Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Leaseholders at 8 Artillery Row pay on average £2,000 in service charges each month. The managing agent, Avon Ground Rents Ltd, refuses to disclose what is included in those charges and to provide invoices. One of the charges was £30,000 for legal and professional fees, requested without explanation or detail, even though leaseholders asked—reasonably—for information for over two years.

Leaseholders in Neville House in Westminster are living in a cladding nightmare. Although Westminster City Council issued a hazard awareness notice on the building, no remedial works have been undertaken because the managing agent, Estates & Management Ltd, has failed to agree with the developers, Berkeley Homes, on the terms of a survey licence. As a result, the homes are unsellable.

The leaseholders of Blake Tower on the Barbican estate are living in a building with ongoing fire safety issues. The developer, Redrow, committed to dealing with those issues but has yet to undertake the necessary inspections. The tower also has building defects so serious that they have resulted in several flats being unliveable. The local authority, the City of London Corporation, shares my concerns and those of my constituents, and I understand that it is about to take action.

Those are just a few examples of the appalling behaviour of freeholders in my constituency. I have been contacted by countless leaseholders who routinely report appalling practices related to service charges, the cost of major works and the extortionate charges they face when renewing their leases. When they request information or explanation, they often face a wall of silence from freeholders and their agents. “Extortionate” is probably the correct word, as what some freeholders and their accomplices—including managing agents, lawyers and accountants—are involved in is often little better than extortion. Those freeholders should instead be described as freeloaders.

The Bill responds to the concerns raised by so many of my constituents. For example, clause 27 aims to make service charges more transparent, ending the practice of demanding unexplained service charges that too many freeholders engage in, often just to profit off leaseholders. The introduction of a standardised form for freeholders requesting service charges from their leaseholders is certainly welcome, but I would like more detail about what information will need to be disclosed and how much warning freeholders will have to give leaseholders regarding costs.

Too many of my leaseholder constituents have told me that they choose not to take their landlords to tribunal, as they could be liable for their huge legal fees even if they win. I therefore welcome clause 34, which responds to that concern by ensuring that leaseholders will no longer be liable for those costs. I also welcome the fact that the Bill overhauls previous legislation by increasing the standard lease extension term for houses and flats to 990 years, as well as reducing ground rent to a peppercorn upon payment of a premium. That will ensure that leaseholders can enjoy secure, ground-rent-free ownership of their own property without the hassle and expense of repeated lease extensions.

Another game changer in the Bill is the commitment to removing marriage value. For far too long, when leaseholders want to extend their leases, they have been at the mercy of their freeholder and that freeholder’s agents, and have faced some questionable practices. The Bill makes it cheaper and easier for leaseholders to extend their lease or buy their freehold. It removes the requirement to pay marriage value, capping the treatment of ground rents at 0.1% of the freehold value in the calculation and prescribing rates for that calculation.

Clause 22 will increase the non-residential limit of a block from 25% to 50% when it comes to securing the right to manage and enfranchisement, meaning that more blocks that are a mix of residential and commercial property will have the right to manage and buy their freehold. However, that still requires 50% of the leaseholders in a block to agree to go ahead with the right to manage, which could prove near impossible for many of my constituents, due to the unique nature of the Cities of London and Westminster. Over 1,300 properties in the City of London, and a staggering 12,100 in Westminster, have owners who live abroad or are owned by companies using central London’s golden postcodes as a place to park their cash. As such, while my constituents and I warmly welcome the Government’s intention to support leaseholders who want to manage their blocks, it will prove difficult in my constituency to achieve the 50% of signatories required.

If the proposed legislation is to achieve what the Government hope for constituencies such as mine, I ask them to consider making the thresholds more flexible—perhaps by stating that 50% of signatories should be leaseholders of apartments that are their main home, rather than an investment, or reducing the threshold for the right to manage to 35% of leaseholders. I would welcome further discussions with the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), on that point. I thank him for meeting me and my leasehold reform working group, made up of constituents who are dealing with some of the most egregious freeholders in my constituency. The 50% threshold was discussed in some detail with the Minister at that meeting.

Another area of huge concern for leaseholders is the cost of major works and estate management charges. I have lost count of the number of constituents who have contacted me for help regarding those issues: for example, leaseholders living on the Golden Lane estate in the City are being asked to pay tens of thousands of pounds extra because the freeholder, the City of London Corporation, is 20 years behind schedule. In Russell House and Churchill Gardens, which are both in Pimlico, residents are failing to secure details on timings and costs from Westminster City Council.

Time and again, I receive complaints from constituents living in private and social blocks that, while they appreciate that they have to pay for major works and repairs, they want the freeholder—whether it is a private company or a local authority—to be open and transparent about costs. I therefore welcome clause 40 of the Bill, which will provide more transparency about major work costs. Similar to service charge expenses, landlords will have to fill out a standardised form to demonstrate exactly how the leaseholders’ money will be spent and ensure that the works are carried out to a certain standard.

