Leasehold Reform Bill

Supports the Bill, highlighting cases where freeholds originally held by trade unions or other organisations have been sold to entities exploiting leaseholders. He asks how the legislation can ensure transparency in service charges and prevent unreasonable rent hikes.

Raises concerns about lack of transparency in service charges and the need for clearer regulations on how moneys are spent. Asks if provisions will cover both England and Wales, and requests details on co-operation with Welsh Government.

Points out that the Help to Buy scheme has contributed to a rise in leasehold houses. He suggests the Government should take responsibility for developers' business models and the negative impact on leaseholders.

Supports the Bill but asks about its applicability to existing leaseholds versus new ones. He criticises a presumption that allows freeholders to build additional floors on top of buildings, causing damage and costs transferred to leaseholders.

Represented constituents with leasehold houses, describing it as a cynical money-making scam where people feel they do not own their homes due to excessive admin charges for minor changes or having pets. He emphasised that such practices should not apply to house owners.

Asked why the Secretary of State cannot defend leasehold if he acknowledges its problems, and advocated for moving to commonhold to give constituents a voice over their property.

Asked the Secretary of State to clarify whether 'best value' applies to leaseholders or freeholders, highlighting that leaseholders do not get best value in their schemes.

Asked about the new methodology for calculating enfranchisement values and whether it will remove outdated provisions, referencing a constituent's struggle to buy freehold due to lack of records.

Discussed non-compliance by freeholders and proposed giving leaseholders the right of first refusal before a freehold is sold, suggesting this would be discussed later.

Asked for more information on how situations like failed developments or problematic management arrangements will be addressed, seeking retrospective help for unresolved issues.

Raised a specific case in his constituency where residents are charged for access to public open spaces and parks, expressing hope that this issue would be looked into.

Suggested a balanced approach is needed; while supporting efforts to address leasehold issues, he emphasised the importance of property rights and cited examples of excellent freeholders.

Asked whether the Secretary of State would adhere to 'follow the money' when considering evidence from consultation, highlighting potential motivations for advocating higher ground rents.

Asked if the Secretary of State's consultation would address the issue of ground rents doubling every 20 years for shared owners who have staircased to 100% ownership.

Agreed with the Secretary of State about excessive insurance premiums charged to leaseholders and asked if risk-pooling among insurers could be a solution.

Expressed gratitude for the Bill but questioned why it does not address the right to manage, asking about the Government's current thinking on this issue.

Expressed agreement with Richard Fuller.

Ms. Rayner argues that the Bill lacks ambition and does not deliver on its promises to ban leaseholds, which is disappointing given previous commitments from the Government. She emphasises the need for comprehensive reform of property law, including measures to prevent ground rent increases and excessive charges imposed by freeholders. Additionally, she supports extending tenant rights to leaseholders regarding pets and business operations from home.

Mr. Jones agrees with Ms. Rayner that the Government could have acted earlier by not implementing the Help to Buy scheme, which fuelled the practice of selling new houses under leasehold tenure. He also notes that many leaseholders believed they would be freed from their leaseholds but are disappointed to find out otherwise.

Mr. Gove intervenes by challenging Ms. Rayner on the Labour party's previous support for residential ground rents, questioning her consistency in opposing excessive ground rents given the Labour leader's endorsement of such policies at the Labour Party conference.

Mr. Doughty agrees with Ms. Rayner that much more needs to be done to address the transparency of service charges and management fees, particularly affecting flat owners in his constituency who have suffered from unfair practices.

Mr. Strathern supports the need for stronger regulation of management companies, as evidenced by cases in his constituency where residents have suffered due to poor management practices and lack of accountability.

Mr. Betts suggests that purchasers should be given a clear understanding of maintenance responsibilities at the beginning of property purchase, to prevent confusion over who is responsible for upkeep.

Ms. Maskell calls for leaseholders affected by flooding to have equal access to the Flood Re scheme, currently available only to freeholders.

