Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Lord Moylan Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 24th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to press my noble friend on Amendment 1. The Bill bans new houses being sold on leasehold, which is something I entirely support. Schedule 1 provides a rather narrow range of exemptions and Amendment 1 refers to retirement housing.

I raised in Committee a product called Homes for Life, which looks as if it may be caught by this Bill. Basically, Homes for Life enables someone who is over 60 to sell their home on the open market, then Homes for Life buys the home they want to move to and gives them a lease on that home. That enables the person to downsize and releases a useful sum of money for them. However, that product is not at the moment exempted under Schedule 1. When the Government consulted on implementing reforms to the leasehold system they concluded:

“We will provide an exemption from the ban for these financial products”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/24; col. 1271.]


That included this one. I was in correspondence with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about this. Can my noble friend give an assurance that that product, which is useful and non-controversial, will not be banned by the Bill when it becomes an Act?

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, before I go further, I declare that I am a long leaseholder in a property which is my home and that I have no other property interests, apart from as a will trustee of one flat in London in which I have no beneficial interest, simply a nominal interest on behalf of the beneficiary of the will during his lifetime.

I shall respond in particular to Amendments 55 and 58 among the government amendments, because they address a point that I have raised. I am slightly surprised that my noble friend on the Front Bench did not seek to draw my attention to this fact. It is a point that I raised in Committee and on which I have a related amendment later in the list, which we will no doubt come to—but if I address it now, I can be briefer when we come to that group later on.

The matter relates in particular to the question that I raised in Committee about the ability of landlords to recover legal costs from the service charge and, in particular, how this would work for right-to-manage companies. I should have declared that in the block where I live we have a right-to-manage company, and I am a member and a director of that company. How would this ban relate to right-to-manage companies that have no other source of income apart from the service charge? Before these amendments were brought forward, the Bill would have made it virtually impossible for a right-to-manage company to bring legal action against, for example, a defaulter or someone who failed to pay, because they would have no assurance in advance that they would be able to recover their legal costs. The directors would be exposed to having to pay the legal costs out of their own pockets—quite apart from the fact that most lawyers like a little bit of money upfront anyway in order to commence proceedings, so that would need to be funded from the private pockets of the directors of the company. My amendment later also raises this question in relation to other types of non-profit landlord or building managers who have no financial interest in the building other than in their role as manager.

The Government’s response—and here I am making the speech I was expecting my noble friend to make in relation to these two amendments—appears to be that the Secretary of State will make regulations subject to the affirmative procedure to provide for circumstances where the new proposed regime on litigation costs and administration charges will not apply or is suspended.

This appears to be something of a concession in the direction of the point I raised in Committee and have on the amendment paper later. But the drafting and Explanatory Notes provide no guidance on when such regulations will be made or what the intention is behind such exemptions. It is worth saying here that the amendments provide that the circumstances on which the exceptions may be based include not only the litigation costs but the relevant proceedings and the landlord of a specified description. As I say, this could be beneficial for freeholders in the circumstances I described, but it depends very much on the content of the regulations.

I would like to ask my noble friend some questions. We are in the very strange position that I am asking him to give a commitment when, subject to the will of the electorate, he may not be a member of the Government and the Government on behalf of whom he speaks may not be in power. I say nothing to anticipate what the result may be, but of course the electorate may choose a Government of a different party. I will none the less ask him these questions and, in some ways, I would be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, might find it possible to give his own answer to these questions.

The first question is: what types of litigation costs, proceedings or landlords do the Government intend to be excepted from the general rule? I am sorry, normally I am better prepared, but of course very few of us are well prepared for dealing with this Bill because it has been added so late to the agenda. I suspect my noble friend on the Front Bench is in that category as well, from the turn of the head I noticed on his part just now.

Could these exceptions also extend to certain categories of leaseholders, for example investor leaseholders who might benefit from the general rule? Crucially, within what timeframe will such regulations be made? There is of course no commitment to timeframes in the amendments that have been made. The difficulty is that directors of right-to-manage companies and others are being left in a sort of limbo between the passing of this Bill and the coming into effect of the regulations.

One must also bear in mind that directors of right-to-manage companies and similar landlords may be the subject of legal action. Their ability to recover their own legal costs in defending such actions is also a question that needs to be resolved—and clearly resolved. If people such as me are going to continue as directors of right-to-manage companies, they will potentially find themselves exposed to that sort of risk.

