Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Betts]

There are real issues with that, which I was going to address later, but I will do so now. It is important to strengthen the right to manage, both for leaseholders and for freeholders in these estates who own the freehold of their house but not of the communal areas. I said earlier that in all property purchases where common areas remain in private ownership, there should be, at the point of purchase, a clear understanding of the agreement between the local authority and the developer about who is responsible for those common areas. In many circumstances it is simply opaque. Often, purchasers do not know who is responsible and are sent on a wild goose chase to find out once they have bought their property.

Returning to onerous ground rents, the Select Committee took counsel’s opinion, which was quite interesting, and made recommendations in paragraphs 114 to 116 of our report. There were two clear arguments why removing onerous ground rents from leases retrospectively was completely compatible with the European convention on human rights. The first, which most of us may not have thought about, is that controlling or changing rent is not confiscation of property but control of its use, so it does not conflict with the article on removing people’s property rights. Secondly, the convention includes a justification where the proposal has a wider beneficial impact on society, which can be offset against any impact on the property owner. Counsel’s opinion was that it was therefore perfectly justifiable under the European convention to remove onerous ground rents on existing properties.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will remember that when the Labour Government overturned the case of Custins v. Hearts of Oak in 1967, they used exactly those grounds to justify doing so.

[Mr Betts]

I do remember that far back. Many will not remember the Labour Government’s ’67 reforms, but they were quite important on those grounds—absolutely.

Other good aspects of the Bill include its reducing the price of enfranchisement and trying to make it simpler. Now, I am not sure that it makes it simpler; it is still a bit complicated. In the end, it partly depends on the capitalisation rates that the Government introduce, which will determine the price. But a lot of my constituents who are leaseholders live in houses, and they often face enormous barriers to carry through the enfranchisement process. I have referred to Coppen Estates in my constituency, which is notorious for simply not replying to letters. I once got it to reply to a recorded letter at the third time of asking. Normally, it ignores everything. That is just its way of trying to hang on to its ground rents and its income from leases. How will we deal with those sorts of individuals and companies, and the fact that they transfer ownership around from one company to another?

Why is there no right of first refusal for leaseholders in the Bill? I was pleased that, some years ago, Sheffield Council agreed that when it sold freeholds, the right of first refusal would go to the leaseholder. That would be a simple reform, and I hope the Secretary of State will consider it. The improvement of the enfranchisement process to make it simpler and reduce the cost is right, but I would like further improvements to ensure that it will work.

I welcome the standardisation of service charges. One big complaint to the Committee was that leaseholders often simply do not know what they are paying and why. They cannot work out which services are supposed to be provided and which are not. That is an important step forward.

On commission fees, we heard about the £150 to change a doorbell and the £3,000 to put up a conservatory—complete rip-offs. There is no justification for them in houses in particular, and very little justification in flats. I am pleased that freeholders will now have to provide a schedule of rates that will be charged. We called for a cap on rates, which might have taken reform a little further, but at least there now has to be clarity and transparency. I also welcome the clause that means leaseholders will not end up paying for the legal and other costs of freeholders where there is any conflict or dispute.

A number of other measures have been omitted from the Bill, but they could be included very easily. The Secretary of State mentioned forfeiture. If leasehold is a feudal tenure, then forfeiture is prehistoric—it really is. If a leaseholder in a very small way fails to comply with an element of their lease, they could have the property taken off them. That is just unacceptable and unjustifiable. The Secretary of State was right in what he said. Forfeiture is not necessarily something that gets used, but the threat of its being used puts the onus on leaseholders to “behave” or do what the freeholder wants them to do. The removal of that with a simple clause would be really welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

That is an excellent suggestion from my hon. Friend the Father of the House, with which I strongly agree—as I do with everything he says about this issue.

Despite the theatrics we heard from the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who spoke for the Opposition, it is the Conservatives who are finally bringing in sweeping reforms. It is right that we note that Labour ducked the issue while they were in office. They could have fixed it then. They could have saved millions from misery—nearly 5 million homes, accounting for 20% of the entire housing market, are owned on a leasehold basis across the UK—but it appears they bowed to pressure from freeholders. We will never know why, but thankfully things will now change.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Lady may not remember—but I do—that before the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was passed, a great deal of pressure had been applied since 1999. At that stage, however, their lordships down at the other end of the building threatened to block all of Labour’s legislation if we insisted on putting through some of the measures that were ultimately taken out of that Bill. The hon. Lady is right; those measures should have been included. I lobbied and campaigned for them to be included, and made my speech in the House accordingly, but their lordships were in the majority—and, at the time, 66% of their lordships had declared in the Register of Interests that they derived most of their income from the management of land.

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Member for the history lesson but, regardless, we are determined to fix this now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), the former Housing Minister, and I congratulate her on her work in this regard. I was disappointed that she chose to adopt a rather partisan tone in some of her remarks—unnecessarily, I thought—but I was grateful for the more generous tone taken by the Secretary of State. I especially welcomed his generous and appropriate tribute to our former colleague, Jim Fitzpatrick, for his work in the all-party parliamentary group—I am glad that he was mentioned.

Let me begin by identifying a specific concern that the Bill has raised. I am aware of it because of the work that the Work and Pensions Committee has done on asbestos. Under the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, premises can be sold while containing asbestos; ownership can be transferred. Asbestos management is regulated in relation to workplaces, where it is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, but not in domestic properties. In a lot of shared dwellings, such as flats and conversions, the landlord or freeholder has regulated duties under the existing regulations to manage asbestos in the shared areas in those developments. This legislation, as I understand it, may well give rise to the transfer of those obligations to domestic owners.

The existence and extent of asbestos in a building might not be known, leaving homeowners taking on these responsibilities with a hidden liability and, potentially, a life-threatening risk to handle as well. Homeowners are unlikely to have the wherewithal to manage asbestos in situ effectively, and this could leave a complex set of responsibilities and liabilities between owners in shared properties or where the nominal landlord no longer exists. At the moment, there is tax relief for businesses removing asbestos from a workplace—they can offset it against corporation tax—but there is no support for homeowners to remove or manage asbestos.

It has been suggested to me—this is something I am looking at—that there should be an amendment proposing that change in ownership of a property in the circumstances envisaged in the Bill, or a change in the extent of landlord control, should be a trigger for removing asbestos. Otherwise, more asbestos will move outside effective control under this legislation, meaning that nobody will be responsible for managing it and potentially creating a significant public health risk.

I will focus the rest of my remarks on part 3 of the Bill and draw attention to some particular instances that have arisen in my constituency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), in opening the debate, rightly expressed the disappointment of many that the more radical ambitions for the Bill have been dropped, at least for the time being, but there are lots of practical problems for our constituents that need addressing and that the Bill can potentially help with.