Pays tribute to the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform for their efforts over the past 11 years. Supports the Government's efforts to prevent freeholders from exploiting residential leaseholders, citing his own experience as a leaseholder. Emphasises the importance of implementing the Law Commission’s recommendations in full. Advocates for an agency that could sue insurance companies on behalf of leaseholders to cover remediation costs. Stresses the need to reduce ground rents to peppercorn levels and calls for an end to the artificial distinction of 11 metres for fire safety compensation.

[INTERVENTION] Supports Peter Bottomley's stance, suggesting that leaseholders have valid claims against individuals who signed off unsafe buildings under building regulations and are insured.

Welcomes the Bill but identifies areas for improvement. Argues for education programmes on commonhold, supports retrospective removal of onerous ground rents due to human rights justification, and highlights enfranchisement process issues. Proposes a right of first refusal, transparency in service charges, capping commission fees, protection for reserve funds, addressing mis-selling practices, and the need for a housing court.

Agrees with Clive Betts that the Bill does not adequately address recent issues with leasehold houses, particularly regarding common areas traditionally managed by local authorities.

Recalls historical precedents like Custins v. Hearts of Oak where Labour Government used similar grounds to justify reforms, supporting Clive Betts' argument.

Suggests raising the limit on forfeiture clauses from £350 to a more significant figure like £5,000 and ensuring remaining equity goes back to leaseholders.

Agrees with the need for a specialist housing court that sets precedents, addressing frustrations in current court systems where each case must be individually processed.

The MP supports the amendment, citing examples of leaseholders being exploited and emphasising the need for a digital calculator to help individuals understand their benefits under the Bill. She also advocates for commonhold reforms to encourage developers to choose this option over leasehold, ensuring there is time to introduce ground rent caps after consultation, and calls for regulation of the property management sector.

The MP suggests that the Select Committee should consider inviting parties involved in Liam Spender's case to explain why legal proceedings were necessary, implying a lack of transparency and quick resolution from freeholders.

The MP contests the claim that Labour failed to address leasehold issues, stating that the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was delayed due to threats from peers with conflicts of interest.

The MP briefly intervened but his exact contribution is not detailed in the transcript.

The MP argues that predatory freeholders have been working together systematically to exploit leaseholders over a decade, suggesting that the problem has grown significantly since then.

Mr. Timms expressed concerns about the transfer of asbestos management responsibilities from landlords to homeowners, potentially leaving them with hidden liabilities and life-threatening risks without adequate support for removal or management. He also discussed issues such as inflated insurance costs in his constituency's Barrier Point development and welcomed clauses that increase transparency around service charges and help tenants enforce their rights.

[INTERVENTION] Mr. Gardiner highlighted that freehold companies often set up arm's-length brokerage firms, leading to double commissions and further complications in managing insurance costs for multi-occupancy buildings.

Mr. Johnson argues for enabling residents to challenge unfair bills and switch management companies to promote competition, transparency in accounting practices, and fair pricing for services. He raises concerns about high fees and poor service quality, including misinformation in property sale documents.

Mr. Bottomley supports the idea of transparency by suggesting open-book accounting practices for managing agents to ensure clarity for residents about fees and services provided.

Mr. Jones notes that management fees in retirement villages often increase over time, affecting property value negatively without resident challenge.

Mr. Gardiner highlights the excessive charges by some companies managing residential properties for the elderly, including taking up to 10% of a property’s sale price as management fee.

She argues that the bill falls short of the Secretary of State's commitment to abolish leasehold and mentions that her Battersea constituents are trapped in an exploitative system. She highlights that 74% of homes sold in Battersea in 2022 were leasehold transactions, making it one of the highest constituencies for leasehold sales. Marsha de Cordova criticises the lack of transparency and poor customer service from management companies and calls for more reforms to protect leaseholders.

Mr Barry Gardiner acknowledges his constituency neighbour's speech. He questions the implications of the Government's proposals regarding the expiration of freehold terms before new leaseholds can conclude their 999-year term.

Morgan supports the Bill but expresses significant concerns. She points out that leasehold is outdated, yet the bill does not ban new leaseholds or professionalise management of leasehold buildings. Morgan highlights issues in her constituency regarding fleeceholds and suggests reforms to end shared ownership of public spaces for most developments. She also advocates for clearer responsibility on maintenance and inspections of shared assets before freehold houses are sold.

