervision; and a simple, advertised complaints procedure for the lessees and rigorous monitoring of those complaints. This amendment has my wholehearted support. I hope the Government will adopt it; if not, I hope it is pressed on Report.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th April 2024 Lords Chamber

The financial redress that the amendment would offer would place pressure on managing agents and freeholders to deliver an adequate service to leaseholders and provide a financial incentive for transparency to leaseholders on service charge cost breakdowns. Acting otherwise would lead the managing agent to incur costs. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take back this amendment for consideration.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I am pleased to say the good news is that we are all on the same page in this regard. The noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor of Stevenage and Lady Finn, have set out the context and the evidence for this. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, I too had many meetings in my former role about the fact that this issue affected individuals, whether with regard to roads or, in one particular acrimonious case, to playgrounds. So I think we all know which way we are going.

I shall speak to the amendments in my name and make a few general comments about this whole set-up. Amendments 86 and 91 deal with what we now know as the fleecehold issue. As has been said, we all know exactly what that entails. The commercial substance of the arrangement that is eventually arrived at really is a leasehold. Homeowners are often fleeced by the management company, which charges exorbitant fees for maintenance, and may be unable to force directors to hold annual general meetings or provide proper accounts, which I feel should be a basic right. However, leaseholders do not want to publicise the issue because it will reduce their ability to sell the property when they leave, a matter that has not been touched on. You do not want to tell a potential buyer what they are letting themselves in for, which is why the transparency measures in the Bill are important.

Management companies are often non-profit-making, passing on costs of maintenance to owners of homes, but are controlled by the original developer and outsource maintenance work to businesses connected to that developer. There is a body of evidence showing that that leads to increased costs, as local companies could often do the work far more cheaply. A significant problem is that homeowners do not have the resources to take the company to court or force it to hold meetings or to get competitive quotes for required work. In many cases their conveyancing solicitor was recommended by the developer, so the initial advice given was not truly independent.

Amendment 91 would ensure that residents could take ownership of an estate management company if the company had not provided residents with a copy of its annual budget, invited residents to an annual general meeting or acknowledged correspondence from residents. There are existing provisions that allow leaseholders to gain control of their freehold or the right to manage their own lease, but freeholders are assumed not to need that kind of provision. This amendment seeks to address circumstances where freeholders are trapped in a situation where they are being taken advantage of. Crucially, it would allow them to take control of the assets that are vital for the proper enjoyment of their homes.

I say to the Minister that I note the Government are bringing forward the appointment of a substitute manager, which I think is very similar, beginning in Clause 88. However, the householders in that situation would have to prove to a tribunal that the existing management was at fault, which can be difficult. It is the complexities in getting a substitute manager appointed that my amendment highlights. They may be up against the other side’s lawyer, and it is not unusual for KCs to be brought into tribunals in circumstances like this. It is indeed a fault-based policy, and it is a very complex matter to get redress. You cannot just sack the company if you want to take control with your own residents’ management company. Simply put, the amendment is a short cut to being able to take control without such complexities and is less adversarial.

Similarly, Amendment 86 would mean that services or works that would ordinarily be provided by local authorities were not relevant costs for the purpose of estate management charges. I make no apology for saying that this amendment is our statement of principle; we believe it is a matter of principle. The amendment would prevent freeholders being charged twice, first through council tax and then through their management company, for essential services such as roads and pavements. We are aware that there are significant issues as to how and why this situation has arisen, and we urge the Government to look into it further.

Among the other amendments, I single out Amendment 87 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, which seems entirely sensible. It seeks to ensure that householders are not bailing out private developers for shoddy construction or defective homes. It is not right that someone who has paid a premium for their home is then expected to pay maintenance costs to sort out the mess left by the original developer cutting corners or, in some instances, breaching building regulations.

On the other amendments in this group, the Minister is well aware of the thrust and direction that we are all pushing in. I am aware that the business models for development are predicated on whether or not these assets remain the responsibility of the freeholder, the developer or the local authorities. The arguments for this are very varied, ranging from—and I have heard this said—“Local authorities are strapped for cash and we do not want to maintain these amenities” to “Local authorities are asking for impossible standards that are not set centrally and that will add to our costs”, or “Local authorities set standards that mitigate against creating decent workplaces that people want to live in”. A similar example that I had to deal with was there being no trees on the pavements because the local authority felt that they were too difficult to maintain and added cost for looking after both the pavements and the trees. Who wants to live on an estate with no trees?

We need to return to this issue on Report, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, said—otherwise, we are piling up problems for tomorrow.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, the themes that have been touched on by the three noble Baronesses who have spoken to this group are familiar to me as a professional. They all pivot around these common realm assets—if I can call them that—that are left behind or, at any rate, put into some sort of park mode when the rest of the estate has been built out. These are things that have not been adopted and are placed in the care of an estate management company.

