PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Leasehold Reform - 12 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Leasehold and commonhold reform are key priorities for this Government, and we remain absolutely determined to honour the commitments made in our manifesto and finally bring the feudal leasehold system to an end in this Parliament. We have already brought into force a range of provisions from the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, and we will progress the required secondary legislation to commence many more this year. We also intend to publish an ambitious draft commonhold and leasehold reform Bill in the coming weeks.

The leaseholders on the Hillcrest estate in Highgate in my constituency have written to me, because they have 84 years left on their leases. They are unsure whether they should wait for the Government reforms—which they welcome, by the way—or proceed with lease extension now to avoid the costs of incurring marriage value. Their fear, to which I am very sympathetic, is that they will extend under the current law and then better terms will be brought in by new legislation. I know the Minister has just said that reforms will happen in this Parliament, but may I ask him urgently to provide further clarity on the timings of the proposed reforms? Any savings from those reforms could have a huge impact on 100 of my constituents living on the Hillcrest estate.

I appreciate fully that leaseholders with leases approaching 80 years remaining want clarity on when the enfranchisement provisions in the 2024 Act will be brought into force. To bring those provisions into force, we need to not only consult on valuation rates, but rectify through primary legislation the small number of serious flaws in the 2024 Act that the previous Government bequeathed to us. The latter is obviously a more challenging proposition than the former, but we intend to make the necessary fixes as soon as possible so that leaseholders can begin to benefit from the new valuation process. I am more than happy to speak to my hon. Friend in further detail about the way in which we plan to take these reforms forward.

I was glad to get involved in the Government’s recent consultation on property service fees. More than 700 of my constituents living in new builds in and around Reading have written to me about high fees and unfair behaviour from property management agents. One constituent, called Sunil, said to me:

“We are throwing our money down the drain to these crooks, and they know they can take advantage.”

Will the Housing Minister meet me and my fellow Labour MPs working on this issue to discuss what more can be done to crack down on such awful behaviour from rogue agents such as FirstPort?

The Government are determined to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements and to provide those who currently live on freehold estates with greater rights and protections. To that end, we launched two comprehensive consultations before Christmas; I am very glad to hear that my hon. Friend has engaged with those consultations, and I encourage all hon. Members from across the House to do the same. I am more than happy to meet a group of Labour colleagues to discuss the consultations and our proposals in more detail.

Residents of the Aykley Woods development in my constituency have recently been informed that collectively, they will be charged £15,000 this year for the management company to run their estate of just over 270 homes, on top of a scandalous £31,000 just to cover the running costs of the management company itself. This is happening to millions of homeowners up and down the country, so does the Minister agree that it is long past time that we end the scandal of freeholders being locked into agreements with management companies and make local authority adoption the default for new builds?

The case that my hon. Friend draws the House’s attention to highlights the unfair charges that so many residential freeholders are subject to. As well as acting to reduce the prevalence of privately managed estates, which are the root cause of the problems experienced by residential freeholders, we are committed to implementing new consumer protections for homeowners on freehold estates. The consultation launched before Christmas seeks views on how, not whether, we implement the relevant provisions in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024. I know that my hon. Friend will ensure that her constituents are supported in sharing their views on the subject as part of that exercise.

So many of my Gosport constituents are locked into lousy leaseholds, and are so tired of seeing service charges rise while the quality of service falls. Bills are often eye-watering, and are quite often completely opaque. As the Minister said, the Conservatives passed the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, which gave leaseholders more powers to better scrutinise and challenge those costs. However, on the Minister’s watch, implementation is painfully slow. Why the delay? When will leaseholders begin to see the benefits of legislation that was designed to put an end to a practice that he himself has described as “unfair and unreasonable”?

I fully appreciate the wish of leaseholders in the hon. Lady’s constituency and those across the country to see these reforms introduced. She is absolutely right that the 2024 Act included measures to enhance transparency around service charges, to make it easier for leaseholders to challenge unreasonable service charge increases. Last July, we consulted on how to introduce those measures. It is a very technical consultation and quite a lengthy document—I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to it. We will introduce the necessary secondary legislation this year, so that leaseholders can benefit from those provisions.