So, as far as these two amendments go, I welcome their general direction. I find it deeply unsatisfactory that we are having to rely on the promise of a Secretary of State who may not be in office in six weeks. I would prefer my own approach, later on the Marshalled List, of putting these provisions on the face of the Bill. I seek a very clear response from my noble friend so that the many people in this country who have pursued right-to-manage, which is a policy the Government support and wish to extend—and I wholly support them in that—are not left adrift by ill thought out drafting in this Bill.

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 states that a lease is a retirement housing lease where residents have a minimum age of 55 years. I declare an interest as a chairman of the Hospital of the Holy and Undivided Trinity at Castle Rising. Is it possible to retrospectively introduce that condition if it does not already exist? In the case of the charity I referred to, the trust deed was originally set out in the 17th century and there was less concern then about things such as there are in this piece of legislation. Perhaps the Minister could tell me whether, or what, action could be taken to make sure that this particular building does not fall foul of the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I am grateful for all the contributions in what has been a relatively brief group. I will go through the issues that were raised chronologically.

My noble friend Lord Young raised a specific case, and I have seen the correspondence he referred to. It is the Government’s policy to allow equity release in home finance products in houses, including home purchase plans and lifetime leases. We have a power in this Bill to add, remove or amend definitions for categories of permitted leases. On the specific product, the department is considering an appropriate definition for secondary legislation, and officials have met the main provider in question. I assure my noble friend that the measures in the Bill relating to the ban on leasehold houses will not be implemented immediately, should the Bill secure Royal Assent, as there are other important regulations that need to be provided for first before the ban becomes operational.

My noble friend Lord Moylan is right to say that this will come up later, and we can have the discussion then. In brief, on the right-to-manage companies, we have laid amendments to set regulations to suspend the requirement for certain landlords to apply to the relevant court or tribunal to recover their litigation costs until an event set out in regulation occurs. An example of when it might be appropriate to suspend the application requirement is for resident-led buildings or assetless landlords. As I say, I think we will come back to it later.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Among noble Lords, my noble friend at least must have confidence that the Government will be returned to power and that he will be sitting on that Bench only a matter of weeks from now. On that assumption, could he give us a date for when these regulations will be brought forward, so we can at least know the Government’s position on the timing of this? There is the risk of people being left in limbo. Even if it is a matter of six weeks that is bad enough, but it could be longer, even if the Government are returned to power. On that assumption, is he able to help the House, and directors and members of right-to-manage companies, by indicating a date when the regulations will be brought before us under the affirmative procedure?

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

On the first question, it is with regret that I cannot give that date now. On his second question—whether I have confidence that we will win—that is up to the electorate, but I have every hope that we will. Obviously, I would not like to curse us in saying that—touch wood. Who knows? Let us see.

I was also asked what action could be taken to make sure that this does not fall foul of legislation. The Government will work closely with stakeholders to ensure that the application requirement is suspended only where appropriate. In addition, the power is subject to the affirmative procedure.

This is the first time I have had the honour to speak directly to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, from the Dispatch Box. I know he has raised this issue inside the Chamber and outside many times, and he is right to do so. Obviously, there have been many constraints on the legislative timetable and, as we are now in wash-up, those pressures have increased tenfold. This is a good Bill as it stands, and the Government want to see it through. The noble Lord mentioned that we are at the beginning of a general election campaign. Who knows what will come thereafter, but this Bill is very good as it stands, and I hope noble Lords will be able to support it today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I do not want to just go through the motions. I just want to understand the process so that we do not bother speaking to every group of amendments just for the sake of it. Clarity would be helpful on the Government’s attitude to the positive amendments that have been put in by the likes of the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. I thank my heckler as well. It is always appreciated.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the two linked amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington. It is perfectly clear that leasehold is unlikely to be the path of the future. My objections to this Bill, apart from some that are to do with practicality—such as the one I spoke on in the last group, where clarity is still needed from the Government—are about the retrospective meddling with private property rights and existing private contracts.

It is perfectly clear that leasehold has probably had its day and that my noble friend is correct in saying that future buildings—blocks of flats or whatever—should be constituted under some such regime as commonhold, or at least shared freehold with 999-year leases or some other such provision as he has mentioned here in his amendment. I would very much hope that the Government and the Opposition would take this on, and certainly if my noble friend were to divide the House, I would support him in the lobbies on Amendment 8 and the associated consequential amendment.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, we have come to the last stages—the last rites—of this important Bill, which we on these Benches support, despite the fact that there are serious omissions to it. It is fascinating to me that it is Members of the Government’s own side who are raising all the issues at this late stage, and perhaps trying to delay the passage of this Bill.

