• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
Donate

Leasehold Knowledge Management Logo

Secretariat of the All Party Parliamentary Group on leasehold reform

Mobile Menu

  • Home
  • What is LKP
  • Find everything …
  • Contact
  • Advice
  • News
    • Find everything …
    • About Peverel group
    • APPG
    • ARMA
    • Bellway
    • Benjamin Mire
    • Brixton Hill Court
    • Canary Riverside
    • Charter Quay
    • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
    • Cladding scandal
    • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
    • Commonhold
    • Communities Select Committee
    • Conveyancing Association
    • Countrywide
    • MHCLG
    • E&J Capital Partners
    • Exit fees
    • FirstPort
    • Fleecehold
    • Forfeiture
    • FPRA
    • Gleeson Homes
    • Ground rent scandal
    • Hanover
    • House managers flat
    • House of Lords
    • Housing associations
    • Informal lease extension
    • Insurance
    • IRPM
    • JB Leitch
    • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
    • John Christodoulou
    • Justin Bates
    • Justin Madders MP
    • Law Commission
    • LEASE
    • Liam Spender
    • Local authority leasehold
    • London Assembly
    • Louie Burns
    • Martin Paine
    • McCarthy and Stone
    • Moskovitz / Gurvits
    • Mulberry Mews
    • National Leasehold Campaign
    • Oakland Court
    • Park Homes
    • Parliament
    • Persimmon
    • Peverel
    • Philip Rainey QC
    • Plantation Wharf
    • Press
    • Property tribunal
    • Prostitutes
    • Quadrangle House
    • Redrow
    • Retirement
    • Richard Davidoff
    • RICS
    • Right To Manage Federation
    • Roger Southam
    • Rooftop development
    • RTM
    • Sean Powell
    • SFO
    • Shared ownership
    • Sinclair Gardens Investments
    • Sir Ed Davey
    • Sir Peter Bottomley
    • St George’s Wharf
    • Subletting
    • Taylor Wimpey
    • Tchenguiz
    • Warwick Estates
    • West India Quay
    • William Waldorf Astor
    • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
  • [Custom]
Menu
  • Advice
  • News
      • Find everything …
      • About Peverel group
      • APPG
      • ARMA
      • Bellway
      • Benjamin Mire
      • Brixton Hill Court
      • Canary Riverside
      • Charter Quay
      • Chelsea Bridge Wharf
      • Cladding scandal
      • Competition and Markets Authority / OFT
      • Commonhold
      • Communities Select Committee
      • Conveyancing Association
      • Countrywide
      • MHCLG
      • E&J Capital Partners
      • Exit fees
      • FirstPort
      • Fleecehold
      • Forfeiture
      • FPRA
      • Gleeson Homes
      • Ground rent scandal
      • Hanover
      • House managers flat
      • House of Lords
      • Housing associations
      • Informal lease extension
      • Insurance
      • IRPM
      • JB Leitch
      • Jim Fitzpatrick MP
      • John Christodoulou
      • Justin Bates
      • Justin Madders MP
      • Law Commission
      • LEASE
      • Liam Spender
      • Local authority leasehold
      • London Assembly
      • Louie Burns
      • Martin Paine
      • McCarthy and Stone
      • Moskovitz / Gurvits
      • Mulberry Mews
      • National Leasehold Campaign
      • Oakland Court
      • Park Homes
      • Parliament
      • Persimmon
      • Peverel
      • Philip Rainey QC
      • Plantation Wharf
      • Press
      • Property tribunal
      • Prostitutes
      • Quadrangle House
      • Redrow
      • Retirement
      • Richard Davidoff
      • RICS
      • Right To Manage Federation
      • Roger Southam
      • Rooftop development
      • RTM
      • Sean Powell
      • SFO
      • Shared ownership
      • Sinclair Gardens Investments
      • Sir Ed Davey
      • Sir Peter Bottomley
      • St George’s Wharf
      • Subletting
      • Taylor Wimpey
      • Tchenguiz
      • Warwick Estates
      • West India Quay
      • William Waldorf Astor
      • Windrush Court
  • Parliament
  • Accreditation
You are here: Home / Latest News / APPG recognises efforts of Law Commission to improve enfranchisement

APPG recognises efforts of Law Commission to improve enfranchisement

January 9, 2020 //  by Sebastian O'Kelly

Enfranchisement Valuation Report Summary – published 9 January 2020Download
Enfranchisement Valuation Report – published 9 January 2020Download

The All-Party Parliamentary Group recognises the efforts of the Law Commission and welcomes efforts to make leasehold enfranchisement – extending leases and leaseholders’ buying the freehold – easier, simpler and more cost-effective.

While the proposals may be seen as a step in the right direction it still leaves in place many aspects of what is a fundamentally unjust system

The Law Commission proposes to government a number of options for reform, and the APPG naturally favours the options that assist leaseholders, who do not have the resources of commercial residential freeholders to dispute enfranchisement valuations through the courts (occasionally, the highest courts).