Local authorities may have all sorts of good reasons, within their own scope, for not wanting to adopt novel surfacing, additional lighting, planters or special features. But alongside this there are allied issues because, if they do not adopt, the construction cannot be guaranteed to meet adoption standards—by that I mean roads, drains and all the other things that would normally meet standards that are very often laid down in legislation.

This is an open goal for corner-cutting, which goes on. I cannot tell your Lordships how many times I have been asked to advise on the fact that there are defective drains outside the property, somewhere in the common realm—under the road, common parking areas or landscaped areas—and nobody knows what has happened. It can be not only drains and road construction but engineered embankments, landscaping and ponds: these do not necessarily get constructed to the right standards either, but it can be hugely expensive to try to fix them after the event, and that is where the problem is. The question of just parking them in a management company that then charges whatever it likes goes to the heart of standards, responsibility and the funding of the maintenance of them.

The accountability of management companies seems to be in many instances next to zero. The burden on the freeholders, where the costs charged to them reach that magic figure at which lenders start putting their ears back and question whether they want to lend, results in the sort of lock-in that we well know affects leasehold flats subject to remediation.

I very much support this group of amendments, although they probably need to go further in establishing responsibility and funding. That is something of which the Government really need to take notice, because this is an absolute scandal—not just for the fact that it has gained this moniker of “fleecehold” but because it affects people in their own homes and cannot be allowed to persist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on his high-speed gallop through a large number of his Friday afternoon amendments. They were quite technical, and anyone who managed to keep up with them all deserves a prize. It was very good indeed. I will address one of them, Amendment 78F. It is very short but very important.

Much of this Bill is designed to protect leaseholders from freeholders and their managing agents acting in concert in any attempt to inflate service charges. These in-house relationships are ripe breeding territory for dishonest behaviour and abuse, of which the noble Earl gave an example, in the opaque realm of service charges—something we look forward to being reversed or changed by this Bill. It is a money-making business model, albeit morally and actually dishonest. We should ban any close links of this kind between managing agents and their freehold clients, and inflict suitable penalties that are strong enough, or high enough in financial terms, to be a deterrent. If the Government really want to protect leaseholders, connected relationships giving rise to such potential abuse must be banned.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 77 and make a few brief comments on other amendments. Amendment 77 would allow leaseholders to apply to the appropriate tribunal to ensure that freeholders who do not provide the agreed estate management services and allow a block to become run-down can be subject to a penalty at the sale of the freehold. There is clearly an issue of absent freeholders and little penalty when a managing agent is not appointed or adequate estate management services are not provided. The amendment would create a mechanism by which a penalty could be placed on the enfranchisement value and mean that leaseholders who have suffered from freeholder failures and consequently had to take the step towards acquiring the freehold should pay a lower cost for the collective enfranchisement of that freehold. This would reflect the freeholder’s dereliction of duty if a tribunal deemed it was warranted.

The Bill aims to remove barriers and rebalance legal costs for leaseholders to challenge freeholders at tribunal. Clause 56 addresses the enforcement of freeholders’ duties relating to service charges, and it includes provisions for tenants to make an application to the appropriate tribunal and the measures tribunals may put in place. As such, the amendment would just add to that. As well as having a power to make a landlord pay damages to a tenant for failure to carry out duties related to service charges, a tribunal would also have the power to apply a penalty to the enfranchisement value at the sale of the freehold to leaseholders. It does not seem fair, after having taken action to gain control of the freehold due to an absent freeholder, that leaseholders then have to compensate the freeholder with no penalty for that dereliction of duty. This is a modest amendment that would leave the judgment in the hands of the appropriate tribunal as to whether a penalty was warranted.

On Amendments 67 and 69, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, it is only right that leaseholders with old leases that have fixed service charges can challenge the reasonableness of those fees at tribunal. Evidence of costs being passed on in service charges is evident. This also ties in with Amendment 98D from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.

We on these Benches support Amendment 69. We do not agree with the Government having a power to remove certain landlords from being subject to basic service charge transparency rules; all leaseholders are owed clarity on what they are paying for. We do not understand why that should not be the case.

I turn to Amendment 78 from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. We agree that leaseholders should be fully consulted on major works that they pay for; the noble Baroness showed that some of these costs are eye-watering. We agree with her proposal to restore the major works scheme in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, which was eviscerated by the Daejan ruling by the Supreme Court in 2013, which the noble Baroness mentioned. We agree with the dissenting Lord Wilson in that decision, who said that the majority had subverted the intention of Parliament. It is not right that landlords no longer have to involve leaseholders in the decision-making process. We should use this Bill to at least restore the position to pre-Daejan so that transparency and accountability on major works are increased for leaseholders.