On the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, we on these Benches support the move to commonhold. It is one of the principles on which the leasehold reform Bill was to be based. It is most unfortunate that, because of the difficulty in overcoming some of the issues in reaching the ability to move to commonhold, this Bill does not include it. However, I am glad that both the Government Benches and the Labour Benches are saying that they support the Bill and want to make further changes, whoever comes into power on 5 July. We on this side are making lots of notes so that we know that, whoever it is, we will hold them to account, to bring these back so that we have a leasehold reform Bill that everyone across the House can support. It should include commonhold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, this is the first time I have taken part in the debates on this Bill so I should state, for the avoidance of doubt, that I have no leasehold interest whatever. With the leave of the House, I will be slightly far-reaching; there are several amendments here. This is a far-reaching Bill, but it has not been properly scrutinised. Indeed, my noble friend the Minister admitted some confusion in his remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that this way of doing legislation is “just wrong”, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said that we need some clarity. We need clarity and clear legislation because otherwise—we have all seen this—there will be further confusion.

I can certainly support the end of freeholds in the future; I have no problem with that at all. Yet we have heard that the Bill will not do that; it will not happen yet. Furthermore, this legislation is retrospective for existing freeholds and leaseholds. Retrospective legislation is always deemed unwise. I will not go into too much detail about marriage value or foreign investors because we need to look at this better, but proper scrutiny has not taken place.

The first point is that there is a huge possibility of challenge in the courts—everybody must see that—because we are taking people’s property away. The rulings on confiscation of property and investment will certainly be subject to challenge. We would all challenge it if we had investments that were diminished by the Government. Of course, this could drive some freeholders, who have perhaps invested in just one or two leasehold flats, into bankruptcy. If it did, would the Government be subject to demands for compensation? I have no idea, but nor does anybody else because this has not been properly scrutinised.

What will happen, for instance, if a freeholder in a large building with several flats suddenly finds that he cannot pay the interest rates, goes bust and the flats are left without a freeholder or, indeed, anything to run the freehold? My noble friend Lord Bailey talked about commonhold, which is a very sensible way forward, but it is not properly addressed in this Bill.

Yesterday, I went to very moving memorial—one or two other noble Lords were there but not, I think, anyone here in the Chamber—for Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Stressed in that was his adherence to the rule of law and, indeed, to decency and fairness. We in this Chamber should all be looking at decency and fairness in any law we pass. I have to say that this Bill, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Howard, is not decent or fair. It is half-baked and half-thought-out, and there will be huge problems in the future.

I agree that there are problems in leasehold, but this Bill does not necessarily address them. In fact, in my opinion, it will make for chaos. I do not wish to detain the House further, except to say: we must make proper, well-scrutinised legislation. This House, for goodness’ sake, is always claimed to scrutinise legislation properly, yet here we are on a late afternoon when not many people are around, dashing for a wash-up. This is the worst way to pass legislation.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I say in support of my noble friend Lord Robathan, having once lived in a flat where the landlord was bankrupt, that you do not want to have a bankrupt landlord. It is not good for leaseholders if the landlord cannot exercise their functions—well or badly. So I ask my noble friend the Minister: what assessment have the Government made of the likely effects of this in inducing insolvency on the part of various landlords? There is too much passion behind this Bill, but the passion seems to be predicated on the idea that landlords are all rich private equity characters who can be mulcted for endless amounts of money, when the truth is that in many cases, freehold interests are owned by families, and sometimes small investors, and the effects of this on them, especially if their investment is leveraged, can be very great.

Turning to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising, and the amendment, I acknowledge that we are in danger of straying into the next group, which is specifically about marriage value, and I will save my remarks on that until the next group. But on the general principle, the Government have presented the Bill in a way that seems to me to confuse the concepts of leaseholders and tenants. They presented this as something that would be good for home owners but, in practice, as we know, a very large number of leasehold flats are sublet, quite properly and quite lawfully, to people who pay rent for them. The benefit will not go to the home occupier; it will go to the person who holds the lease.