Residents of a retirement village in my constituency are concerned that existing legislation removes normal leasehold protections for those living in retirement communities, leaving residents with weak, unenforceable operator promises. Can the Minister clarify what protection upcoming leasehold reforms will introduce for retirement village residents to ensure greater transparency and fairness?

As you would expect, Mr Speaker, I cannot pre-empt what will be contained in our draft commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, but if the hon. Lady wishes to write to me about the specific issue, I would be more than happy to provide her with a comprehensive response.

In general terms, anyone considering extending their lease or acquiring their freehold should obviously consider seeking specialist advice from a solicitor or surveyor, but I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman receives a prompt answer to his question as to whether any of the reforms we are taking forward will give some redress to his constituent.

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

I thank the Minister for his answer. I know that he has been taking a lot of time to debate and look at the issue of leasehold, and he can see the cross-party concern on behalf of many constituents up and down the country on this big issue, as well as the support for tackling it. We on the Select Committee are ready to help him by making sure that the legislation is right, fit and proper. I just want to tease out a further answer from the Minister. Can he confirm for the House that he is still on track to ensure that we end the issue of leasehold and commonhold by the end of this Parliament?

I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee for that question. We remain steadfast in our commitment to the promises in our manifesto to bring the feudal leasehold system to an end. Despite the noises off from the usual naysayers, the imminent publication of our ambitious draft commonhold and leasehold reform Bill will be the beginning of the end for that system, which has tainted the dream of home ownership for so many households across the country. As my hon. Friend knows, this is a large, incredibly complex and technical piece of legislation, and I hope she and the rest of the House would agree that it is worth a brief extension to ensure that we get things right and avoid a deficient Act, such as the one that the previous Government left us with, which we are now having to fix through primary legislation.

May I take the Minister back to the circumstances of constituents who are living in retirement communities? I have a community of constituents who live at Mytchett Heath, owned by Cognatum Estates. They are experiencing very high service charges, and I have written to the Minister about that before. They are made nervous by talk of delay. They are often on a fixed income with fixed-income pensions. They are getting older, and they want to enjoy their retirement in peace. Can the Minister offer them any reassurance today?

The hon. Gentleman has written to me about that issue and he has, if I may politely say, generated a huge number of questions on it. We have met about it on one occasion, I think, and I am more than happy to have another conversation with him to try to get to the root of his concerns.

I call the shadow Minister.

Leaseholders, like renters and prospective homeowners, have been made big promises by this Government. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of botched local government reorganisation, cuts to the budgets of two thirds of England’s local authorities, delays to elections and the wholesale abolition of housing and planning authorities in England’s shires on the delivery of those promises? This is just another promise that the Government are not going to deliver, is it not?

Forgive me—I do not know whether the shadow Minister has come in on the wrong question—but I cannot see how local government reorganisation will, in any shape or form, influence in any way our ambitious leasehold and commonhold reform agenda.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Fully 5 million leaseholders were plunged into the dark before Christmas and thousands report feeling angry and abandoned. Why, then, are the Government choosing to delay their ending of the feudal leasehold system? Will they go further and follow the calls from Lib Dems and others to regulate property agents and to cap extortionate service charges?

I will answer the hon. Gentleman directly: the unforeseen delays in question, which meant that we could not publish the draft Bill before Christmas, relate to nothing more than the fact that some elements of policy and drafting are still being finalised. As I have said, this is a large, incredibly complex and technical Bill. The House would support getting it right in the first instance, if that means a delay of a few weeks.

Leaseholders are being hit increasingly with flood risk and difficulty in getting insurance. Rockwell Green in my constituency has flooded twice in the last seven years. Why are the Government proposing to weaken the rules preventing development in areas of high flood risk, and how many homes will be affected in future by more flooding as a result?

We have not weakened protections against flooding. The draft of the national planning policy framework that is out for consultation remains clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at the highest risk. The consultation currently under way into the statutory consultee system retains the requirement for local authorities to notify the Secretary of State before approving developments that the Environment Agency has objected to. We are not weakening the protections in the way the hon. Member claims.