Amendment 78A, from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, would require a landlord who had lost a service charge determination, and who was meant to return the money to the leaseholders, to pay up in two months or else face compound interest. While Section 19(2) of the 1985 Act requires that overcharges be returned to leaseholders, landlords can and do ignore this. The same applies to similar provisions in leases. Where a tribunal has determined that a service charge or portion of it has been excessive, it should be relatively straightforward for leaseholders to get that money back. We on these Benches support that part of the thrust of the amendment—to ensure that landlords are under pressure to account to leaseholders in a timely manner, or otherwise experience financial penalties, as debtors in other parts of our economy do.

I turn to the mighty avalanche of amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. For us, Amendments 78D and 78E stand out. Amendment 78D provides for a new, tighter and more objective test of value for money to replace the current test of “reasonably incurred”, which could be open to a wide range of interpretation—obviously, this is in relation to service group charge costs. Amendment 78E pushes the Government to go further in the entitlement of leaseholders to have more and better information. Given the rationale behind the amendments from the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, we believe it is worth the Government giving them serious consideration.

Finally, although we have not yet heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, we are minded to agree with his amendments, as right-to-manage and residential management companies are thinly capitalised. Unlike big freeholders, they will not have lending facilities, so would be unable to pay legal costs up front to take non-paying leaseholders to tribunal or county court. Right-to-manage and residential management companies are non-trading companies and have nothing except the service charges in their coffers. I look forward to the Minister’s responses.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 67, 69, 76, 78I and 78J, in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Noble Lords across the House have been emailed and briefed in relation to some very troubling real-life examples in the area of service charges—in fact, we heard earlier from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, about an unscrupulous situation.

In the other place, honourable friends have shared some horrific casework examples which clearly expose the unfit and unjust system leaseholders have been subject to. My honourable friend Matthew Pennycook MP, said:

“Soaring service charges are placing an intolerable financial strain on leaseholders and those with shared ownership across the country. Among the main drivers of the eye-watering demands with which many have been served over recent months are staggering rises in buildings insurance premiums and the passing on of significant costs relating to the functioning of the new building safety regime. Given that many leaseholders are being pushed to the very limits of what they can afford, do the Government now accept that the service charge transparency provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill … are not enough, and that Ministers should explore with urgency what further measures could be included to protect leaseholders better from unreasonable charges and give them more control over their buildings?”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/24; col. 636.]

--- Later in debate ---

When will the Government announce the results of the ground rent consultation? There seem to be policy announcements and leaks in the media in relation to ground rent policy, but this has happened without the ground rent consultation even being published. This is severely disappointing, as we are approaching Report in the next few days. How can we possibly scrutinise the consultation now? I look forward to the Minister’s response in addressing the numerous concerns raised in your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, before the noble Baroness takes the Dispatch Box, I apologise to the Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in particular. Due to lots of pieces of paper, I commented on two amendments that are actually in group 4, so I reassure the Committee that I will not be repeating those comments.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise in advance for the length of my response. This is a large group so I might go on for quite a long time. I apologise for that, but I think it is important that I respond to all the amendments.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, who spoke to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. Amendment 67 seeks to give the right to challenge the reasonableness of a service charge to leaseholders who pay a fixed service charge. I recognise that leaseholders who pay fixed service charges do not have the same right to challenge the reasonableness of their service charges as leaseholders who pay a variable service charge. However, there are good reasons for that. The main sectors where fixed service charges exist are the retirement and social housing sectors, where households are often on limited or fixed incomes; certainty over bills is paramount for these homeowners. Leaseholders, especially on low incomes, who pay a fixed service charge have more certainty over the amount of their service charge compared with those who pay a variable service charge. They will know about and understand the level of the charge before they enter into an agreement.

Landlords benefit from not having to consider tribunal applications, but in return they have a clear imperative to provide value for money: if they underestimate the costs, they will have to fund the difference themselves. They will still need to provide the quality of service as set out in the lease since, if they do not, they may be taken to court for breach of that lease.

By giving the right to challenge fixed service charges in a similar way to how variable service charges can be challenged, there would likely be operational and practical challenges. For example, if landlords underestimate costs in one year but overestimate them in another, it is feasible and reasonable to be able to challenge the unreasonableness only in the year when costs are overestimated. It is not proposed to give the landlord an equivalent right to apply to seek to recover the balance of an underestimated cost on the basis that it would be reasonable to do so. There is a possibility that landlords may move to variable service charges, and that could have unintended and undesirable consequences for leaseholders with a fixed income who benefit from the certainty of fixed service charges.