The next fallacy from the Government—who seem to have difficulty, for a Conservative Government, in understanding markets—is that this benefit will somehow trickle down to future leaseholders. That is not true either. What is happening is a transfer of wealth from one group of persons to another. That second group, having been enriched by this movement, will seek to achieve and will achieve higher prices when they sell later on. It is not the case that flats, or even houses, will become generally cheaper as a result of this. The benefit is a one-off transfer to existing leaseholders, many of whom have a profound interest in seeing this happen because they are going to be the direct beneficiary of the expropriation.

The next fallacy that the Government have been peddling is ignoring the fact that so much property, especially in London, is owned by foreign investors. There are reasons for that, which I think deserve exploration, although this is not the time. But property is, as a matter of fact, as I think everyone will acknowledge, owned by foreign investors. We all know about these new blocks of flats that were pre-marketed in Singapore, Hong Kong and all sorts of places, not to mention the Gulf. Those who still hold those leases will be the direct beneficiaries, not the persons to whom they let their flats. But the Government seem to have made no assessment of what the effect of this is going to be. I am to some extent reinforcing the points made by my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising. I ask, seriously, my noble friend on the Front Bench: where is the assessment of this? Is it credible, and will he give an account of it?

I will make a final point: the biggest beneficiaries of this transfer are going to be people who have short leases and expensive properties. I mentioned in Committee that in Kensington there are many people salivating at the prospect of this Bill being passed. This is not about poor people living in remoter parts of the country. This is about the benefit, as a matter of mathematics, that will go to those with shorter leases and larger properties.

What assessment has my noble friend the Minister made of how much business has gone on in the last year and six months of investors cannily buying up short leases, specifically in anticipation of this Bill passing because of the windfall profit they expect to accrue as a result? It is remarkable that the Government seem to think that this measure will benefit ordinary people. It will not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

The context of my point about clarity was slightly different.

Anyway, the final thing is that the bankruptcy many leaseholders face, because of service charges and some of the things this Bill tries to deal with, is just being ignored.

The final thing is that I object to this notion that it is an attack on property rights and to this idea that people do not understand. People who buy leasehold flats are entering into the property market. They think they are property owners and they are being done over and ripped off by people who sell them the myth that they are buying into a property-owning democracy—something which has been sold by the Conservative Party many times. They have been mis-sold and misled. This cry for commonhold is all about giving them the right to own their property and manage their own affairs and not, suddenly out of nowhere, to have people in control of their homes ripping them off. It is as simple as that. We are trying to give them autonomy. This Bill does not go far enough. However, these arguments are a complete distraction from the limitations of this Bill. They are irrelevant to this Bill. We should be let it go through as quickly as possible.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I hope she can appreciate that it is perfectly possible to agree with every word she said—that there are abusers, as I said in Committee, that the Bill should address the abuses and that commonhold or something of that character is undoubtedly the way forward and could be legislated for even now—and still be concerned about the retrospective seizure of assets from one party to be transferred to another and to ask how many of those are actually overseas investors, how many are domestic investors and how many are the real people she wants to speak up for who live in their homes. It is perfectly possible to ask those questions.

This Bill is a sledgehammer to attack a nut. It is rare that something as arcane as property law could excite such passion, but we need less passion and more focus on the detail of property law and getting it right if it is to work and not produce worse outcomes for people who live in their own homes, for whom she has so passionately and properly argued.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

It is very fashionable to say “I am not a lawyer”, but lots of lawyers who work in property and housing support this Bill but think it does not go far enough. It is not just all bluster and passion. That is misleading.

My final retort to come back is that I am defending people who buy a property to live in. People who buy a property that they then rent out are, as far as I know, not the devil incarnate. I am surprised that people on the Conservative Benches have decided that, if you happen to buy a leasehold property and you want to rent it out, you are doing something malign and malicious. This is not about poor people versus rich people. It is about impoverishing people who buy a house, thinking they are buying a house, only to find out that they have no control or autonomy and that somebody else from a rentier class that has become lazy about innovation in terms of construction, building and housing, is living off easy gains by ripping off leaseholders.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

29: Schedule 4, page 168, line 31, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the cap on ground rent for the purposes of enfranchisement calculations.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, there has been a number of groups concerning marriage value and I have not spoken in them, because I thought I would save my remarks for now. It is quite clear that what the Government are proposing is simply expropriation—there is no other word for it—and it is one of the two most objectionable features of this Bill. The second is the one I come to now, as the subject of these amendments, which relate to the setting of a cap on ground rents for valuation purposes.