As a result, we welcome the Law Commission proposal that leaseholders be allowed to extend their leases on the basis of the valuation of the reversion to the freeholder (the years on the existing lease) and the value of the lease extension.

The APPG welcomes the suggested removal of additional “marriage value”: the supposed extra value obtained, by complex calculations, when the freehold and leasehold are combined in single ownership.

The APPG also applauds the Law Commission for suggesting that the level of ground rent on which the value of “the term” is calculated be capped at 0.1% of the freehold value of the property.

Prescribing the rates that are used to calculate the value of the term, reversion or marriage value – if this is persisted with – would also be beneficial for leaseholders and avoid the expense of legal process.

The APPG’s paramount concern is fairness in what is at present an unbalanced process, where well resourced freehold owners game the system to their advantage.

This emphasises that leasehold owners are merely tenants, rather than real home owners.

At a time when thousands of leaseholders are caught up in the cladding scandal, and face zero valuations of their homes, this is not positive.

Related posts:

leasehold marriage valueMarriage value a bogus profit in the £2.5bn enfranchisement racket, LKP trustee Dean Buckner tells BBC Law Commission enfranchisement valuation models delayed for second time as election ‘purdah’ rules kick in Professor Nicholas HopkinsIf you want to reform enfranchisement push government hard, is message of Law Commission APPG, December 6: Park home banditry; Law Commission; Planners barring leasehold houses; London deputy mayor; gargantuan Grenfell bills for leaseholders Default ThumbnailLaw Commission consultation on enfranchisement

Category: APPG, Latest News, Law Commission, News, Parliament

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (37) ARMA (87) Bellway (30) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (31) CMA (45) Commonhold (52) Competition and Markets Authority (41) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (43) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (54) Harry Scoffin (150) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (35) Justin Bates (40) Justin Madders MP (67) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Liam Spender (31) Long Harbour (48) Martin Boyd (80) McCarthy and Stone (39) National Leasehold Campaign (38) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Redrow (30) Retirement (37) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (55) Sir Peter Bottomley (201) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (32) Vincent Tchenguiz (43) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: «leasehold marriage value Marriage value a bogus profit in the £2.5bn enfranchisement racket, LKP trustee Dean Buckner tells BBC
Next Post: If you want to reform enfranchisement push government hard, is message of Law Commission Professor Nicholas Hopkins»

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Stephen

    January 9, 2020 at 12:25 pm

    Having read the report in full the interpretation I draw from this is as follows:-

    The idea of a simple formula of 10yp or 1% of the value of the flat are cleared off the desk in quite clear terms

    The rest of the report seeks to open up the debate by suggesting there are THREE general way forward (including the possibly of removal of marriage value ) to a hybrid version where Hope value replaces marriage value and finally the current formula – to all three it proposes some additional bolt on ideas

    To suggest the law commission feel that marriage value is likely to go is wrong and raises hope to lessees with no clear foundations to support this aside from the fact it is one of three possible models being Put up for discussion

    If property deals, particularly on short leases , have been struck when an established formula for the cost of a lease extension was in place at the time of the deal then it is reasonable to suggest that the price the lessee pays for the flat reflects that cost. Therefore if the formula changes in the lessees favour then it hands a windfall to the lessee at the expense of the freeholder – accordingly it is not surprising that this will be challenged

    • Stephen

      January 9, 2020 at 12:31 pm

      I would add that a formula with prescribed rates – certainly for modest priced properties appears to be very much the way forward so as to relieve the lessee of legal and valuation fees which even for a modest flat with a 60-80 year lease can easily come to some £4K to £5k ( as they pay the landlords costs) even if it is not fiercely contested and could well represent a sizeable proportion of the total cost

    • admin

      January 10, 2020 at 6:51 pm

      To suggest the law commission feel that marriage value is likely to go is wrong and raises hope to lessees with no clear foundations to support this aside from the fact it is one of three possible models being Put up for discussion

      Don’t misrepresent us, please.

      What benefit, if any, is obtained for leaseholders from the Law Commission report will have to be fought for by leaseholders in the face of a deluge of lobbying by lawyers and others representing the commercial interests of a £2.5 billion a year business.

  2. Paddy

    January 9, 2020 at 9:43 pm

    Only read summary so far. Isn’t it grand how a feudal system of contract is so enshrined that making it fairer becomes a possible breach of ‘human rights’ because it is unfair?

    Online binding calculator sounds very positive. Hands up those who think it will be introduced.

    Prescribing the capitalisation and reversion rates is excellent as these can be fiendishly unfair. Hands up those who think prescribing will be introduced?

    As for relativity and uplift, seems to me to be codology in the real market. I suspect nothing will change here.

    Meanwhile,

    Is ground rent currently ‘capped’ by lenders as 0.1% of the freehold value? I thought it was 0.1% value of the leasehold value? I don’t understand anything anymore. Where’s Stephen please?