Through the Bill, leaseholders who pay a fixed service charge will be given additional rights. Landlords will be required to provide the minimum prescribed information to all leaseholders. I consider that the additional rights given to leaseholders who pay fixed service charges will allow them to better understand what their service charges pay for, and to hold their landlord to account. I hope that, with that reassurance, the noble Lord will not move the noble Baroness’s amendments.

I thank the noble Lord for Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, which seeks to remove the provision that enables the appropriate authority to exempt certain categories of landlords from the requirement to provide a standardised service charge demand form to the leaseholder. I recognise the importance of all leaseholders receiving sufficient information from their landlord to enable them to understand what they are paying for through their service charge. Requiring landlords to provide leaseholders with a standardised service charge demand form contributes to increased understanding. However, I am aware that there could be instances now or in the future where it is necessary to exempt landlords from that requirement. It could be too costly or disproportionate to expect certain categories of landlords to provide that level of information. As the Minister for Housing mentioned in the other place, one example might be the Tyneside leases.

Prior to any exemptions being agreed, we will consult with stakeholders to determine whether an exemption is justified. I emphasise that the list of exemptions is expected to be small—if it is needed at all, in fact—and full justification will be required for any agreed exemptions. I note the noble Baroness’s concerns but I hope that, with this reassurance, the noble Lord will not move the amendment.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, for Amendment 76, which would create a power for the appropriate authority to prescribe the maximum costs that landlords may pass on to leaseholders for providing information. I recognise that leaseholders can face increasing service charge costs and that not capping costs for providing information could drive landlords to charge unreasonable amounts.

--- Later in debate ---

Some would argue against decriminalisation because that stick leaseholders have as a last resort to force bad landlords to give them information to defend themselves is very important. The Government should support leaseholders in having a strong place to start from.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

I beg to move. Excuse me—I am dyslexic, and procedure is massively hard for me. One day I will get it all right—and all at the same time.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

The problem is evident and not disputed, but the solutions are clearly debatable.

We support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, as we share his concerns. The insurance scheme in the Bill, without the permitted insurance payment being set at something nominal such as £5 or £10 a year, could become another cost centre for freeholders. We know how difficult it is for freeholders, especially on larger developments, to get like-for-like quotes. Often, brokers will not even quote, which makes challenging at tribunal very difficult, especially when the freeholder claims that their fees are for works done and not pure commission. It is good for there to be a backstop in the insurance scheme in the Bill, so that brokers are fairly remunerated, while ensuring that other parties in the distribution chain, including freeholders, are banned from profiteering from the captive leaseholders who pay but do not get to choose the policy.

Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, and signed by my noble friend Lady Pinnock,

“would prohibit landlords from claiming litigation costs from tenants other than under limited circumstances determined by the Secretary of State”.

Clause 60 puts limits on the right of landlords to claim litigation costs from tenants. When the Bill was in the Commons, the Minister said that

“unjust litigation costs should not be incurred”—[Official Report, Commons, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill Committee, 25/1/2024; col. 347.]

by leaseholders—and we agree—but the Bill as drafted does not go far enough in preventing that happening. There will be circumstances in which it is appropriate for leaseholders to bear those costs, but we believe that Amendment 82 makes provision for that. The presumption should be that the costs are not borne by the leaseholder, unless in circumstances specified by the Secretary of State.

My noble friend Lady Pinnock’s Amendment 80 would require the Financial Conduct Authority

“to report on the impact of the provisions in the bill around insurance costs in order to monitor progress on reducing costs passed on to leaseholders”.

I am pleased to say that the Law Society also supports the amendment. Rising insurance premiums have sent service charges soaring in the last few years, mostly due to the costs associated with remediation works following the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire. That means that even the leaseholders who can access funding to help them pay for vital works to their buildings are still paying the price to remedy a problem that they did not cause.

Clause 57 places a limitation on the ability of landlords to charge insurance costs to leaseholders. This is a very welcome step in the right direction. It is essential that this provision works as intended to protect leaseholders from extortionate costs. The Financial Conduct Authority’s report into insurance for multi-occupancy buildings, published in September 2022, found not only that premiums were rising, with mean prices increasing by 125% in the period from 2016 to 2021, but that the level of commission rates for brokers was

“an area of significant concern”,

with eye-watering rates of up to 60% being seen.

The FCA also found that brokers were sharing commission with the freeholder or the property management agent, meaning that they were unfairly profiting from leaseholders. Commission—and not cover or costs—was therefore the driving factor in the choice of policy. The provisions in the Bill to limit the ability of landlords to charge insurance costs to leaseholders, alongside the Bill’s increased transparency requirement, should—one hopes—go a long way to protect leaseholders. We also note that as of 1 January this year, the regulator will force insurance firms to act in leaseholders’ best interests and to treat them as a customer when designing products. They will be banned from recommending an insurance policy based on commission or remuneration level. It is clearly very early days, but we hope to see some improvement from that.