Welcomes aspects of the Bill but expresses concern over the lack of protection for existing leaseholders from onerous ground rents. Mentions that there are 4.98 million leasehold properties in the UK, affecting many constituents and herself personally as a leaseholder. Advocates for measures to end new leaseholds and reform lease extensions with standard leases at zero ground rent. Calls for an online calculator for calculating extension costs, shared legal costs, and improvements to the tribunal system to protect leaseholders. Proposes additional regulations on managing agents and transparency in housing associations.

Ms Cadbury argues that despite promises from successive Conservative Housing Ministers, leasehold reform has been inadequate. She states that the bill does not address many of the issues faced by her constituents in Brentford and Isleworth, such as excessive service charges, poor building management, and delayed remediation work following the Grenfell tragedy. She provides a case study illustrating how new homeowners are lured into buying flats with misleading information, only to face increasing costs and declining services over time. Ms Cadbury also highlights issues related to shared ownership schemes and concerns about the value of short-term leases.

She highlights issues faced by leaseholders in her constituency, including unexplained service charges, lack of transparency on major works costs and estate management fees. She supports clauses like 27 for its aim to increase transparency but seeks more detail on information disclosure requirements. Clause 34 is welcomed as it ensures that leaseholders won't be liable for legal costs if they lose a case. The Bill aims to make it easier and cheaper for leaseholders to extend their leases or buy freeholds, removing marriage value.

Dixon expressed disappointment with the Bill's limited scope, highlighting that it fails to deliver on key promises such as banning new leasehold houses and flats. She emphasised that 4.86 million households are trapped in a broken system without control over their homes. Dixon also criticised the lack of provisions for regulating property agents and reducing ground rents for existing leaseholders.

Baker welcomed the Bill as a necessary step to improve home ownership for leaseholders. He highlighted the difficulties faced by his constituent who is caught in an unfair leasehold system. While acknowledging that the Bill has cross-party support and addresses many issues, Baker called for additional amendments to strengthen protections for leaseholders, particularly regarding tribunal systems, managing agents' regulation, and commonholds.

I urge for commonhold to be made default tenure as it offers residents a voice against exploitative practices. My constituency has seen an increase in leasehold properties, leading to various financial and administrative burdens on residents. The Warner estate case demonstrates the need for uniformity and protection from fragmented ownership and excessive charges by freehold management companies.

I concur with the concerns raised about excessive charges for minor changes in leaseholds, such as charging £540 to change a deed name. This illustrates the need for commonhold to be made default tenure to protect residents from unreasonable costs and administrative burdens.

MP Ian Byrne from Liverpool West Derby expressed deep disappointment with the current Bill for not directly addressing ground rents, which he believes is a critical issue affecting millions of leaseholders. He cited the support of the hon. Member for Harrow East and the Law Commission's proposals that should be included in the bill to ensure justice for leaseholders. Byrne also highlighted that abolishing new leaseholds on flats was necessary due to their significant share (70%) among leasehold properties, emphasising the Government’s failure to deliver on its manifesto promise of ending this practice. He further argued that until leasehold is banned, homeowners will remain hostage in their own homes, exacerbating financial burdens and health risks.

The speaker supports the intent of the provisions but criticises the Government's lack of ambition. He highlights that while the Bill aims to provide some relief, it fails to deliver on key commitments made previously, such as abolishing new build leasehold houses and reinvigorating commonhold tenure. The Labour party will seek to strengthen the Bill in Committee by proposing additional measures to empower leaseholders and address the inherent inequities of the current system.

Expressed support for the Bill, thanked Members for their contributions, and acknowledged ongoing work on insurance schemes. Highlighted the need to address specific issues in Committee, including estate management challenges and asbestos concerns.

Asked the Minister to look at strengthening the Bill to stop companies like Coppen Estates from avoiding legislation. Emphasised the importance of freeholders responding and highlighted ongoing issues faced by constituents.

Requested the Minister to include the outcome of consultations, particularly on ground rents, in amendments tabled in Committee. Emphasised the need for clarity and action on these issues.