I take this opportunity to thank Harry Scoffin, the founder of Free Leaseholders, for his incredible work. His support and technical knowledge has been invaluable to me and my constituents when considering the Bill. I welcome the Bill, and look forward to working with the Minister and my constituents to ensure that we end the many questionable practices of some freeholders and ensure that the leasehold and freehold system in this country is open, transparent and fair.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Nickie Aiken Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak to new clause 24, which is in my name. It was also considered in Committee. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) for moving it there and to the Minister for his response. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) and the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) who have added their names to the new clause on the Order Paper.

I thank the Minister for his reply in Committee, but I think he missed the crucial central point of the amendment. At the moment, the risks of exposure to asbestos in a workplace are managed by the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, which is monitored by the Health and Safety Executive. For every workplace under those regulations, there is a duty holder responsible for monitoring the condition of the asbestos. They are required to keep up-to-date records of the location and condition of all asbestos-containing materials, to provide that information to anybody liable to disturb the materials, and to develop a plan for managing any risks that arise.

Residential blocks with a commercial freeholder will generally also have a duty holder, because the block will have been for them a workplace, so it is covered by the Control of Asbestos Regulations. It is usually the freeholder or their agent who is the duty holder. That duty holder is responsible for all the common areas in the block, such as foyers and staircases.

The effectiveness of this whole regime is debatable. The sixth report in the 2021-22 Session of the Work and Pensions Committee expressed considerable reservations. It is doubtful, I think, that the Health and Safety Executive is doing enough to monitor compliance, and the assumption that leaving asbestos in place is better than removing it is increasingly questionable as the asbestos ages. None the less, there is at least a clear regime for managing the risks.

The concern that motivates this new clause is that, following a transfer of the kind made possible and facilitated by the Bill, there will no longer be a duty holder for the communal areas in such a block. At the moment there is, but the responsibility will be entirely extinguished, as far as I understand it, on transfer. The asbestos is still going to be there, the risks will remain, but nobody will any longer be responsible for managing them. Understandably, no individual resident will take on the responsibility, but there will be no corporate entity to do it either. In fact, it may be worse than that. The residents may well not be aware before the transfer is completed that they are taking on both a financial liability for managing the asbestos in the communal areas, and possibly a risk to life as well. It is important to bear it in mind that we are seeing 5,000 deaths per year at the moment as a result of past exposure to asbestos.

In his response in Committee, the Minister said that the amendment would

“duplicate the existing duty in regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 for landlords to survey the common areas of their property”.—[Official Report, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2024; c. 461.]

However, the newly enfranchised property would not fall any longer under regulation 4. There would be no landlord to survey the common areas once the transfer has taken place.

New clause 24 aims to prevent this problem from occurring. It requires landlords to perform a detailed survey of the asbestos present in the building within three months of a transfer taking place and then requires the landlord to remove any asbestos that is there.There is a 150% tax relief for businesses removing asbestos from their premises, so removal will not be costly for landlords. It will save newly enfranchised leaseholders from a large and probably unexpected liability and a potentially lethal long-term risk. I hope that makes the case for this change clear.

I am grateful to the Minister for his assistance with the residents of Barrier Point in my constituency. I think we have a meeting in his office next month. Last night, I had my regular Zoom call with leaseholders from Waterside Park in my constituency. Before Christmas, we thought we had a clear way forward. Barratt, the builders, had signed up and Aviva, the current freeholder, was happy, but last night we learned of the requirement that the Building Safety Regulator to look at any proposal for a minimum of eight weeks, which will substantially delay the work that has been committed to. Will the Minister look at whether it is really necessary for residents who have been waiting so long for these problems to be resolved to wait another eight weeks?

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I fully support the Government’s wish to overhaul the antiquated and feudal leasehold system in this country and address the imbalance of power between freeholders and leaseholders. I thank the Minister for his ongoing discussions with me about a number of issues I have with the Bill, and for attending the leasehold roundtable that I held recently with my constituents.

I would like the Government to abolish the system completely, but I understand that that will not happen with this Bill. I have therefore tabled an amendment and three new clauses that would improve the Bill further. New clause 12 would reduce the participation threshold required to claim the right to manage from 50% to 35%. That is a massive issue in Cities of London and Westminster. More than 1,300 properties in the City of London and an eye-watering 12,100 in Westminster have owners living abroad or are owned by companies using central London’s golden postcodes as a place to park their cash. That reduces the ability of leaseholders in those blocks to secure the 50% of signatures required to achieve the right to manage, as it is incredibly difficult to contact those overseas leaseholders for a meaningful discussion.