There is, of course, the argument that the Government should go further. A cap on service charges for leaseholds, especially at a fixed amount rather than as a percentage, has been suggested as a way to properly protect leaseholders from unreasonable costs. We would, therefore, want to place a requirement on the FCA, whose thorough report provided the impetus for these provisions, to assess whether it has had an impact in reducing costs for leaseholders and preventing freeholders and managing agents profiting off them. We hope that the provisions of the Bill will provide the necessary relief for leaseholders, who are clearly facing exorbitant costs. It will, however, be essential that the Government keep a close eye on the impact of Clause 57 and take action if it is not going far enough.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, does have some amendments in this group—I looked very worriedly at this point. On the surface, they appear to be about making the process simpler and easier, which is probably a good thing and worth consideration. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord says.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I had assumed that the noble Baroness had risen to speak to the amendment standing in the name of her noble friend Lady Pinnock. I will speak to the amendments in my name in this group. Although there are eight of them, they fall into three broad topics, so I hope to dispose of them fairly quickly.

The first are Amendments 81 and 81A. These relate to the ability of right-to-manage companies to bring legal proceedings and charge the costs to the service charge. The effect of the Bill is that freeholders will not be able to charge legal costs to the service charge unless they obtain a ruling from a tribunal. In the case of right-to-manage companies exercising the functions of the freeholder, they have no source of income apart from the service charge. If they are not able to charge their legal costs to the service charge, then they will not be able to bring legal action at all. In fact, without that ability, they would not even be able to initiate legal action unless the directors of the company were willing to fund the preliminary legal activities from their own pockets. If they were willing to do that, and they proceeded to court, they might find that the court or tribunal did not find that they were entitled to recover their costs or find that they could recover only part of their costs as a result. Again, they would have no recourse to any source of funds apart from their own individual pockets in such circumstances.

The second amendment, Amendment 81A, would extend this provision not just to right-to-manage companies but to residential management companies. Right-to-manage companies were established under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, but there are other residential management companies that exist that are not right-to-manage companies under that Act. These two amendments are alternatives; they are both probing.

I have heard that the Government are aware that this is a problem and are willing to do something to address it, so I hope that this particular probe will find a positive response from my noble friend on the Front Bench, because it cannot seriously be the Government’s intention to make it virtually impossible for anyone to become a director of a right-to-manage company without having to face serious personal financial risks that were never envisaged when RTM companies were established in 2002.

Amendments 81B, 81C, 81D and 81E all work together. They relate to a different problem, which is that the Bill allows a court or tribunal to award costs to a freeholder in certain circumstances specified in the Bill. However, if these costs are not paid, the only recourse the freeholder has is to go back to the court and seek a new judgment to have the costs awarded to them, whereas the normal method of dealing with such a matter is to make a simple online claim for a judgment in default. That course of action is precluded, as I understand the Bill, in the case of freeholders seeking to recover the legal costs that have been awarded to them. All this will do is burden the courts with more applications, which can and should be, and are normally, dealt with through an online process that takes a few weeks to go through. That surely should be available to freeholders.

The third topic in this group relates to Amendments 82A and 82B. These, again, are probing amendments to understand why the Government are extending the protection in relation to legal costs to all leaseholders, when surely the intention must be to extend it to those leaseholders who are home owners—that is, who own the property that is the subject of the legal dispute. The Bill has the effect of giving this protection also to investor leaseholders—those who hold the property entirely as an investment. I do not understand the Government’s logic in doing this, and these amendments probe that by suggesting that it should benefit home owners only.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

I am suggesting that this definition should become the standard for well-advertised descriptions, used by estate agents, freehold and development sellers, and solicitors. I am not suggesting that estate agents all go off and do degree courses, as somebody did recently, but updating them, so that they know what “leasehold” means, would be helpful. This amendment ensures that this will happen, until we at last move away from this iniquitous tenure and commonhold becomes the norm. In the meantime, at least let us be honest. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 84, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. There is no doubt that mis-selling of leasehold homes is going on. Indeed, some developers insist that you can buy a flat from them only if you go with one of their approved solicitors. These solicitors will most likely not alert you to the negative aspects of that lease. Public awareness and understanding are low, as the noble Baroness showed from personal experience. The noble Baroness mentioned estate agents. I went on to Rightmove’s website and found that it provides buyers no search function to differentiate between freehold and leasehold homes, which I mention because, apart from this feeling disingenuous, it highlights that the problem starts at the very beginning of the process.