It will perhaps help some noble Lords if I say that, when I have mentioned this amendment, some people have asked me, “Why are you talking about ground rent when the Bill doesn’t introduce the expected cap on ground rents?” It is the cap on ground rents payable that is not introduced. However, in Schedule 4, there are provisions whereby the Government determine what the ground rent should be treated as for the purpose of valuations in the event of a leasehold enfranchisement or a lease extension. These two amendments would simply remove that cap.

What is happening, put very simply, is another form of expropriation. Quite simply, the ground rent that the tenant has signed up for and which the freeholder has a legitimate expectation of should be ignored in the assessment of valuations for the purposes I mentioned a moment ago and should be set at 0.1% of the property’s market value as a cap. As I say, this is simply another unwarranted interference with property rights, with almost no understanding or explanation on the part of the Government of what the practical effects will be on the interests of legitimate freeholders, which include pension funds, charities and other parties.

With that, I shall sit down since I do not expect my noble friend to give way on the matter, but I think it is very important that the point is made: this is another of the two most odious provisions in the Bill.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend—if I can still call him that—Lord Moylan for these amendments. As I made clear in Committee, the Government have made their intention to make enfranchisement cheaper and easier for leaseholders explicitly clear.

There has been much discussion of ground rents and the incidences where they cause difficulties for leaseholders. The provision in the Bill to cap ground rent in enfranchisement calculation at 0.1% of the freehold vacant possession value is an important measure to ensure that leaseholders with relatively high ground rents do not find the cost of enfranchisement prohibitively expensive. These amendments would be counter to that objective so, with respect, I ask my noble friend Lord Moylan to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

31: Schedule 4, page 170, line 35, leave out sub-paragraphs (8) to (10)

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, again, I will be brief. The question of deferment rates was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell; he raised them specifically in connection with charities but he did not explain exactly what was going on here. My amendments are broader than his as they cover the entire spectrum of deferment rates.

What is going on here is that these rates, deferment rates and capitalisation rates—I have amendments addressing both—are absolutely crucial to the valuation of property for the purpose of freehold enfranchisement and leasehold extensions. Indeed, I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her speech in Committee when she read out in tabular form, so to speak, how very small adjustments in deferment rates—perhaps only a quarter of a percentage point—could have very large effects on capital values. She illustrated, without my having to do so, exactly how important this measure is.

Heretofore, deferment rates and capitalisation rates have been set in principle by a tribunal on the basis of argument and evidence. It is true that that does not happen very often. I grant this point to the Government: while large landowners have the resources to bring those actions before a tribunal, it is more difficult for leaseholders to do so because of the large amount of professional evidence required in order for them to make their case.

I fully accept, therefore, that this could be looked at, but can it be the right approach for this rate to be set by the Secretary of State? Why would we transfer this highly political question to the Secretary of State? Pushing up the deferment rate will have the effect of destroying freehold values. I know that my noble friend said that it will be set in line with the market, but that leaves a very wide margin of discretion, none the less. My amendments refer to both the deferment rates and the capitalisation rates. I cannot see why we would want to pass this sensitive decision into the political forum, in essence.

My noble friend said that the Secretary of State will consult—he offered that assurance to the right reverend Prelate in relation to charities—but that is no substitute for having these rates set in a judicial forum on an adversarial basis, as is our tradition, and on the basis of argument and evidence. This vision should go. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Moylan and Lord Howard of Rising for their amendments, and the right reverend Prelate for his comments.

At the moment, it is difficult for a leaseholder to understand how much they must pay to the landlord when they enfranchise. Different rates are used across the country and across the industry on a case-by-case basis. It can therefore be costly and time-consuming for both parties to agree, especially where there may be a dispute, which can lead to inefficiencies in the system.

We are reforming the enfranchisement valuation landscape and rebalancing the inequity of arms between leaseholders and freeholders. For the first time, we can put an end to uncertainty, inefficiency and the wasted costs and time that leaseholders and freeholders endure through the current enfranchisement valuation process. We will do this through these reforms, by allowing the Secretary of State to prescribe the capitalisation and deferment rates for enfranchisement valuation calculations.

