Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

I am glad to be able to contribute to this debate to give voice to a number of my constituents who have been suffering as a result of the feudal leasehold system for far too long. I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), for setting out the issues that so many of our constituents face.

The measures outlined in the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill mark a significant step towards a fairer and more balanced system of home ownership. I thank the Minister for his work on the Bill; he is alive to the many issues and working hard to deliver on the many pledges in our manifesto that we were elected on.

For generations, the leasehold system has many homeowners paying substantial service charges, ground rents and administration fees, while having little control over the management of the buildings they live in. Too often, leaseholders have found themselves trapped in a system that is expensive, complex and heavily weighted in favour of freeholders.

The issues do not discriminate on size, affecting both small blocks and larger developments. In Luton South and South Bedfordshire, I have constituents living in a small block of 12 flats, Harrowden Court, of which Hastoe Housing Association is the freeholder. They have raised a number of issues with me in recent years relating to Hastoe’s management, including significant communication issues and substantial bills presented to leaseholders with little to no explanation for why they are expected to pay the charges.

Most recently, my constituents were notified by Hastoe of significant service charge increases over the next two financial years—2026-27 and 2027-28—to fund fire safety and external wall remediation works. Tenants’ service charge and sinking fund contributions to cover those costs will rise from around £250 a month to £900 a month. That unaffordable increase has caused considerable shock, stress and anxiety.

Residents are also concerned about a lack of transparency, as Hastoe has not provided estimated total costs, explained how charges are distributed to residents, or evidenced any competitive procurement process for carrying out the works. Such remediation works should be the responsibility of the building developer, and it is extremely unfair that those costs are being passed on to residents.

That is just one example of leaseholders being failed. I have a number of constituents living in Stockwood Gardens, a larger development of 11 blocks managed by MCR Homes, who are facing a similar reality. They are paying increased service charges, year on year, with little to no explanation as to why. Basic services that they were promised, including grass cutting and building maintenance, were provided at a sub-par standard or not at all. Many have also reported basic faults with their blocks, such as lights in hallways not working or regular leaks, which have been reported and not fixed, with no clear timetable for repair.

It is clear from those examples alone that there is a significant power imbalance in the current leasehold system, and companies managing those properties essentially have free rein to overcharge residents and underdeliver on services, with little to no transparency or accountability. I note that the HCLG Committee has done extensive scrutiny work on the draft Bill, and its report recommends that the final Bill include

“provisions to establish a new, independent public body as the Regulator for property managing agents, with enforcement powers. This must include powers for the Regulator to issue fines or revoke licences of managing agents who breach a statutory Code of Practice”.

I support that recommendation and believe that it is an opportunity to prevent bad practice and drive cultural change within the industry, while affording leaseholders greater protections.

I welcome the legislation, but it cannot be the end of the conversation. Leaseholders’ voices and concerns must continue to be heard if we are to fully address the problems within the leasehold system, and ensure our constituents feel the benefit of the reforms once and for all.