Let me give an example of that type of dilemma in my constituency. Residents in The Quadrangle in the Hyde Park Estate say that leaseholders in their block will struggle to meet the 50% participation threshold. They estimate that at least 40% of leaseholders in their block do not live in the building and are uncontactable. Accepting new clause 12 and lowering the threshold to 35% would give many more leaseholders living in similar blocks the chance to manage their buildings.

I commend the work that has been done on the Bill to support blocks that have shared commercial and residential usage. The Bill proposes to increase the proportion of commercial or non-residential space permitted in an individual block for a right to manage application from 25% to 50%, but I believe we can go even further. I have heard from many residents whose blocks will fail to qualify even after the threshold rises to 50%. For example, residents of 8 Artillery Row in Victoria believe that increasing the threshold to 50% does not go far enough, as the residential element of their block is lower than 50%. That is why amendment 17 is needed, as it would allow residents in a block with up to 75% commercial premises to apply for the right to manage.

New clause 14 is similarly designed to allow more leaseholders to strive for the right to manage, especially those in mixed-use buildings. Simply sharing a broom cupboard with a commercial property can disqualify them from claiming the right to manage. At Cambridge Court in Marylebone, for example, leaseholders striving to manage their block would benefit from the Government’s proposals to increase the non-residential threshold allowed in a building, but they are concerned that their ability to qualify for the right to manage would be undermined by the existence of a single shared car parking space in their building. My new clause 14 would amend the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 by adopting recommendation 5 from the Law Commission’s “Right to Manage” report, which is to allow leaseholders in mixed-use buildings with shared services or underground car parks to exercise the right to manage.

Finally, my new clause 15 would correct the unintended consequences of the Building Safety Act 2022. That Act has interfered with the long-standing section 24 regime, which was a vital right for leaseholders. It introduced an accountable person mechanism that expressly banned section 24 managers from being the accountable person. Consequently, specially trained and vetted professional property managers willing to take on difficult sites have been barred from being the accountable person. That makes absolutely no sense, and it stripped leaseholders of an existing right. That could not have been the Government’s intention when they introduced the 2022 Act, which was intended to provide leaseholders with additional statutory protections. So many leaseholders in my constituency and across the country would benefit from applying for a section 24 manager, but they cannot risk it if they are in blocks of 18 metres or higher because of the accountable person regime issue arising from the Building Safety Act. It is imperative that our buildings are safe, that leaseholders are safe, and that the burden does not fall heavily on leaseholders.

I will not press my amendments to a vote, but I hope that the Government will consider what I have spoken about and work with me to introduce the measures in the other place. This is a watershed moment for the Government to prove that they understand the terrible treatment that leaseholders have faced and continue to face by incompetent freeholders, and to address the imbalance between freeholder and leaseholder. I hope that the Bill will deliver real change.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I rise to speak to new clause 1, which was tabled in my name, and in support of a number of new clauses and amendments tabled by right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House.

I tabled new clause 1 because, as was said by the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), who is no longer in his place, fleecehold is a scam. It attempts to deal with the issue whereby a freeholder is trapped in a situation where they pay estate management charges for the areas around their development, be they roads, play areas or open spaces. Critically, the new clause also deals with the shared assets that might be in use to service their homes, such as ground source heat pumps, septic tanks or sewage pumps. I am sure that there are many instances in which the management company does a great job and charges reasonable fees for its work, but my inbox—like those of many hon. Members—contains horrifying examples of the management company, which is usually directly owned by or related to the developer in North Shropshire, failing to do a good job, or to do any sort of job at all.

There is a freeholder in my constituency, for example, who must obtain an information pack from their estate management company in order to sell their house. Despite repeated requests, my constituent has not received that information pack, so their sale has been significantly delayed and is at risk of falling through altogether. The management company is apparently just a shell—it does not respond to correspondence, hold annual general meetings or provide accounts—so the affected residents are powerless and cannot take control of the company and appoint a reliable professional to provide the services that they so desperately need. New clause 1 would allow them, where the management company has gone AWOL and will not respond to anything that they request of it, to take control of the company and do those things themselves.

The new clause also extends to assets, which may be more of a rural problem when it comes to shared estate charges. In one example in my constituency, a developer installed a ground source heat pump to provide all the heating and hot water for a barn conversion development that involved several houses in the same set of barns.

That developer has two separate companies: one is the management company through which he charges the owners of those houses for their electricity bill, and another, totally separate company that was nothing to do with the sale process, which is where he placed the heat pump. As such, he is able to cream off all the renewable heat incentive income for himself; he provides accounts to residents through the management company, but does not provide them with any information about the fundamental asset that is servicing their home. Those residents are unable to benefit from the renewable heat incentive that accrues from that asset, and do not know whether it is being properly maintained and serviced. They are unable to do so themselves—they have no rights in relation to that heat pump.