    I’ve never believed meaningful reform will happen. Reading this I still don’t. Could just as easily end up costing more. Marriage value originally was a last minute amendment, no? I’ve seen extended leases sell for less than identical flats with un-extended ones. The marriage value was more a dowry for the landlord who never had to reach the altar.

  3. Sebastian O'Kelly

    January 15, 2020 at 10:51 am

    Law Commission criticised by campaigners for ‘underwhelming’ leasehold reforms

    The Law Commission has been accused of coming up with underwhelming proposals 18 months after it first consulted on reforms to the enfranchisement process. The legal body was first tasked in 2017 with reviewing how to make it simpler, easier, quicker and more cost-effective for home owners to extend a lease or purchase a leasehold.

  4. Kev Richards

    January 18, 2020 at 11:36 am

    I’m tired of the vested interests talking about me getting a “windfall” when what I am getting is my property back – the one I paid for and the Freeholder did not.The parastic system in place allows a 3rd party to buy for next to nothing the ownership of a property (actually thousands) at a next to nothing price and then demand massive payments later on! That freehold should be offered at the same price to the person who borrowed a fortune to “buy” a home.

    When you buy a new build Leasehold house the true ownership is often sold to a speculator for £2000 or probably much less, a price and an opportunity never offered to you and not available.
    That’s right, a 3rd party actually owns the home you think you just bought. The Title is sold behind your back. It looks like a fraud. It is a fraud but allowed by law. The law says it is ok to cheat Leasehold house buyers. You then spend the rest of your life paying for someone else’s house and even pay rent (groundrent).

    In order for a contract to be fair, both parties must know what deal they are entering into. There must not be unfair terms or entrapment and material facts must be made known.
    The Leasehold system, from purchase point to signing the lease, fails to meet these requirements and in fact there is systemic abuse of the law and systemic lack of good advice from professionals.
    Most people think they purchased a house or flat not that they entered into an agreement where a 3rd party has a big financial interest in the property they are paying for.
    Leaseholders are NOT made aware of crucial facts and do not know they are Tenants rather than home owners, particularly in houses. Even in flats, the true ownership and true Landlord-Tenant relationship is hidden or not made clear.
    The key facts that have massive financial impacts are not stated in Plain English at any point.

    These options proposed by the Law Commission do not even fulfil their remit to make Enfranchisement “cheaper” – not just a bit – for ALL leaseholders, not just those under 80 years.
    Instead of root and branch reform – as identified in their own report and supported by a mountain of evidence which they have ignored – we have actually ended up with TWO options. The third option is an unbelievably arrogant and dismissive option of keeping things as they are!! – and so not even doing what they were tasked to do – develop reforms to make Enfranchisement ” cheaper, quicker and easier”. This is tinkering, not reforming and based on the assumption that Leasehold is fine in complete contradiction to all the evidence and their own reports. Option 3 just allows a Govt the opportunity to do nothing much – everything the same as before with tweaks.

    They say the “Freeholder” deserves compensation otherwise his Human Rights will be denied. They don’t say his Human Rights will be denied if he still makes a whacking great profit for doing nothing and contributing nothing. They will only be denied if the “compensation” is not big enough. So they dismiss out of hand the level favoured by the 5m trapped leaseholders: either a multiple of ground rent or a percentage of 1 or 2 per cent of the market value.

    Cheating people and using them as an income stream is not a human right. Freeholders expect to benefit from the value in the home despite not paying anything for it or after having paid a fraction of the cost that the householder has paid.

    Not enough weight has been given to Public Interest and the Common Good or the fact that no other country has this system. The lives and incomes of 6m people are the Common Good and a Public Interest.

Above Footer

Advising leaseholders. Avoiding disasters.
Stopping forfeiture. Exposing abuses. Urging reform.

We depend on individuals for the majority of our funding.

Support Us and Donate

LKP Managing Agents

Become an LKP Managing Agent

Common Ground
Adam Church
Blocnet property management2

Stay in Touch

To achieve victory in the leasehold game where you are playing against professionals and with rules that they know all too well - stay informed with the LKP newsletter.
Sign Up for Newsletter

Professional Directory

The following advertisements are from firms that seek business from leaseholders.
Click on the logos for company profiles.

Footer

About LKP

  • What is LKP
  • Privacy and data

Categories

  • News
  • Cladding scandal
  • Commonhold
  • Law Commission
  • Fleecehold
  • Parliament
  • Press
  • APPG

Contact

Leasehold Knowledge Partnership
Open Data Institute
5th Floor
Kings Place
London N1 9AG

sok@leaseholdknowledge.com

Copyright © 2023 Leasehold Knowledge Partnership | All rights reserved
Leasehold Knowledge Partnership Limited (company number: 08999652) is a company limited by guarantee that is a registered charity (number: 1162584) with the Charities Commission.
LKP website is hosted at www.34sp.com
Website by Callia Web