As has been mentioned, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee did an inquiry into leasehold in 2018-19. Its report said:

“Many leaseholders reported that they were surprised to learn that they did not own the properties they had purchased in the same way as they might have owned a freehold property. One leaseholder, Jo Darbyshire of the National Leasehold Campaign, told us there was ‘a fundamental lack of understanding about what leasehold tenure means to consumers out there.’ Shula Rich, from the Federation of Private Residents’ Associations, described leasehold as ‘the fag end of a timeshare … it is not owning anything’ and called for greater clarity from the Government and industry that purchasing a leasehold should not be sold as the ‘ownership’ of a property in the same way as freehold”.


They are leaseholders, not home owners, and they did not get help to buy or anything other than the right to live in a building for the term of the lease.

It is important that key information is provided in ways that are accessible and easily understandable for consumers. We believe that managing agents and landlords should provide key information about leasehold properties at the marketing stage in a standardised format. The information should include the lease length, estimates of enfranchisement costs, the ground rent and service charging information, as required by National Trading Standards for marketing a property.

There are clearly significant differences between freehold and leasehold tenures, but these are not always apparent to prospective purchasers at the point of sale. It has been mooted that it would be more appropriate to refer to this tenure as “lease rental”. We agree with that—it would at least be honest.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for introducing Amendment 84. The arguments that the noble Baroness made were the very reason why we should end leasehold and move towards commonhold. I hope the Minister can clarify some of the important concerns that she has raised.

--- 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 Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 57 in the name of my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Schedule 9 makes provision for a new enfranchisement right to buy out the ground rent and to vary it permanently to replace the relevant part of the rent with a peppercorn rent, without having to extend the lease. We welcome the intent of the schedule. The reform will ensure that leaseholders can enjoy reduced premiums and secure nominal ground rent ownership of their properties, without the need to go through the challenge and expense of repeated lease extensions.

The schedule implements the Law Commission’s recommendation for the right to extinguish the ground rent only. However, we have brought an amendment that would delete the Government’s proposed 150-year threshold, to press the Minister on the reason for which the Government have decided to confer that right only on leaseholders with leases with an unexpired term of more than 150 years.

The Law Commission recommended that the threshold should be set at 250 years on the basis that the reversion is of negligible value at that lease length. The Government chose not to accept that recommendation and, instead, are proposing a threshold of 150 years. The Minister may provide us with a different answer in due course, but we assume the reason that they did so is simply that this will make the new right to extinguish a ground- rent available to many more leaseholders. However, if that is the case, it obviously follows that setting a threshold of, say, 125 or 100 years would make it available to even more of them.

As my honourable friend Matthew Pennycook MP stipulated in the other place,

“any long lease threshold for the new right is ultimately entirely arbitrary, as evidenced by the fact that the Government chose a different threshold from the one recommended by the Law Commission”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/02/2024; col. 201.]

There is a principled argument that we should trust leaseholders to make decisions based on what is right for them and their individual circumstances, rather than denying a broad category of leaseholders a new statutory right on the basis that Ministers know best what is in their interests.

If unamended, Schedule 9 will ensure that some leaseholders can enjoy reduced premiums and secure nominal ground rent ownership of their properties, without the need to go through the challenge and expense of repeated lease extensions. However, we remain unconvinced by the Government’s proposed conferral of this new right only on leaseholders with leases with an unexpired term of more than 150 years. There could be all sorts of reasons why someone with a lease shorter than 150 years might want to buy out only the ground rent, including simply that they are unable to afford the premium required to secure a 990-year lease. Denying them that right on the grounds that other leaseholders might advertently or inadvertently disadvantage themselves, by using the new right to extinguish only the ground rent, strikes us as overly paternalistic and misguided.

We remain of the view that there is a strong case for simply deleting the 150-year threshold entirely, given that the remaining years test that applies is arbitrary and the most common forms of lease are 90, 99 and 125 years. Amendment 57 would do that, thereby making the new right to replace rent with a peppercorn rent available to all existing leaseholders. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 57 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. As has been said, Schedule 9 confers on a qualifying tenant the right to buy out the ground rent and replace it with a peppercorn rent. Instead of the extended leases that are paid for each time, it is a decision to make a one-off payment—job done once and for all.

This is a welcome measure. However, as has been said, under paragraph 2 of Schedule 9, the tenant must have at least 150 years left on their lease to qualify. Amendment 57 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, would ensure that all leaseholders, not just those with residential leases of 150 years or over, have the right to vary their lease in this way and replace it with a peppercorn rent.

The provisions on the variation of leases and removal of ground rent are complex, but they are based on the principle of granting leaseholders flexibility and a recognition that different solutions might be preferable for the different situations that they are in. The argument has been put forward that these provisions should apply to leases that are sufficiently long, with the Law Commission recommending a very long length of 250 years and the Government settling on 150. Therefore, Amendment 57 rightly probes that length. If not 250 years, why not 125 years, 90 years or indeed no threshold for length at all?