I know that there has been concern that the Bill includes a requirement to review the rate at least every 10 years, as has been mentioned. However, this is simply a backstop. It does not preclude the Secretary of State reviewing them more frequently, as suggested by these amendments. Nor will the power preclude the Secretary of State from setting different rates for different situations, which is also suggested by these amendments. I am fully aware of the importance of prescribing the rates for both leaseholders and freeholders, and recognise the concerns, including those of the right reverend Prelate. The rates will be prescribed at market value, as we have committed to and as suggested by the amendments. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I omitted to say what I should have said: of course, my noble friend, who has been a friend for a very long time indeed, may continue to regard me as his noble friend and I will regard him as my noble friend, whatever strange and paradoxical circumstances we may find ourselves in in the course of debate in this Chamber. With that remark, and with a great sense of dissatisfaction at his response, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 31 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

My amendment calls for the Secretary of State to publish a report within 12 months on how rent and service charge arrears can be expedited by the courts. This is particularly important given the current crisis in our court system, which is overwhelmed by backlogs. For other breaches of the lease, forfeiture should remain until a system is devised that can swiftly resolve breaches of the lease without recourse to lengthy and costly proceedings in the High Court. This can cover matters such as repeated and threatening antisocial behaviour and illegal ultra-short lets in residential blocks. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, previously said, there are approximately 100 cases of forfeiture every year and 5 million leases, and cases can be discontinued if the leaseholder simply abides by the lease. I look forward to the response of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for giving me a breather. I entirely agree with his amendment in relation to forfeiture, which is clearly a completely over-the-top response. Landlords and managers should be entitled to recover their costs, but not at the expense of the tenant having their home seized or taken from them. Other ways must be found of doing that. If they made an effort, the Government would be able to find such ways. It might be through attachment of earnings or whatever, but forfeiture is clearly completely over the top and should go. I do not see why the Government cannot simply agree with what my noble friend Lord Young has said.

[Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)]

I think the noble Lord misunderstood to a certain extent what I was saying. Forfeiture actually happens; that is the point. It is merely the threat of forfeiture that ensures that people abide by their leases, and at the moment, as he mentioned, there is no system in place to ensure that people abide by those leases unless you go to the High Court, which is a very lengthy and expensive process. Without some such system, you will increasingly have anti-social behaviour and bodies such as Airbnb installed in residential blocks, and at the moment, there is very little recourse.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

49: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Right to manage: local housing authority Housing Revenue Account(1) The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 6 (premises excluded from right to manage), after “premises” insert “and the whole of the premises are held within the Housing Revenue Account of that local housing authority”.”Member's explanatory statement
This would allow the Right to Manage to be exercised where the landlord was a local housing authority but the premises were not held within that local housing authority’s Housing Revenue Account.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment relates to a very narrow point, which I will therefore try to deal with in summary form in the interests of time.

Before I do so, I will comment on Amendment 50, in the name of my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington. One of the most important things that we can do for leaseholders—I speak from experience—is promote the more widespread use of right to manage. This Bill goes some way in that direction but it could go further. I have no hesitation in supporting my noble friend in seeking to reduce the threshold to make this more accessible to leaseholders. It would remove many of their suspicions and anxieties—sometimes grounded and sometimes not—of abuse on the part of landlords if they could, as in my case we have, take responsibility for managing the building themselves and appoint managers who are accountable to them to scrutinise accounts and make all the important decisions.

Amendment 49 relates to an uncommon and peculiar situation whereby, in the case of a private block of flats that is acquired as an investment by a local authority—not one owned by a local authority for the purpose of social housing—the right to manage of those leaseholders is immediately extinguished because of the provisions of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, which specifically exempts properties where the immediate landlord is a local housing authority. My amendment would remove that provision, except in cases where the property was held in the housing revenue account of that local authority. In other words, the leaseholders of private blocks would retain the right to manage, which the Government would surely welcome.

I am grateful to my noble friend and to my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook for arranging a meeting with me a few days ago at which we discussed this. However, I was no clearer at the end of that meeting what the position is, so my narrow purpose with this amendment is to seek clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

If I may interrupt, I simply asked my noble friend for clarity. Is he now saying that the class of persons I referred to does not have access to the right to manage—he seems to have said those words—even by way of the Housing Act 1985, contrary to what was said in Committee, or would he maintain that that route is still available to them? Is it or is it not the Government’s position that the Housing Act 1985 is available?

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

As ever, I am grateful for the points my noble friend has made. I think it is as I have described previously: namely, that the Law Commission did not make any recommendations on local authority leaseholders. We recognise that the right to manage is not available for leaseholders with local authority landlords, where there are no secure tenants in the block. It is not available where there are only leaseholders.

