Property Service Charges

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Fleur Anderson

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I welcome this important debate and thank the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) very much on behalf of the many constituents who come to my surgeries, who write to me, and who I meet when I am out and about in the many developments across Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth town.

I speak today on behalf not just of my constituents, but of leaseholders across the country who feel that they are being let down by the broken system—one that continues to allow unfair and sharply rising service charges, poor communication, and substandard services to persist unchecked. The limited rights to challenge such changes leave people feeling as if they are fighting the battle on their own. As we know from the number of Members present and from many other meetings, people across the country face these issues, so there is something wrong not just with the individual managing agencies that we are all thinking of, but with the system itself.

The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) mentioned regulation. Do we need more layers of it? We must also consider the checks and balances in the system. Asking people to go to the first-tier tribunal as a last resort is so daunting and cumbersome that it is not a proper check on the system. I welcome the Government’s decisive action to tackle long-standing injustices in leasehold and estate management. I thank the Minister for all his work on that, including the incoming changes. This debate is full of hope about those changes making a difference.

Ahead of the closure of the Government’s recent consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections, I conducted a service charge consultation in my constituency, where it is a big issue in so many developments. The results, which I have submitted to the Government, were deeply troubling. More than 200 constituents responded to my consultation, and I think they speak for hundreds more. Almost 90% of respondents reported significant increases in their service charges. Even more—96%—said that they felt those increases were unjustified. That comes down not only to poor communication, but to the fact that many of those services charges do seem to be unjustified.

Those are not isolated cases, as we are hearing in the debate. In 2024, service charges rose by 11% on average—well above the 2.5% rate of inflation—and, in my constituency, they average £2,300 per year. I see countless examples of eye-watering hikes. One constituent reported that their annual service charge had increased from £1,600 to £6,660 per year, for example, while another told me they were sent a large additional bill right before Christmas as their managing agent clawed back more money after an “error” in its accounting. That often happens during years in which the amount has already risen a lot, before rising more still because of extra charges and services provided—or not provided, as many constituents see it.

Too many leaseholders are ignored by managing agents and charged for services that are sub-standard or not delivered at all, including cleaning services that show no signs of leaving the building cleaner, painting in communal areas that do not need to be painted or for which the charge should be lower, and, in one case, gardening services for gardens that do not exist. One of the most shocking examples in my consultation was a large development in my constituency. Leaseholders reported a revolving door of housing managers who are inexperienced, unqualified, overstretched and unfamiliar with the building’s history. The managing agent presents accounts that simply do not add up. Contractors are paid without checks, faults go un-penalised and residents are left to clean up the mess time and again. The managing agent has ignored numerous industry experts who have stated that important plumbing works need to be carried out. Some have said that the building is in serious danger of complete structural failure. Basic services are not carried out, yet leaseholders continue to foot the bill. The managing agent is supposed to paint the exterior at least every 10 years, but nothing happens. It is the same old story again and again.

Six managing agents were named many times in my consultation. I will not name them here, because that would be damaging for the people who live in those developments. Clearly, there are some good managing agents and landlords, but there are also some very bad ones, and those are the ones that we need a new Bill to deal with. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 contains proposals for greater transparency through standardised accounts, mandatory reserve funds and easier routes to challenge unreasonable service charge rises, and managing agents will face mandatory qualifications and enforced membership of professional bodies. Those measures are all welcome. The previous Conservative Government had 14 years to act on these matters but passed leasehold reform law only in the dying days of the last Parliament, so their measures were rushed, poorly drafted and failed to ban new leasehold homes.

I am very glad that this debate offers us the chance to talk about going further on industry regulation and to welcome the commonhold Bill. Leaseholders in my constituency and across the country have waited long enough. The system is broken, the injustice is real, and the need for reform is urgent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call David Reed. Many congratulations on baby Reuben!

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Fleur Anderson

Report stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

We can make sure that we have a better focus on renewables, and we can take the decisions that work best for our communities. Fundamentally, we are maintaining and enhancing. We must not forget that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been able to introduce substantial law on water, animals and land. I have covered the dashboard, and I assume colleagues will now be pouncing on it.

Departments have been actively working on their retained EU law reform plans for well over 18 months to ensure that appropriate action is taken before the sunset date. Additional work to lift obsolete laws will inevitably be slow, but that work will continue. We cannot allow the reform of retained EU law to remain merely a possibility. The sunset provision guarantees that retained EU law will not become an ageing relic dragging down the UK. It incentivises the genuine review and reform of retained EU law in a way that works best for the UK. What reforms are desirable will differ from policy area to policy area.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, said on Second Reading, the environment is one of the Government’s top priorities. We will ensure that environmental law works for the UK and improves our environmental outcomes. As I said, we will be maintaining and enhancing. The Bill does not change the Environment Act, and we remain committed to delivering our legally binding target to halt nature’s decline by 2030.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Many constituents have been in touch with me with their concerns about habitat protection, maternity leave protection and other issues. The National Archives says that 1,300 additional pieces of legislation are not necessarily in scope. Can the Minister give more clarity on how many pieces of legislation this Bill will cover?

[Ms Ghani]

We are working across Departments to cover laws that will either be assimilated, amended or revoked. We are finding that a number of those laws are obsolete, and the fact we are still identifying them is good. We are putting them on the dashboard as soon as we can, and we will update the dashboard again this month. It is right that we conduct this exercise to know where we are and to ensure that we refer to UK law where we assimilate, and that we amend it to improve the situation for our communities and businesses. If the laws are not operable in the UK, we can revoke them.

The hon. Lady mentioned maternity rights, which is one of the unfortunate misinformation campaigns on this Bill. I struggle with the fact that colleagues are sharing misinformation, as people who may be vulnerable are made more vulnerable by such misinformation. The UK has one of the best workers’ rights records in the world, and our high standards were never dependent on our membership of the EU.

Indeed, the UK provides far stronger protections for workers than are required by EU law. For example, UK workers are entitled to 5.6 weeks of annual leave compared with the EU requirement of four weeks—we are doing better here. We provide a year of maternity leave, with the option to convert it to shared parental leave. The EU requirement for maternity leave is just 14 weeks—we are doing better here. The right to flexible working for all employees was introduced in the UK in the early 2000s, whereas the EU agreed its rules only recently and offers the right only to parents and carers—we are doing better here. The UK introduced two weeks’ paid paternity leave back in 2003. Who can remember then? The EU legislated for this only recently—once again, we are doing better here. I ask Members please not to hold up Brussels as a bastion of virtue, as that is most definitely not the case.