Data on this was hard to find, but DLUHC’s English Housing Survey of owner-occupier leaseholders for the year 2020-21 found that 45% of leaseholders had a leasehold term between 71 and 120 years, and that the median length of leases was 112 years. This suggests that there could be lots of leaseholders with reasonably long leases who would not be given these rights in relation to ground rent.

I would also like colleagues to note that mortgage lenders are now getting very active on ground rent terms and taking an ever more conservative view on ground rent clauses. They are refusing to lend on leasehold homes where the ground rent is seen as onerous—the definition of that might be that it continues to double or that there are other strictures in place. This means that some leaseholders will be left with flats that are difficult to sell, as well as an escalating ground rent.

We would therefore welcome further information from the Minister about whether these provisions could be extended to cover more leaseholders, especially given their own figures.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to government Amendments 58 and 59 in my name. Government Amendment 59 changes “premium” to “price”, referring to the sum paid for a ground rent buyout, to make the language consistent with the rest of the Bill. Government Amendment 58 makes a minor wording change to clarify that it is “the appropriate tribunal” that may make an order to appoint a person to vary a lease on behalf of the landlord or tenant in the case of a commutation following a ground rent buyout. I hope noble Lords will therefore support these amendments.

I turn to Amendment 57 from the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley. This seeks to remove the threshold for the ground rent buyout right. I appreciate the concerns that lie behind this amendment and understand that the noble Baroness is seeking to ensure that as many leaseholders as possible can benefit from the new right. First, it is very important to note that all leaseholders, regardless of their term remaining, have the means to buy out their ground rent. They do so whenever they extend their lease or buy their freehold. It is only the right to buy out the ground rent without extending the lease or buying the freehold that is limited to leaseholders with 150 years or more remaining. The 150-year threshold exists to protect those leaseholders with shorter leases who will, at some point, require an extension from being financially disadvantaged by first buying out their rent, only having to extend later and paying more in total for doing so. However, we understand the argument that all leaseholders should be able to buy out their rent without extending their lease or buying their freehold if they want to, and we are listening carefully to that argument.

The Law Commission recommended 250 years, but it noted that the department might want to set the threshold lower. The department’s analysis showed that 150 years would enable more leaseholders to take advantage of the ground rent buyout right, while still being a long enough term remaining that the leaseholder does not need to extend if they do not want to. A lower minimum term would create a risk that poorly advised leaseholders might buy out the ground rent when an extension is in their best interest, then find out that they need to extend later and have to pay a higher premium, except for the extension, and two sets of transaction costs. We believe this is helping the leaseholder.

I hope that the noble Baroness will appreciate the reasons we have given for the existence of the threshold, and those assurances, and withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My Lords, I have asked to speak to the amendments in this group, which is a bit shorter than it would have been had the Clause 47 stand part notice remained. That was certainly something on which I would have urged the Government to stand firm.

We strongly support Amendment 60 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage. Anyone who has done a bit of googling on the right to manage can see that right-to-manage claims by leaseholders are often fiercely opposed by freeholders. What is meant to be a so-called no-fault process can involve costly and stressful litigation for leaseholders, as freeholders drag the right to manage claim into the tribunal system. Freeholders gameplay and try to block RTM bids, because the right to manage signifies loss of their control and ability to rip off leaseholders in perpetuity.

Against this backdrop of right-to-manage cases going to tribunal and becoming the subject of “lawfare” by freeholders, it is surely reasonable to ensure that right-to-manage companies cannot incur costs in instances where claims cease. The way things stand, it is clearly intended to be a disincentive to leaseholders to seek the right to manage, and that imbalance cannot be right. Some noble Lords may remember the Canary Gateway case: it took an outrageous four years for the shared-ownership leaseholders to secure their right to manage, with the freeholder-driven litigation going as far as the Court of Appeal.

Turning to Amendments 61 and 62 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, we on these Benches would support them in principle as they are increasingly sold as access to the right to manage. However, they stand in stark contrast to the noble Lord’s other amendments, which sought to reduce leaseholder access to collective enfranchisement and right to manage.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

I hesitated and thought about cutting that bit out, but go on.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

The noble Baroness could not expect to get away with that. Any attempt to cast me as a as a poodle of freeholders and opposed to leaseholders is bound to be foiled because it is untrue. I have made it clear throughout that I strongly support the right to manage and its extension. This is very different from expropriation of somebody else’s property. This is simply a technique for managing a building and managing it well.

I should also say while I am on my feet that when we exercised the right to manage in the block in which I live, many years ago, the freeholder was highly supportive because they were sick to death of the managing agent as well, and realised that their building would be managed a great deal better by us, as it has been. They have an interest in the building being well managed: they want the roof to be repaired; they want the facade not to fall off in chunks in the street because, after all, they, too, whatever else is said, have a long-term interest in the building.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

My comments were not about right to manage. That was a good segue into another short speech by the noble Lord.

