Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Khan of Burnley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Khan of Burnley]

92: After Clause 95, insert the following new Clause—
“Requirement to establish and operate a management company under leaseholder control(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—(a) requiring any long lease of a dwelling to include a residents management company (“RMC”) as a party to that lease, and(b) for that company to discharge under the long lease such management functions as may be prescribed by the regulations.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide—(a) for the RMC to be a company limited by share (with each share to have a value not to exceed £1), and(b) for such shares to be allocated (for no consideration) to the leaseholder of the dwelling for the time being.(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must prescribe the content and form of the articles of association of an RMC.(4) The content and form of articles prescribed in accordance with subsection (3) have effect in relation to an RMC whether or not such articles are adopted by the company.(5) A provision of the articles of an RMC has no effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with the content or form of articles prescribed in accordance with subsection (3).(6) Section 20 of the Companies Act 2006 (default application of model articles) does not apply to an RMC.(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State sees fit for the enforcement of regulations made under subsection (1), and such provision may (among other things) include provision—(a) conferring power on the First-Tier Tribunal to order that leases be varied to give effect to this section;(b) providing for terms to be implied into leases without the need for any order of any court or tribunal.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe descriptions of buildings in respect of which regulations may be made under subsection (1).(9) In this section—“dwelling” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling, together with any yard, garden, or outhouses and appurtenances belonging to it or usually enjoyed with it;“long lease” has the meaning given by sections 76 and 77 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002;“management function” has the meaning given by section 96(5) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the definition of “management function” for the purposes of this section.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that leases on new flats include a requirement to establish and operate a residents’ management company responsible for all service charge matters, with each leaseholder given a share.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

I am acutely aware that, before and during the passage of this Bill, there has been much debate about commonhold across the House. We fully support a move to commonhold and, while we cannot go as far as many noble Lords would like, it is a journey. With that, I humbly request that the noble Lord withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, although it does not satisfy exactly the issues that we have raised. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for saying that this

“draws a line under the past”

and is a

“step in the right direction”.

It is a fairer process when those who are paying the bills have control of the bills.

We would not need this amendment if the Government had followed the Law Commission recommendations to move to a commonhold system now. This is a missed opportunity. That is why we have argued that this is a limited Bill. I wish that the noble and Lancastrian Lord had gone for the Lancastrian approach and been absolutely candid and answered the questions. In the meantime, I accept his reasoning and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 92 withdrawn.