The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, who is in his place, is aware of Barrier Point in my constituency, which comprises eight towers and 257 apartments. Tower 8, the largest of the towers, has 50 apartments and a flammable cladding problem. In 2017, buildings insurance for the whole of Barrier Point cost £104,000. Last year, Aviva, which insured the block previously, refused to quote, so this year residents have ended up paying £443,547 for insurance, and Tower 8 residents have shouldered that huge increase at a cost of between £6,000 and £12,000 each. I am grateful both to Aviva and to Barratt, which built the development, for meeting residents to try to find a way forward. I am also grateful to the Minister for the interest he has shown in this and for his agreeing to visit—I hope we will have a date for that soon.

I can see that the Bill could go some way towards tackling those problems. I particularly welcome clauses 27, 28 and 29, which increase transparency around service charges and give occupants the right to obtain information about service charges and costs on request. Clauses 30, 34 and 35 will help tenants to enforce those rights and rebalance the costs of litigation in their favour. The Financial Conduct Authority’s 2020 report on insurance for multi-occupancy buildings found that commission was often at least 30% on a transaction, and it found one case where it was over 60%. The FCA was worried that insurance commissions lacked transparency and it feared the conflict of interest that stemmed from brokers regularly sharing half their commission with the freeholder or managing agent. Replacing commission with transparent handling fees, as clauses 31 and 32 envisage, should certainly help.

[Barry Gardiner]

I appreciate everything that my right hon. Friend is saying. He will be aware, though, that many companies holding freeholds will also set up an arm’s-length company that is the broker, thus taking a double take in terms of the commission. It is not just that they get cut from the broker; they are the broker.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes an important point and I welcome his work in this area over a long period.

The changes in the Bill are not likely to do much to help the residents of Barrier Point who have exercised their right to manage. The FCA has argued that

“the intervention most likely to reduce prices for the minority of multi-occupancy buildings with the most substantial price increases would be cross-industry risk pooling”.

I was pleased to hear from the Secretary of State, in answer to my intervention, that he will be meeting representatives of the Association of British Insurers this week. The ABI initiative on this issue appears, up to now, to have stalled. The FCA recommended that the ABI should work with it and with the Government to introduce a risk pooling scheme in 2022. The scheme was expected to come forward last summer, but we are still waiting. I am hoping that, as a result of the meeting this week that the Secretary of State has told us about, things will get moving.

I checked with the FCA last week about this. It said that the ABI plan is

“credible and capable of delivering savings to those worst affected buildings”,

but it went on to add that the plan is delayed with “no firm launch date” because the ABI is struggling to secure “the reinsurance capacity required”. That seems to be the obstacle. I very much hope that the Secretary of State can find a way to push this forward at his meeting. The ABI urged the Government to increase capacity by backing catastrophic losses in the scheme. It did that most recently in June. Can the Minister tell us whether that appeal has been considered by the Department and whether that might be taken forward at the meeting with the Secretary of State later this week? When does he think risk pooling will commence?

On remediation, there is a power imbalance between leaseholders and freeholders. That has been highlighted to me by Barrier Point residents. The Bill does not really address that. Section 72 of the Building Safety Act 2022 makes a right-to-manage company the “accountable person” for a high-risk multi-occupancy building, making the directors criminally liable if negligence can be proved. The same Act, however, requires only that freeholders “co-operate” with accountable persons, without any enforcement mechanism in place at all. The freeholder at Barrier Point has held up remediation works for several months and is refusing to sign off on them. The directors of the right-to-manage company desperately want to fulfil their legal obligations but they are left liable because of the refusal of the freeholder to say okay, and there is no comparable liability on the freeholder. That seems wrong, and I wonder whether that imbalance can be addressed in the course of the Bill’s passage through the House.

The Minister said in oral questions just last week that the Government plan to make changes to the Bill as it goes through Parliament, and I hope he will consider how that imbalance can be addressed to ensure that remediation work can go ahead in a case such as that, which I suspect is by no means unique. The residents of Barrier Point want to purchase their freehold. To do so, they need to get at least 50% of all the leaseholders to agree to, and be able to afford, a freehold purchase. That is very difficult in a building with 257 households. I do not think the Bill does anything to make that process easier, so I very much hope that Ministers will be open to further improvements as it progresses through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and it highlights how management fees undermine the whole housing sector. We will end up in a situation where people do not want to buy nice homes because of the management companies that operate on these estates.

It undermines freehold, because people living on these estates have to go to the management company to get an information pack in order to sell their home. Of course, the information pack does not come free. On most estates in my constituency, people have to pay the management company £350 effectively to ask for permission to sell their house.

A lady contacted me and, apart from the cost, some of the information in her information pack was wrong. When she contacted the management company to ask some questions about the information it had provided, she was told that each question would be charged at £60 plus VAT, but this was the management company’s fault, not hers. That is just one example—I could give thousands—of just how horrifically some management companies behave. The Bill needs to deal with these organisations.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points. Is he aware that some companies managing residential properties for the elderly charge 10% of the property’s sale price, which they take to themselves for the privilege of allowing it to be sold?

[Gareth Johnson]

I have heard of those kinds of things. The same happens with park homes, and we are also trying to tackle that. It is only right that we tackle this issue with management companies, because it totally undermines the concept of freehold. The Secretary of State rightly says that he supports home ownership, yet we have a system that undermines the principle of home ownership.

People bought these houses in my constituency because they are nice homes in a nice area, and they often bought them in a seller’s market. They were literally standing in a queue, with other people waiting behind them to buy the same property. If they had not signed on the dotted line there and then, there were plenty of people behind them who would have. They signed without a full appreciation of the terms of the contract, which effectively said that the management company can put up its management fees way beyond inflation, and there is nothing that can be done about it.

I echo the Father of the House. As we consider the Bill throughout its passage, Members have to decide which side we are on. Are we on the side of the management companies, or are we on the side of local residents? It should be a no-brainer for every Member of the House, and I hope we will come together. After the Bill gets its Second Reading, I am sure we would all like to see some amendments in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova). Let me start by paying tribute to the Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who has been campaigning on this issue for many years, to great success, eventually. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who is no longer in her place, for all the work she has done in the preparation of this Bill. I welcome the principle of the Bill. Some Opposition Members may say it is too timid, but with 58 pages of detailed legislation and equations, which remind me of my time studying physics and maths at university, it can hardly be said to be less than complex. The key issue is: have the Government gone far enough in what they intended to do?

Our manifesto commitment was clear: to promote fairness and transparency for leaseholders, and ensure that consumers are protected from abuse and poor service. Clearly, that is a fundamental requirement. The Law Commission’s 2017 review of leasehold law represented it, and it is has taken us six years to get to this point in dealing with some of the abuses. We have to remember that 94% of people who have bought leasehold properties regret buying them and 70% of leaseholders are worried that they will not be able to sell their homes because they are leasehold. That is one fundamental thing we need to answer. We also need this leasehold reform to reform and support the housing market, because almost half of leaseholders are first-time buyers and 28% are under 35. At a time when fewer and fewer people are buying their first home at such an age, it is vital that we not only encourage people to buy their first home, but simplify the system.