However, we are conscious that expanding right to manage to leaseholders under local authority landlords was never considered by the Law Commission, nor put out to public consultation. We are unsure whether the Government have done policy work in this area. It is a whole other ball game and will be challenging. But, in principle, given that many local authorities have been guilty of significant and tragic failures of service, to put it mildly, this should be a right of local authority tenants too. But it will be complex, for many of the reasons that were well outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor.

It is also worth reminding ourselves that local authority leaseholders have, since 1994, been able to take over management through tenant management organisations. I do not believe any work has been done regarding their success or otherwise. But such a review could ignite and inform this topic on another occasion. We welcome the probe by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and also the subtleties of his alternative proposals, and will certainly attend the said—and very popular —meeting.

Finally, I come to Amendments 65A and 65B, in the name of Lord Bailey of Paddington. The aim of Amendment 65A is a good one: to ensure that leaseholders in mixed-use buildings can avail themselves of the right to manage. At the House of Commons Public Bill Committee in January, MPs heard that many leaseholders in mixed-use buildings would still be unable to benefit from the reforms in the Bill to take over management—because, as the noble Lord said, of the existence of, say, a shared plant room or car park, under rules regarding structural dependency and self-containment. The existence of a plant room or other infrastructure is something decided by the original developer and leaseholders have no control over these factors, so it feels unfair to exclude them from right to manage based on the way a block has been designed, especially if they qualify under the new 50% non-residential premises limit.

Amendment 65B would put rocket boosters under the right to manage, opening it up to far more leaseholders. We on these Benches support the amendment and the intent behind it. Members in the other place have raised concerns that the 50% trigger is too high. The 50% participation limit on right to manage was also flagged as an issue by leaseholder campaigners at the Commons Public Bill Committee in January.

There may be concerns about 50% being less than a majority, but, as the noble Lord said, many leaseholders will never be able to obtain 50% support because of the high levels of buy to let in their block. But ultimately the Committee was persuaded of the case to bring down the 50% threshold. It is not right that just one person—the freeholder or landlord—has such control over leaseholders and can impact almost at will on their finances. As the noble Lord’s amendment suggests, 35% of leaseholders triggering a right to manage, with a right to participate for remaining leaseholders who did not originally get involved, is a far better situation than rule by one freeholder, whose interests, as the Law Commission concluded, are diametrically opposed to that of the leaseholder. Leaseholder self-rule with right to manage and a 35% participation threshold is a much more democratic state of affairs. Let us be honest: many councillors and MPs are elected to govern on much less than 50% of the vote—in fact, usually around 35%.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for Amendment 60, which would leave new Section 87B out of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. This is a new power, inserted into the 2002 Act by the Bill, for the tribunal to order the repayment of a landlord’s process costs for right to manage claims which are withdrawn or cease to have effect in circumstances where a right to manage company has acted unreasonably.

The noble Baroness asked who would decide what was reasonable or unreasonable and the level of reasonableness. The costs will be determined by the tribunal, as is the case with other kinds of litigation or court proceedings.

While we strive to reduce costs for leaseholders, we do not believe it is right to do so where the right to manage company acts unreasonably in bringing a claim and the claim also fails. For example, landlords should not have to meet their own wasted process costs where leaseholders clearly make an unfeasible claim or fail to bring the claim to an end at an earlier stage.

The noble Baroness should be assured that the new power for the tribunal does not automatically entitle landlords to repayment. If the tribunal does not consider that costs should be payable, it can decline to make an order. Removing new Section 87B would expose landlords to unfair costs. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness kindly to withdraw her amendment.

I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his Amendments 61 and 62. The amendments seek to remove or amend the existing exception to the right to manage for local authority premises so that the right can be used by their long lease holders. I should explain that there is a separate right to manage scheme for local authority secure tenants and leaseholders under the Housing Act 1985 and its relevant regulations. The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 therefore excepted local authority leaseholders from the long-leasehold right to manage to avoid creating conflicting schemes.

The Bill delivers the most impactful of the Law Commission’s recommendations on the right to manage, including increasing the non-residential limit to 50% to give more leaseholders the right to take over management, and changing the rules to make each party pay their own process and litigation costs, saving leaseholders many thousands of pounds.

An alternative route to management is available in some local authority blocks that contain a mixture of tenants and leaseholders, where a prescribed number and proportion of secure tenants are in support of exercising the right. This involves setting up a tenant management organisation. It would complicate a system that we are trying to simplify if two separate routes were to apply to a single block, and the Law Commission made no recommendations on local authority leaseholders.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

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

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

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

and

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

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

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Friday 19th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Of 1909.

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Housing: Young People

Baroness Thornhill Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornhill (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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