I now turn to Amendment 50, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington. We recognise that the participation requirement can cause difficulties if leaseholders cannot reach the threshold. But a participation requirement of one-half of the residential units is proportionate, ensuring that a minority of leaseholders are prevented from exercising the right to manage, which may be against the wishes of the majority of leaseholders in a building.

Reducing the participation requirement to 35% is disproportionate and could lead to undesirable outcomes, such as an increase in disputes. It would risk a situation where competing groups of minority leaseholders could make repeated claims against each other. The Government accept the Law Commission’s recommendation to keep the participation threshold as it is. For these reasons, I ask that my noble friend does not press his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, there is no better illustration of the sheer folly of trying to deal with this complex issue in wash-up. We have discussed a point that was raised and discussed in Committee, during which one answer was given by a Minister. It was discussed in a meeting at which officials were present. I have not tabled my amendments late; some of my amendments have been down for some time. It is a point that Minsters knew was likely to come up on Report, but they have not been able to give clarity.

There are two possible routes. Is one of them available? Is what the Minister said in Committee correct or not? I am still really no clearer about the whole subject unless I construe the Minister’s words, as opposed to having them stated plainly for me. It is simply an illustration of why we should not be progressing this Bill in this fashion and in this way. With that comment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 49 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Moylan]

53: Clause 61, page 78, line 27, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to non-profit or resident-led entities which have the right to enforce payment of a service charge.(1B) Entities described in subsection (1A) include but are not limited to—(a) a Resident Management Company, being a body corporate which is party to a lease of a building where—(i) the members of that body are leaseholders, or(ii) the majority of the shares of that body are held by leaseholders;(b) a Right to Manage Company constituted under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, and(c) a landlord wholly owned by the tenants whether through a corporate structure or otherwise.(1C) Subsection (1) does not apply to entities with repairing obligations to but no legal interest in a building.(1D) Entities described in subsection (1C) include but are not limited to—(a) managers appointed under Section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, and(b) named managers appointed under the lease as being the party with managing and repairing obligations in relation to the building but separate from the landlord and with no legal interest in the land or building.(1E) Where subsections 1A or 1C apply, section 20C of this Act continues to apply.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would allow non-profit and/or resident-run lease operators and other entities with repairing obligations but no legal interest in the building to continue to recoup legal costs through the service charge in the first instance. The proposed Section (1E) introduces a protection for tenants by reinstating Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment relates to the question of the ability of right-to-manage companies and similar bodies to recover their legal costs. I made remarks in the debate on the first group which largely addressed this. This issue has also been raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwell.

I see no reason, given the pressure of time, to add further to my arguments or comments on this amendment. I will simply have to accept, with a degree of gratitude—I suppose I have to be fair—that Amendments 54 to 58 proposed by the Government go some modest way towards addressing my concern. We will leave ourselves in the hands of the Secretary of State and hope that, whoever that is, they will be kind to us—but who knows? I beg to move.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his amendment to Clause 61. The Government have laid Amendments 54 to 58, which will in part introduce a power to set regulations to suspend the requirement for certain landlords to apply to the relevant court or tribunal to recover their litigation costs until an event set out in regulations occurs.

This will mean that the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers will have the power to allow certain landlords to demand money from leaseholders to fund litigation ahead of proceedings without the need to apply to the court or tribunal for permission to do so. Importantly, it would still require the same landlords to apply to the court or tribunal for their costs after “a specified event” in regulations occurs, ensuring that leaseholders are still protected.

The Government will work closely with stakeholders to ensure the application requirement is suspended only where appropriate. An example might be for resident-led buildings or assetless landlords. In addition, the power is subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning it will be scrutinised in both Houses. I hope this reassures my noble friend and that, on that basis, he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 53 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Moylan]

69: Clause 123, page 135, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) Section 36 comes into force at the end of the period of two months after the “applicable deferment rate(s)” and “applicable capitalisation rate(s)” defined in Schedule 4 have been prescribed in accordance with regulations made under that Schedule.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment delays the entering into force of Clause 36 until two months after the applicable deferment rate(s) and applicable capitalisation rate(s) have been prescribed in regulations.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I think it was Bismarck who said that the public should never see how laws or sausages are made.

Amendment 69 not moved.