So I welcome the overarching aims of the Bill to modernise this complex system, but clearly there is still a lot of work to do. Obviously, making it cheaper and easier for existing leaseholders in houses and flats to extend their lease and buy their freehold is a key point. The so-called “marriage rates” make it almost impossible for leaseholders to buy properties with fewer than 80 years left on the lease and to extend that lease to 990 years, which is what we are now going to be looking at. Having that as the standard position for houses and flats has to be the right thing to do. We should remember that the original position on extensions was 90 years for flats and 50 years for houses, so we are introducing a massive change and it is extremely welcome.

[Barry Gardiner]

I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way; if he is fortunate at the next election, he may inherit some more leasehold flats. As he will know, in this country a freeholder holds their freehold for a period of 999 years from the Crown and that may run out before any new leasehold is able to conclude its 999 years. Does he understand what the Government propose to do in that situation?

[Bob Blackman]

Longevity may run in my family, but not to the extent of 1,000 years. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I am sure the Minister will seek to answer it in his summing up.

Introducing new rights for long leaseholders to buy out the ground rent without needing to extend the term of the lease is another extremely welcome move, as is removing the requirement for a new leaseholder to have owned their house for two years before they can benefit from the changes. The new right to require the freeholder to take a leaseback of non-participating units when a collective enfranchisement claim is made is also vital. We do not want to get to a position where people are deterred from enfranchisement because they cannot take on those who do not take on enfranchisement.

A new costs regime for enfranchisement and right-to-manage claims so that each party bears their own costs is vital. Far too often, the freeholder has sought to obtain their costs from the purchaser, which is clearly unfair and unjust. Moving jurisdiction for enfranchisement and right-to-manage disputes to the first tier tribunal and the leasehold valuation tribunal in Wales makes it much easier for parties to identify how they can bring about a dispute. I note the point the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), raised when he said that freeholders often make it as difficult as possible for enfranchisement to take place.

The issue of transparency of service charges is vital. One of the benefits of serving on a Select Committee for a long time is being able to remember the reports the Committee was involved in, and I well remember an inquiry into this issue. We wanted all service charges to be transparent and fixed to the cost of providing that service, as opposed to a figure plucked out of the air and then passed on to the person supposedly receiving the service. It is welcome to see that the Bill contains measures for minimum key financial and non-financial information to be supplied to those receiving the service on a regular basis, including through a standardised service charge and an annual report. That means leaseholders can scrutinise and better challenge costs if they are unreasonable.

Equally, replacing buildings insurance commissions for managing agents, landlords and freeholders with transparent administration fees stops leaseholders from being charged exorbitant, opaque commissions on top of their premiums, an issue that has already been raised in the debate. I welcome scrapping the presumption for leaseholders to pay their freeholders’ legal costs, which in my opinion is outrageous, as well as granting freehold owners on private and mixed-tenure estates the same rights of redress as leaseholders, by extending their equivalent rights to transparency over their estate charges and to challenge the charges they pay by taking a case to a tribunal.

All these measures are welcome, but there are many other areas where we need to go further. The promise to do away with leasehold—or fleecehold—completely was clear in the manifesto; in my view, that promise should be honoured, particularly on the sale of new-build flats. In London, they are now the most common property type; almost all flats are sold on leasehold basis, compared to just 6% of houses.

On the individual building firms, we have heard about Persimmon, but we should also remember Bellway, whose chief executive came in front of our Select Committee and told us—I repeat what they said almost word for word—that it was the company’s policy not to offer the freehold to leaseholders at the first opportunity. Instead, six months after building the properties and selling the leaseholds, it would transfer them to a finance company, which would go through the detail of all the charges it could make and then really leverage up those charges, and the finance company would refuse to allow the leaseholder to even consider buying the freehold. That was the policy of that company. I think Permission admitted that that was its policy too, and other building companies do exactly the same. That is a scandal and it should be stopped, and we should legislate for that.

Clearly, we all want to see the promotion of commonhold. However, as the Chairman of the Committee said, we need more education for individuals, so they understand not only their rights but the responsibilities they would take on with commonhold.

One concern that has been raised with me on several occasions is about what will happen, once this welcome Bill is on the statute book—we look forward to the amendments that are made—to existing leaseholders who bought their leaseholds in good faith but are not being dealt with properly or effectively. We need to ensure that squeezing out the bad practices of freeholders and managing agents, which are unfair to individuals, is part and parcel of the legislation.

There is also the issue of conveyancing. Most people who buy their first property pay the minimum legal costs they can get away with. As a result, they often are not given proper advice about the consequences of their decisions. We need to ensure that individuals are given the opportunity to understand the responsibilities they are taking on and, more importantly, what will happen to them in the future if there are service charges involved.

Local authorities hold a huge number of properties under lease conditions and, if they want to sell the freehold to leaseholders, they are often among the worst sets of people to deal with across the country. I agree that a leaseholder should have the right of first refusal if a freehold is being offered. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give a commitment that, after we have engaged in consultations on service charges, the results of those consultations will be reflected in Committee so that we can strengthen the Bill?

Finally, I want to refer to a particular building in a constituency that neighbours mine. It has 13 floors and still has the old, Grenfell-style cladding. We all know the tragedy of Grenfell, but the owners of the building are refusing point blank to remove the cladding unless and until they are given planning permission to build on top of the building, so that they can sell more property to pay for the cost of remediating the cladding. The self-same company, Ballymore, although it has yet to submit a planning application, wants to build 29 blocks of flats, the tallest of which will be 29 storeys and the majority of which will be more than 20 storeys, at a density greater than Manhattan, Singapore or any other place in the world. That is a scandal. When the Secretary of State named certain building companies, he promised that if they refused to carry out the work that they should do, they would not be given planning permission to enable the development of more leasehold flats. I call on him to ensure that they are not given planning permission until such time as they are putting right what they have put wrong.

I pay tribute to all those who have fought for so long and so hard to achieve this limited reform. I will support the Bill, and I look forward to us taking forward further measures so that we can end the feudal system of leasehold once and for all.

Draft Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections etc.) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2023 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections etc.) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. The draft regulations amend the existing leaseholder protection regulations made under the Building Safety Act 2022 to clarify and simplify some provisions in the light of experience and to address points made by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and in the two stayed judicial review applications. I will start by providing some context and background to the draft regulations.

As hon. Members know, the Government introduced the leaseholder protections to protect many leaseholders from the cost of remedying historical safety defects in their building, either entirely or with liability firmly capped. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments reported the 2022 affirmative regulations for cases of suspected defective drafting and doubtful vires. Notwithstanding the Committee’s concerns, the Government were satisfied that no issues with the regulations would prevent the process from operating successfully.

My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), committed to introduce changes if it became apparent that they were necessary. I therefore laid the regulations before us to address the issues that I have mentioned, and they were engaged in two rounds of correspondence with the Joint Committee, culminating in a memorandum of response set out in the appendix to the Joint Committee’s 44th report of the 2023 Session, published last Friday.

