• 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 / News / Don’t extend your lease if that puts you on the hook for building safety bills (this applies to non-highrises, too)

Don’t extend your lease if that puts you on the hook for building safety bills (this applies to non-highrises, too)

April 22, 2023 //  by Admin4

New housing minister Lee Rowley has problems with the Building Safety Act

Another flaw in the Building Safety Act 2022 has stalled – perhaps killed off – a large part of the lease extension business, potentially involving hundreds of millions of pounds.

This is because a lease extended after 14 February 2022 won’t be protected from building safety bills covered by the new law.

Qualifying leases issued before 14 February 2022 receive certain protections under the Building Safety Act, but those issued after this date don’t. This is because a lease extension is a surrender and re-grant of a new lease as of the date of lease extension.

Yesterday afternoon – 21 April 2023 – the Government at last admitted there was a serious problem in an update to guidance:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/qualifying-date-qualifying-lease-and-extent

The key paragraph states:

“If you are a qualifying leaseholder and you extend or vary your lease, you may surrender your existing lease and be granted a new lease. As the new lease will not have been granted before 14 February 2022, the statutory leaseholder protections in the Building Safety Act 2022 will not apply.”

It goes on to state:

“We are looking to legislate to resolve this issue as soon as Parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, before seeking a new extended or varied lease, leaseholders should seek legal advice and seek to come to agreements with landlords to apply the same protections as contractual terms.”

The last section is palpable nonsense: a) why would a landlord agree? b) does anyone expect them to vary the lease without charging? c) the leaseholder would need detailed legal advice to know if any variation would provide the relevant protections; d) a varied lease would add yet another layer of complexity to lease sales as the conveyancer on all future transactions will also need to check and agree the variation works.

The failure in the legislation draws in many more leaseholders than might at first seem to be the case.

At the moment, large parts of the Building Safety Act only apply to highrises that are more than 18 metres high, but the Act gives powers to the Secretary of State to expand the application of the Act in future.

It is unlikely that it will ever extend to a block of two maisonettes, but it may well extend to blocks of more than 11 metres high. These could easily be drawn into the Building Safety Act and face expensive new works.

The issue was raised in LKP’s interview last week with former building safety and leasehold minister Lord (Stephen) Greenhalgh:

Interview with Lord Greenhalgh: I don’t think the leasehold reforms will be in the King’s Speech

Lord Greenhalgh generously acknowledged that the matter had been raised at the drafting stage of the Bill by LKP.

The issue has also caught the attention of a growing number of lawyers who point out that the error makes the lease extension process more complex.

LKP’s advice until the government changes the legislation is: do NOT extend your lease if there is any chance your site may have building safety issues.

If, and when, the government does “legislate to resolve this issue as soon as Parliamentary time allows”, prospective changes should be easy. But leaseholders who extend before this legislation comes through will gambling that it can somehow be made retrospective. No doubt we will have a few landlords claiming their human rights have been breached if retrospective change is introduced.

The problem comes on top of another defect of the Act whereby if a site collectively enfranchises it also loses protections under the Building Safety Act.

Labour shadow minister Matthew Pennycook MP recently asked a written question about enfranchised blocks:

These blocks are also excluded from protections under the Building Safety Act in what ex-minister Greenhalgh accepts was a mistake.

Again, like lease extensions, what the government has done is kill the one thing it argues it wants to promote: which is more leasehold controlled sites.

So the position at the moment is that no site with potential building safety issues should seek to collectively enfranchise until the government decides what it wants to do to protect those which it says sit at the bottom of the protections waterfall.

Housing minister Lee Rowley’s response that the government would respond to the collective enfranchisement issue “in due course” is not reassuring.

Leaseholders are still waiting for the response to the Lord Best 2019 report on regulation of property managers; the 2020 Law Commission reports on leasehold reform; review of the Regulation SI 2020/632 that somehow allowed the addition of two storeys on top of other people homes under permitted development; and the 2014 commitment to the Competition and Markets Authority to review the section 20 consultation process.

Throughout the design of the Building Safety Bill officials made it clear that they had little or no interest in input from commercial and academic leasehold lawyers. The Act reproduces large sections of what everyone acknowledges is broken leasehold law that sit in the “when time allows …” bucket.

With both the enfranchisement and collective enfranchisement business now effectively shut down due to drafting errors in the Building Safety Act it’s perhaps time for the government to ask itself why its building safety team have been allowed to make such a mess of housing policy.

We either do want people to take control of their homes or not.

There are too many things in the Building Safety Act that discourage leaseholders from acting in their best interests.

LKP made a formal complaint about the recent Building Safety Director consultation that seeks to impose a third party director to deal with all safety issues. The government writes to advise:

“It is important for us to clarify that our intention is always to be as inclusive and transparent as possible when conducting consultations. We strive to involve all relevant stakeholders to ensure that we receive a diverse range of perspectives on policy proposals”

The problem is that’s exactly what it didn’t do. Instead of speaking to the Right To Manage / Residents Management company directors, the building safety team only spoke to those who might make money out of this role.


The Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners also wrote to housing minister Rachel Maclean on 17 April 2023 regarding the enfranchisement flaw in the Building Safety Act:

“This problem applies to new lease claims notwithstanding the motivation of the leaseholder. However, in many cases, leaseholders with long unexpired terms make a claim for a new lease under the 1993 Act simply to buy out the ground rent; they are not looking to make any other changes to the lease and such transactions are generally simple and straightforward. However, the doubt and uncertainty over whether in such circumstances the new lease can retain the protection under the BSA enjoyed by the existing lease will act as a significant disincentive to making a claim …

“The Government has made it abundantly clear that its overarching policy on reform of the leasehold enfranchisement regime is to make the process simpler, quicker and cheaper for leaseholders. However, application of the s.119 fails on all three counts.

“It is not made simpler because of the issue of whether or not the new lease is a “protected lease” under the BSA is now a complex issue; it is not made quicker because the uncertainty gives rise to a whole area of specialist inquiry to be undertaken before a claim can be made, and it is not made cheaper; not only because it raises the question of whether or not the removal of protected status gives rise to any valuation issues, but also because it necessarily involves incurring additional professional fees.”

ALEP concludes with a plea for a “very simple amendment to the legislation to make the Government’s stated intention expressly clear”.

Related posts:

Building Safety BillGalliard and Lendlease were quick to get leaseholders on the hook for building safety bills, now they won’t sign Michael Gove’s agreement to pay up Richard MurphyShould I extend my lease now or wait for government reforms? Building Safety BillGovernment dumps Dame Judith Hackitt’s ‘building safety managers’, but what do the latest amendments to the Building Safety Bill mean for leaseholders? Woman signs up to doubling ground rent to extend lease on £70,000 flat. Is it now sellable at all? Will government dump Dame Judith Hackitt’s £60,000 a year building safety managers job creation scheme?

Category: Latest News, Lease Extension, NewsTag: ALEP, Building Safety Act, Enfranchisement, Lord Greenhalgh

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (37) ARMA (88) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (31) CMA (45) Commonhold (53) Competition and Markets Authority (41) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (46) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (55) Harry Scoffin (150) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (35) Justin Bates (40) Justin Madders MP (68) Katie Kendrick (37) Law Commission (60) LEASE (66) Leasehold Advisory Service (62) Leasehold houses (32) Liam Spender (33) Long Harbour (48) Lord Greenhalgh (31) Martin Boyd (81) 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 (56) Sir Peter Bottomley (202) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (32) Vincent Tchenguiz (43) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « FCA finds ‘significant shortcomings’ in leasehold insurance. While Michael Gove urges it to look further
Next Post: Bottomley to raise with Churchill Retirement its decision to continue charging ground rents »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Andrew G

    April 27, 2023 at 1:25 pm

    These problems are becoming urgent as conveyancers are beginning to refuse to act for buyers of flats in high rise buildings due to the uncertainty, the resulting lender’s requirements and the risk of future indemnity insurance claims

  2. David Crawford

    May 1, 2023 at 9:33 am

    Is it not possible to extend existing leases on terms whereby the ground rent is by agreement reduced to £1.00 p a in return fora capital payment? Or is that too simplistic a question?

    In France owners of flats are their outright owners, forever and without payment of anything to anyone beyond the purchase price. However, The outside walls, roofs and other common parts are the subject of a “Reglement de Copropriété” and the Copropriété is run by a ‘syndicate’ which instructs managing agents “gérants” who organise the works decided upon by the ‘syndic’ at an AGM or EGM, all run rather like our UK private companies. All of this is controlled by the law of 10 July 1965. Of course, they have the usual problems we encounter of disagreement amongst flat owners, those who cannot, or will not, pay, etc., etc. However, they do not suffer from the external landlord problem which our lease system creates so that someone with an interest only in making money from his investment, which interest may be sold on to some even more avaricious investor at any time without the consent of, or even any prospective notice to, the flat owners is needed.

    It might be instructive for those interested in this area of the law to study the French system. It could also be of use for them to look at the system of guarantees on new builds for ten years against minor and later on major defects. All this has to be backed by a bank guarantee in case of insolvency or non-performance for any other reason.

    I do not pretend that the French have got everything right. Far from it, they have their problems too, but some tweaking of our system as a result of an examination of theirs my help, if only in some small way. I always find it ironic when I take a P&O Ferry, when running, from Dover to Calais that the block of flat at the Gateway is ‘controlled’ (sic) by UK law, but those on the seafront in Calais near the Hotel de La Plage, which I can heartily recommend for a very good seafood lunch btw, is subject to an entirely different regime.

  3. Pete B

    May 23, 2023 at 2:50 pm

    As Andrew G says these problems are becoming urgent. Three solicitors declined to act for me when I was attempting to purchase a flat in a block, over 11 metres but under 18. The 4th said they would, but also stated once they had completed some enquiries they may advise not to buy.
    Also in the light of this helpful article it would seem foolhardy to apply for a lease extension on purchase which I also wished to do. If conveyancers are declining to act (and nothing to do with any extension) then it may leave potential purchasers high and dry, as well as sellers and moreover what are lenders policies- will they refuse to lend ? not just because of conveyancers but because of the following:- The freeholder up until a couple of weeks ago appeared to have made no attempt to comply with the Act. How will this be policed ? Presumably lenders before parting with cash will want to ensure the act has been complied with in respect of the flat in the block they will be lending against.
    Incidentally the estate agents selling seemed to have not a clue in relation to the act.

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.

Barry Passmore

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