To summarise, the Joint Committee reported the regulations for one case of defective drafting in relation to a lack of consequence for failure to notify the landlord associated with the developer of their liability. The Government are grateful to the Joint Committee for its careful scrutiny of the regulations and have considered the issue carefully. As set out in the memorandum published by the Committee, the Government are satisfied that no issue with the regulations will prevent the process from operating successfully.

It is imperative that the regulations come into force before the summer recess so as to alleviate the issues facing named managers and landlords. We will of course monitor closely the progress of future cases and, if it becomes apparent that further changes are necessary, we will come back to Parliament with proposals.

The regulations can be considered in three parts. First, they address points made in the Joint Committee’s report of July 2022. They make it clear that to recover the remediation amount, L—the body responsible for managing the building—must issue a notice to the landlord with the liability to pay. The notice must include the prescribed information on both the amount to be recovered and the appeals process. The regulations clarify the powers of the first-tier tribunal in determining the outcome of an appeal: if the appeal is unsuccessful, the appellant has to pay the amount set out in the notice; if the appeal is successful, the appellant has to pay either nothing or an alternative amount determined by the tribunal.

The Joint Committee considered regulation 6(1) of SI 2022/859, which purports to allow a leaseholder voluntarily to provide a leaseholder deed of certificate to their landlord, to be ultra vires, so the draft regulations remove that provision. I should make it clear, however, that nothing prevents a leaseholder from providing a certificate to their landlord at a time of their choosing. The regulations clarify that the prescribed evidence is required as part of the leaseholder deed of certificate and that failure to provide a completed leaseholder deed of certificate and the required evidence will result in the lease being treated as if it were not a qualifying lease. The regulations also provide that “shared ownership lease” has the same meaning as that used in schedule 8 to the 2022 Act.

Secondly, the regulations address points made in the two stayed judicial review applications. They provide for named managers to recover the cost of relevant measures in relation to relevant defects from landlords in the same way as resident management companies and right-to-manage companies. They also provide for L to be able to recover notified amounts from landlords as a civil debt and for L to be able to pursue a remediation contribution order against the landlord to recover costs. The regulations also provide that a landlord who is associated with the developer must be notified of its liability to pay for relevant measures or relevant defects. However, nothing in the regulations prevents L from instead pursuing another liable landlord if, for example, they feel that funds are more likely to be recovered in that way.

Thirdly, the regulations deliver additional detail to clarify and simplify some of the provisions in the 2022 regulations. They enable Homes England—the Department’s delivery partner for remediation work outside London—to apply for a remediation order or a remediation contribution order. They provide that a landlord may apply to the first-tier tribunal for a 30-day extension to the appeal process, to give time for out-of-court engagement. They also provide that the landlord must update the landlord certificate to reflect a lease’s qualifying status within four weeks of receiving a leaseholder deed of certificate.

Finally, amendments are made to the 2022 regulations so that the current landlord does not need to provide certain evidence where they accept liability for a relevant defect, and the existing landlord certificate is replaced by the schedule to these regulations to reflect that. This change reduces the information-sharing requirement to that which is essential for a leaseholder and L to determine liability. The regulations also provide that current landlords must provide L with copies of the landlord and leaseholder certificates within a week of completion or receipt, to enable L to apportion costs in line with the 2022 regulations. Where the current landlord fails to comply, the regulations provide that their share of costs cannot be passed on to leaseholders.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that many landlords have sold or gone into liquidation and referred on, and the current landlord may now be in a very different jurisdiction and may often be difficult to get at. Has the Minister considered the effect of that on these regulations, and how the notifications and periods she has set out will impact on leaseholders if, as she has just said, it will be possible for the cost to be passed on to them in this situation?

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He will be aware that this is a very specific provision in the regulations, which serve the specific purpose of providing the detail needed to clarify and simplify some of the provisions in the existing leaseholder protection regulations.

To continue—

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Rachel Maclean]

No, I am not going to give way again, if that is okay, Mrs Murray.

The regulations also address concerns raised by the Joint Committee last July and the two stayed judicial review applications. That will enable landlords to complete a shortened landlord certificate and enable L to take civil action against non-compliant landlords.

I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I think I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said this afternoon. She will remember, as I do, how many of us on the Opposition Benches, and indeed in all of the House, spent years of our lives campaigning against the apartheid regime. That was a very strong policy within local authorities and it had real impact at the time, so much so that when Nelson Mandela came to this country to thank people, he included them in those thanks. Does she believe that, had this legislation been enacted at the time, it would have prevented those authorities from taking the action they did to oppose apartheid?

[Lisa Nandy]

South Africa is obviously a different case, but the point my hon. Friend makes remains and is well founded, because this Bill concentrates the decision making and judgment of hundreds of public bodies in the hands of just one person.

Leaseholders and Managing Agents

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

We are expecting a Division at any moment. When it is called, there will be a 15-minute suspension to enable Members to go and vote, but if there are two votes, there will be a 25-minute suspension, so do the maths.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered leaseholders and managing agents.

I am grateful to present this debate under your chairmanship, Sir George, because I know that you have significant involvement with your local leaseholders in Knowsley, for which they are very grateful. Saying the word “leasehold” to any Member of Parliament is likely to begin a long conversation on one of two things: fire safety or service charges. I could have phrased that better: it would be more accurate to say “unsafe homes caused by fire safety defects” and “rip-off service charges by unscrupulous managing agents”.

For many people, the issue of leasehold crystalised after the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire and the subsequent purgatory that hundreds of thousands of residents throughout the country found themselves living through as they waited to have their own buildings’ fire safety defects remediated. They are still waiting. It was about much more than cladding and EWS1 forms. Residents who found that their homes had been constructed without internal fire stopping, or with inappropriate materials or inadequate fire doors, were unable to sell their property and move on with their lives because construction companies, project managers, surveyors, developers, freeholders, building control, the National House Building Council and managing agents all sought to pass responsibility among themselves. Nobody wanted to pick up the bill for remediation.

In truth, the debate about a wholesale reform of leasehold goes back much further. In the modern era, it starts almost exactly 50 years before 14 June 2017, with the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which gave qualifying long leaseholders of houses the statutory right to buy the freehold of their homes. In 1969, a problem arose: the Lands Tribunal ruling in Custins v. Hearts of Oak Benefit Society noted that the 1967 Act treated the open market for the reversion of the lease as including marriage value. That is why the Government promptly and rightly reversed that decision with section 82 of the Housing Act 1969. They did not wish to artificially increase the cost for people wishing to buy the freehold of their own home.

To see the injustice of marriage value, one need only to consider the price difference on the open market between a leasehold flat with a 125-year lease and the same flat with a share of freehold. The difference is nil, yet the first is on a yo-yo tender, whereby an owner, such as the Duke of Westminster, sells for the full market value, only to receive the entire property back at the end of the lease, allowing him to sell it all over again or, more often, to receive a large payment to extend the lease when the reduction in the term risks being so short that no lender will advance a mortgage on it and the property becomes unsaleable by the leaseholder, who sees the value of their asset diminishing to zero.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing this debate. May I, through him, point out that it is not just the traditional landlords, but some great charities? Wellcome went to the first-tier tribunal to get a judgment, but that decision should have been made by Parliament, not highly expensive lawyers arguing in court, given that it risked a knock-on effect on every other residential leaseholder who wants to extend their lease.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am most grateful to the Father of the House, who is also co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, for his knowledge, his campaigning over many years and his intervention.

In the Housing Act 1974, which still related only to houses, and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which gave leaseholders the right, if more than 50% of them wished to, to purchase the freehold interest in their block, the concept of marriage value was sadly reintroduced. Marriage value has been at the heart of many of leaseholders’ problems for more than half a century, simply because the freehold title of the property is worth more to them than to anyone else by virtue of the fact that they live in it. The law allows the freeholder to benefit from that asymmetry and impose considerable extra costs on any leaseholder who wishes to purchase or extend the lease on their home. When the Government come to legislate for leasehold reform—they have promised to do so and I look forward to that—I trust that they will understand that it is that fundamental injustice that has kept leaseholders prisoner to the vagaries of their freeholder and, often, the outrageous services charges imposed by their managing agents.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing such a vital debate. Here we are again. The National Leasehold Campaign—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I think most people have now returned, so we can restart if people are ready to do so. Barry Gardiner was about to deal with an intervention from Mike Amesbury.

[Barry Gardiner]

Indeed, Sir George. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) is no stranger to witty epithets, and his suggestion that we should stop polishing and start abolishing was absolutely right.

Before I turn to some egregious instances of service charges and call out by name some of the managing agents that have played fast and loose with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which provides that service charges must be “reasonable” and that services and works must be carried out to “a reasonable standard”, I wish to acknowledge some of the individuals who have championed the cause of leasehold reform over many years.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member agree that part of the problem is that rogue agents and freeholders believe they can act with impunity, and that it is incumbent on us to ensure that the regulations are in place to hold them to account and penalise them when they behave in an immoral way? They include Block Management, an agent in Ipswich, and Railpen, which is a freeholder that has behaved in a gross fashion and let down in a most egregious way almost 100 of my constituents.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has managed to get those condemnations on the record. I am sure that his constituents will be most grateful, as I am, for his doing so. He is right. The trouble is that the law is there: it is the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which makes it clear that unreasonable charges should not be levied, and that services and works have to be done to “a reasonable standard”. It is all there in statute; the trouble is that it is not enforced and that the mechanism for enforcement has gone awry, as I will come on to.

I already paid tribute to the Father of the House, whose long-standing campaign on this issue is an inspiration to us all. He co-chairs the all-party parliamentary group with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who has also done so much on this issue. Not with us at the moment is my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chair of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, who has done a huge amount over the years.

It is about not just those in this House; outside of the House there are many more. I pay special tribute to Charlotte Martin, who founded, with Nigel Wilkins, who is sadly no longer with us, the campaign against residential leaseholds, and who did so much, with Neil Mulcock, to usher in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

While the hon. Gentleman has a glass of water, I want to ask whether he agrees with the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) made about Railpen and the terrible impact it is having on leaseholders’ mental health up and down the country, including in the constituency of Stevenage. There have also been issues with the building that started the original campaign, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith).

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He highlights something that is really important to us all: the mental health problems that this issue causes. It is not just a financial issue; it has both physical and mental health implications.

There was one more person to whom I was going to pay tribute. If I left her out, I would be in deep trouble, because it is my own head of office, Jackie George, who keeps a database of more than 7,000 leaseholders in my constituency and who keeps in touch with them regularly.

In 2017, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), committed the Government to act on leasehold abuses. Specifically, he committed them to legislate to prohibit the creation of new residential long leases on newly built or existing freehold houses, other than in exceptional circumstances; to restrict ground rents in newly established leases of houses and flats to a peppercorn; to address loopholes in order to improve transparency and fairness for leaseholders and freeholders; and to work with the Law Commission to support existing leaseholders. The Government said that would include making buying a freehold or extending a lease

“easier, faster, fairer and cheaper”.

In April 2018, the Government announced that managing agents in the sector would be subject to regulation by an independent body and that a code of practice would set out minimum standards for key areas of activity, including service charges. In October 2019, the then Minister for Housing, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), confirmed in a written statement the Government’s intention to take forward those measures. In 2020, the Law Commission published its report and recommendations.

It is not good enough to say that the Government have been busy with other priorities. Since 2017, we have had seven Secretaries of State and nine Housing Ministers, yet leaseholders are still being ripped off.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I hope to give the hon. Gentleman a chance to clear the frog in his throat, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. Does he agree that the current arrangements, whereby there is no limit on the amount paid in service charges, insurance, ground rent and forfeiture charges, have left leaseholders at the mercy of the unscrupulous? Although we must allow the free market to prevail, that does not preclude the House and the Minister introducing and implementing fit-for-purpose regulation to protect the average leaseholder, who wants a fair bill for a fair service. That is not too much to ask for.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Leaseholders are not asking for special favours; they simply want equity and justice.

The Government’s survey reported that more than 70% of leaseholders regretted buying a leasehold property. In London, and in my constituency of Brent North, the leasehold model accounts for more than 90% of properties sold. I do not believe that my constituents should have to wait a moment longer for basic rights over their own homes, the right to manage, and the right not to be subjected to unreasonable and sometimes fabricated service charges and then bullied into submission by managing agents who threaten legal proceedings and, ultimately, forfeiture.

For my constituents and millions like them throughout the country, the delay is imposing financial penury and severe impacts on their mental and physical health, as the right hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) said. The impacts include those on the residents of Williams Way in my constituency of Brent North, from where one resident wrote to me saying:

“My wife cried last night when I shared a few things about all of this. Management fees have increased: £5,600 in 2020 to £8,400 in 2022—I cannot afford to pay this significant increase. That is a 50% increase. Water storage has increased from £564 in 2020 to £1068—an 89% increase. The insurance premium charged at £5,820.76 in 2021 increased to £20,726.23 in 2022—a staggering 256% increase. A detailed explanation has not been provided.”

Hallmark Premier Estates is the managing agent there, but it is not providing a premier service—just as it is failing to do in Parkside Place in Barham village, where the insurance premium, which was £22,738 in 2021, has risen 108% to £47,415. No wonder I was told yesterday that the landlord would be replacing Hallmark as the managing agents for “unspecified reasons”.

One leaseholder in Lawns Court said:

“I have lived in my flat for 39 years, but I find I can no longer struggle to keep it - the service charges for my one-bedroom flat have risen from £1600 per annum to over £5000 per annum. That is a 212% increase.”

The managing agents there are Aldermartin, Baines & Cuthbert.

At the Living City development in Colindale in my constituency, leaseholders were advised in March last year that after the constant failure of the communal hot water supply to the building over three successive winters, they would receive a rebate on their service charge, only for that offer to be countermanded in October last year. Residents noted that their insurance cover appeared to be paying for associated commercial units, and found that the premium had been increased by 100%. Lift maintenance is also charged, conveniently, on a day rate rather than a job rate: the lift fails, and a day rate is charged to fix it. Strangely, it fails again the following day, and another day rate is charged to fix it again—and so on, day after day, until astronomical charges have been incurred, with the managing agents able to take a management fee every time, of course.

I have written to all these managing agents, challenging them to justify their service charges and other fees, and to none have I been writing longer than Freshwater and its associated companies—at the last count more than 150 linked under the same beneficial ownership. It is because of Freshwater that in 1999 I launched my original campaign for what became the 2002 Act. One of its leaseholders wrote to me from Barons Court in my constituency, saying:

“Dear Barry, every double bed apartment now costs £6000 up from £2600 per year a 130% increase in service charge and we had to pay for the Waking Watch. The management company will not tell us how much commission they receive from the insurance premiums. We arranged our own fire tests and paid for critical remediation work.”

The name of the company FirstPort is well known to many Members. Since 2013, my constituents in Chamberlayne Walk have been challenging unreasonable service charges by FirstPort management services. I say unreasonable but, in fact, the word “fraudulent” is closer to the truth: it even charged for the management of surrounding land that it did not own and was not its to manage. One resident wrote to me about a typical example of its practice, saying:

“I was charged £1725.88 for internal and external decorations (painting of the windows). My windows are UPVC - no redecoration was required.”

Another wrote to tell me:

“The back fill of the stack pipe which causes water to come up into my kitchen sink and has flooded my kitchen on many occasions is still an issue after 15 years of reporting it.”

Yet another person explained:

“My flat is a one-bedroom flat, one of the smallest on the estate and I was charged £2861 for redecorations - almost double the costs levied on the larger 2-bedroom flats this matter remains unresolved.”

FirstPort’s response to those and the more than 500 more complaints like them that I have received is to make no response and ignore things for as long as possible—for months and years, not days and weeks. There is a lack of accountability and transparency over what the residents are charged for and whether the costs are reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount. There is a total failure to provide leaseholders with a breakdown of service charges. Many of my constituents can wait more than 20 months for accounts to be finalised.

Even when FirstPort admits that refunds are owed to the leaseholder because of double counting, overcharging or charging for services not provided, the requests for the return of the overpayments are often ignored, or the returns can take many months to be made. FirstPort also charged multiple administration penalty charges of £60 each when someone queried the costs. One resident ended up being billed for more than £400 of admin charges and was then browbeaten into paying because of the threat of legal action.

In 2019, Nigel Howell, the then chief executive, conceded to me that it was unlawful for his company to impose late penalty fees on leaseholders who had disputed their charges—but not all leaseholders have been refunded. Nigel Howell also confirmed to me that his company had charged costs for areas not under FirstPort’s management and promised that a 20% refund would be given in the following year’s accounts. Strangely, Nigel Howell was removed from his post as chief executive.

After years of suffering, one brave, resilient resident finally took FirstPort to the tribunal. FirstPort sought to rely in its defence on two factors: it tried to rely on the payments made by leaseholders—in other words, by paying up they had intimated consent; and, especially ironic given the FirstPort practice of delay, it tried to rely on the length of time the leaseholder had taken in bringing the challenge to the tribunal.

On Friday 13 January, the last working day before the hearing, I received the following email in my office from my constituent at 5 pm:

“They are settling all of the claim. Their lawyers harassed me all week and made the offer on Friday afternoon, just hours before the hearing this Monday. They did not want this case heard as they have been lying to Barry. They owe money to 202 families.”

Of course FirstPort did not want the case heard in public: section 27A(5) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that

“the tenant is not to be taken to have agreed or admitted any matter by reason only of having made any payment.”

Tenants often pay expressly disputed service charges to avoid the risk of forfeiture and preserve their home and the value of their lease.

Of course FirstPort did not want that in the public domain, but it now is, and 200 other families have now been given heart that it is possible to take FirstPort on and beat it. Already, 42 other leaseholders on the estate have signed up to a class action. But the point is that this should not be happening. A code of conduct for managing agents will not do any good. The 1985 Act already provides that service charges must be reasonable and services and works must be carried out to a reasonable standard. The problem is the whole imbalance of power between the leaseholder and the freeholder.

Leasehold tribunals were intended to be a cheap, efficient way of resolving normal disputes between reasonable people without enormous legal costs, but landlords have intimidated leaseholders by engaging vast arrays of lawyers and threatening them with forfeiture and bankruptcy. There is a way to end this misery, but it is not with a new code of practice. Companies do not obey the existing primary legislation; they will not abide by a new code of practice. The way to end this misery is not with the safety regulator. Company law allows companies to avoid their obligations, go into administration while the directors set up new companies and repeat their scams all over again. This misery will end only when we have an end to leasehold. Our country has put up with a feudal system of land tenure for almost 2,000 years. It is time it stopped.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I am very grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. It is clear that there is a compelling case for wholesale reform in this area. The hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) has done himself no harm in Steinbeck Grange today, I am quite sure, but the point that he made is one that we all share. It was ably made by the right hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) as well. He said that that resident had said that he had to reassess his life.

For so many people, that is what is happening. Millions of people in this country are having to reassess their lives and the possibilities that they thought were open to them—even on changing jobs—trapped in their own homes, unable to sell, unable to move to a new job, or trapped in a one-bedroom home, unable to have any more children. Their plans are on hold. Their lives are on hold.

It is really interesting to hear the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) made about a 3,000% increase in service charges. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to take up that case and look into it further, because it is astonishing.

There are two key points that I want to follow up. The first is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who talked about the scandal of managing agents often being at the centre of a web of companies all linked to the same beneficial owners.

In Wembley Central Apartments in my constituency—I am not sure that I will get this entirely right—St Modwens and Sowcrest were the joint developers. Sowcrest sold to a Canadian company, which then sold to Wembley Central Ltd, which is established in Jersey. They claim that it is for them to do the remediation work on the building, yet Sowcrest was the original freeholder and the developer itself. Those are the sorts of entangled webs that we are dealing with here.

With that, I look to the Minister to do all that he can in government to bring forward the legislation. I hope that it conforms to the four points—the four challenges—that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), speaking from our Front Bench, mentioned. We all look forward, ultimately, to seeing an end to this appalling practice.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered leaseholders and managing agents.

Draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Higher-Risk Buildings (Key Building Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2023.

The regulations set out the high-level information to be provided to the Building Safety Regulator and clarify for which parts of a building individual accountable persons are responsible. The regulations are part of the new building safety regime created by the Building Safety Act 2022. They are a fundamental part of our ongoing reforms to ensure that all residents’ homes are places where they are safe and can feel safe.

I will provide some context and background to these important regulations. After the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the Government appointed Dame Judith Hackitt to conduct an expert review of the building safety regime. Her review showed that there are significant issues in the industry. She identified that cultural and regulatory change was needed in order for the industry to be fit for purpose.

Dame Judith recommended a new approach to managing fire and structural safety risks in higher-risk buildings. She advised that a new, strengthened regulatory regime should be brought forward to improve accountability, risk management and assurance for higher-risk buildings. She also identified the lack of information about higher-risk buildings as an issue. In her report, she set out that access to up-to-date information is crucial for higher-risk buildings. Her report sets out that the new regulatory regime needs to provide closer, more robust and more expert scrutiny of higher-risk buildings. To do that, the regulator will need accurate and up-to-date information about such buildings.

The Government accepted Dame Judith’s recommendations and brought forward the Building Safety Act, which received Royal Assent in April 2022. The Act establishes the new regime, which creates stronger oversight of higher-risk buildings and puts stronger legal duties on those responsible for the safety of higher-risk buildings throughout their lifecycle. It also brings forward stronger enforcement and sanctions to deter and rectify non-compliance.

The regulations set out requirements for occupied higher-risk buildings. In particular, they set out the high-level building information—that is, the key building information—that will need to be provided to the Building Safety Regulator. This key building information will help the regulator to fulfil its duties under the 2022 Act.

The Building Safety Act sets out that all occupied higher-risk buildings will have at least one clearly identifiable accountable person. The accountable person will be responsible for assessing, managing and mitigating building safety risks. If an occupied higher-risk building has only one accountable person, they will automatically become the principal accountable person. Where the building has two or more accountable persons, the one responsible for the repair of the structure and exterior of the building will be the principal accountable person. The regulations clarify which accountable person is responsible for different parts of a building in cases when there is more than one accountable person.

The regulations are split into two parts. First, they establish the key building information that must be provided to the Building Safety Regulator by the principal accountable person.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Before the Minister moves on from the business of accountable persons, does she share the concern of many of my constituents that, by appointing the accountable person, the Government are doing one important thing and setting out that someone is actually responsible? The problem has been that the buck has been passed all around. But in doing that, the Government are passing to the residents—the commonhold association itself—the responsibility that should properly lie with the developer of the building, whose responsibility it was to ensure that the building was constructed properly in the first place. In many cases, it was not.

[Dehenna Davison]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that one of the key issues is the clear line of accountability. That is something that the regulations and the Building Safety Act seek to rectify. I am happy to write to him with further clarity on the role of developers, if that would be helpful, but the key point is to ensure that a person in the building now is responsible for the building now and has that clear line of accountability. However, I will follow up in writing to provide more clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dehenna Davison]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will of course ask the Department to identify said information and pass it on to him, if that is something he wants specifically for his constituency. May I say what a great way that was to garner information?

I have outlined a few of the things that the regulator must be informed of. It must also be provided with information about the materials used in the building—that is, the materials used in the external walls, the external wall insulation, the roof, and any fixtures attached to the external walls and roof. Information will also have to be provided about the type of evacuation strategy for the building, such as “stay put” or simultaneous evacuation, and the fire and smoke control equipment in the building. All that information will be pivotal in helping the Building Safety Regulator to go about its day-to-day functions and duties, understand typical features and trends in the existing stock of buildings, and identify safety concerns in the future. Guidance will make clear exactly what information is required to meet the legal obligation.

[Barry Gardiner]

Clearly, the building regulator will accrue a huge amount of information. Will the Minister set out how many building regulators there will be? Will there be only one? If so, what facilities and resources will be made available to the regulator to enable it to cope with the influx of information and sift it so that the safety end is achieved?

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your rigorous chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. Here we have huge responsibilities being placed on individuals or commonhold associations without the necessary power to do what is being obligated. Those who have engaged with leaseholders over many years know that communications between residents in a large tower block often take huge lengths of time. They are not instantaneous. The idea that within 28 days the appropriate person will be able to ensure that they have all the information from other residents is fanciful. Communications just do not work like that in tower blocks.

That will discourage leaseholders from taking over the management of their building. Many of them are labouring under problems with their existing managing agents, such as huge increases in their service charges or often completely inappropriate items billed to them erroneously. They therefore want to be enfranchised and to take on the responsibility as managing agents themselves. With that, however, will come the new responsibilities, which are incredibly onerous.

My hon. Friend was absolutely right to ask about penalties. Those who exercise those responsibilities, or try to, have to know what will happen to them if they fail to do so—not wilfully or through negligence, but because it is simply not possible to secure all the appropriate information in the timeframe. There is then the question of what happens if they cannot access the information. As my hon. Friend said, this is about not just fire doors, which are at least there physically and can be seen, but internal fire stopping, which may not have been put in during construction. That is one of the things that makes a building most susceptible to fire, yet it is not mentioned in regulation 8. That is essential if people are to fulfil the duties that the Government are placing them.

Ultimately, this issue goes back to where responsibility lies. It is great that we are trying to nail that down, and I appreciate what the Government are trying to do, but there are real, practical constraints. We need to know what the penalties are and how the regulations will be enforced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dehenna Davison]

I will follow up on that point in writing after the Committee rises, if that is acceptable.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; she is being generous in engaging in debate. In answering the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich asked about fire doors, she referred to regulation 18, which talks about

“fire and smoke control equipment”

and specifically excludes that which is

“provided by a resident for their own use.”

“Equipment” does not sound as if it includes fire stopping. Will the Minister please clarify where responsibility lies for fire stopping in a building?

[Dehenna Davison]

As I have highlighted, guidance will be provided, and we hope that it will provide the clarity that is needed. Again, though, if we have more information, I will follow up in writing to provide the hon. Gentleman with further assurances.

I am grateful to hon. Members for their engagement, and I am particularly grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, for his constructive approach. Right across the House, we recognise how crucial this issue is, and I am grateful that we are moving forward to tackle it together. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Building Safety

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I will work with all the devolved Administrations to ensure that we work together on this. I do not know whether Laing O’Rourke has yet signed, but if it does not, it will face consequences. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and of course the Welsh Government.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that those who built these buildings did not always build them safely, “at times knowingly”. What sanctions will be faced by those who knowingly took shortcuts on safety, endangering and blighting residents’ lives, and who will bring them? As for the companies that he says must either sign or get out and find another business, what happens when they simply go out of business and pop up under another name?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes some very good points. We have found that one particular company— I will not name it at the Dispatch Box at this time but I am more than happy to name it in private conversation—has tried to do just that and shift responsibility, and it was directly involved in construction at Grenfell. As a result, we have said that it cannot have access to Government funds through Help to Buy or any other schemes. The whole question of what further action may be taken against companies that knowingly put people’s lives at risk will be a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, following on from the conclusion of the Grenfell inquiry. I know that people have had to wait a long time for justice. I do sympathise with them, but, obviously, I cannot interfere with the independent operation of the justice system.

Holocaust Memorial Day

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I will, and I thought the images of those survivors and their families with the Prince of Wales—just yesterday, I believe—seeing the unveiling of their portraits at the Royal Gallery was extremely moving.

Those are some of the reasons why, as Secretary of State, I worked to gain approval for the National Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, so that, when the time when the last living survivors leave us does come, there will be another permanent centre to reflect, honour and remember those who suffered and died, and to educate future generations. I am grateful to Members on all sides of this House who continue to support that initiative.

Our debate in Parliament also matters. I have come year after year to share my own or my constituents’ experiences of the holocaust. I have talked about my own family, many of whom perished in death camps in what today is Ukraine, but two of whom miraculously survived—my children are their great-grandchildren. Had the right hon. Member for Barking been present, she would have shared with us the experience of her brother-in-law, who is gravely ill.

Herbert was born in Germany in 1930 into a successful middle-class Jewish family. One of his earliest memories is Kristallnacht in November 1938, when his grandfather was assaulted and had all his teeth knocked out. His father had already lost his job as a judge because he was a Jew. Herbert and his little sister were among the very few children who escaped on the Kindertransport. He still has the passport with the Nazi swastika imprinted on it. He remembers little of the journey he took to Liverpool Street—he was only eight. From London he went to Wales, where the children were joined by their mother, who managed to escape. His father did get to Switzerland, but the family were never reunited. Although a refugee, Herbert served in the RAF and has enjoyed a full and fulfilling life in Britain.

The right hon. Lady and I both know how powerful it is to have heard these stories from our own family members, to feel their impact and to have had a personal relationship with those who were victims of the holocaust. It is—I think I speak for all of us in this House who have met them—one of the greatest privileges to meet survivors. It was a huge privilege for me to meet Sir Ben Helfgott, Lily Ebert and Susan Pollack in July, when together we marked the granting of planning permission for the memorial in Victoria Gardens. All were very emotional that day. One said to me, as we walked away, that she could die easier knowing that they had contributed to that project and to educating future generations.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very important and powerful speech. I had the privilege of meeting Gena Turgel, the bride of Belsen, when she spoke to schoolchildren in my constituency. Does he welcome the work of the trust, which is propagating those memories to the next generation and how important it is that that continuous word-of-mouth is passed on?

[Robert Jenrick]

I certainly do and the hon. Gentleman makes the point very powerfully. The way we remember is changing. For example, Dov, the great-grandson of Lily, whom I met in Victoria Gardens, is now using his 1.3 million TikTok followers to educate the next generation with her stories. I strongly encourage those who have not seen them to do so. The importance of remembrance remains as strong as ever.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords]

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Monday 24th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Eddie Hughes]

I strongly suspect that my right hon. Friend will be catching up with the Secretary of State next time they walk through the Lobby together, and will be making exactly that point to him.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

May I take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning)? When the Minister conducts that far-reaching review, will it return to the case of Custins v. Hearts of Oak Benefit Society back in 1969? Will it consider the abolition of leasehold, and the full ability of leaseholders to take on the franchise and ultimately the freehold of their buildings?

[Eddie Hughes]

I think it is too early for me to be able to predict exactly what will be in the Bill, and what its reach and remit might be, but I am sure I will be open to conversations with the hon. Member to discuss his thoughts on what could go into it.

It would be remiss of me to not mention that in fact only two weeks ago we launched a public consultation to seek views on proposals to allow more leaseholders in mixed-use buildings to take control and ownership of their building. That consultation will play an important role in shaping the next stage of our reforms to create a fairer leasehold system in England and Wales.

I thank the Competition and Markets Authority for the vital role it is playing in improving the sector for existing leaseholders. The CMA has already helped thousands of leaseholders to gain access to justice since opening its investigation, and I welcome its dedication in the ongoing fight against abuse in the sector. Let me repeat that the CMA’s action against industry players serves as a warning to others, and we expect those who continue to permit such poor practices to heed the example set by the investigation.

Building Safety

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Today the Secretary of State has told us what many all across the House told the Government three years ago—namely, that individual leaseholders trapped in unsafe homes should not have to bear the cost of making them safe. But today’s statement focuses on cladding, whereas the vast majority of leaseholders are suffering in unsafe homes as a result of other insulation and fire stopping defects. How will he address that? He has told the companies to pay up, but many have now gone into voluntary liquidation. We need a windfall tax on the whole industry now. Far too many leaseholders have been waiting for three and half years in purdah. Many of them, like my constituents in Central Square, have been waiting since 31 July even to get a response from the BSF. Can the Secretary of State get his own Department to be a bit more expeditious?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a number of important points. Yes, the Department needs to be more expeditious and yes, we are focused on doing just that. Yes, it is important that the freeholders—the ultimate owners—deal with all the fire safety issues and yes, it is absolutely right that, while ACM cladding is the most egregious example of buildings being unsafe, there are many other issues that require to be tackled.

Building Safety Bill

Barry Gardiner Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]]

I am not sure what is worse for leaseholders: the fact that they are in constant fear because their homes are not safe, the fact that they cannot afford to make them safe and are being harassed by greedy managing agents, or the fact that they are trapped in their flats without any easy option to sell and move on with their lives. Today’s statement and the Bill do not fundamentally change that for all the reasons the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), set out in his brief but excellent speech.

During the passage of the Fire Safety Bill, Ministers promised that these issues would be addressed in the Building Safety Bill. Lord Greenhalgh said:

“it is unacceptable for leaseholders to have to worry about costs of fixing historic safety defects in their buildings that they did not cause”

and that

“building owners are responsible for ensuring the safety of residents”,

and he said that they should

“protect leaseholders from the costs of remediating historic building defects.”

I do not know what the correct term in Parliament is for someone who make promises that they do not keep, but I know what they call them on the streets of Brent North: they call them a Government Minister.

Extending the scope and duration of the Defective Premises Act 1972 in the Building Safety Bill shows that the Government do not understand the extent of the problem. I ask the Minister to explain to my constituents who live in the Wembley Central development how it will help them. The original developer of their homes, St Modwen, has washed its hands of these defective properties. It sold them to an offshore company in Jersey in 2018, following the introduction of the new building regulations. It was in partnership with Sowcrest, which is now in a very convenient liquidation. So who exactly does the Minister think my constituents can chase here? What are the Government prepared to do about buildings with obscure corporate ownership?

I first contacted St Modwen in 2017, immediately after the Grenfell tragedy. It repeatedly assured me that the buildings were safe and in 2018 confirmed in writing that no fire safety defects had been identified. I am now told that the cladding on this building is the same as that used in Grenfell Tower and the fire safety report has identified fire stopping defects throughout the construction process. In May this year, St Modwen agreed to a takeover bid of £1.2 billion from Blackstone. Can the Minister tell me how this Bill will make them accountable for their actions? It was not the leaseholders who decided to use flammable cladding or to leave out fire stopping in voids or cut corners—developers made those decisions. My constituents have neither the deep pockets nor the legal expertise to fight these corporate chameleons, who start off in London and end up in Jersey as a different company. This Bill shows that the Government either do not understand or do not care. The companies can afford lengthy litigation; leaseholders cannot.

Finally, the Minister must explain why there is so little progress on the building safety fund. I wrote to St Modwen on 23 June. I still await a response. I have written to Fidum, the new managing agent for the new owners. I asked it about its application to the building safety fund for the removal of unsafe cladding. I have received no response, but Fidum now tells residents that it missed the closing date of 30 June for the second application because it is still waiting to have eligibility—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Joy Morrissey.