The John Lyon’s Charity – one of the freeholders mounting a judicial review against the leasehold reforms next week – has made a public plea to scrap the changes (in full below).
It says the measures will “benefit millionaires, non-doms and investors while 10,000 young people face losing support”. They will take support from “low-income families and hand cash to the mega-wealthy under a Labour government”.
As a result the John Lyon’s Charity has joined forces with other freeholders in the judicial review which begins on July 15.
They are rather less benevolent enties, including the hidden, offshore private equity punters in Adriatic Land and Wallace Estates, the ARC Time Freehold Income Fund, the Duke of Westminster and Earl of Cadogan and the Portal Trust.
Leaving aside the company it keeps, the John Lyon’s Charity makes a passionate defence of its charitable efforts and the use of its funds, backed by beneficiaries such as the Somali Youth Development Resource Centre.
The residential assets of John Lyon’s Charity are largely in affluent St John’s Wood, in north London – not new housing estates in The Wirral or – atrociously badly made – blocks of flats in what were once cities’ scrub lands.
It claims the changes would result in a £1.37 million annual loss in income from leasehold enfranchisements, or a 10% reduction in the annual grants it gives out.
It is curious, but nonetheless welcome in its candour, that the charity has decided to launch a public appeal before the judicial review (which will almost certainly be completely uninfluenced by it).
Should much fiddled leasehold tenure be maintained as it is, if the money is used – by one charity, at least – for noble ends? Edward Colston, after all, was a fine philanthropist for Bristol, but his statue was still toppled into the harbour five years ago because of the slave trading origins of his wealth.
Of course, the charity is ignoring the key point: it has joined forces with speculators in residential freeholds to keep marriage value: the nonsensical 50% cut freeholders managed to parlay into the enfranchisement process to obtain from the supposed enhanced value of a leasehold property.
It was never justified when it was invented 30 years ago when leaseholders were given the right to enfranchise, and it isn’t today.
Nor should the John Lyon’s Charity be claiming that having to pay for their own lawyers’ legal costs, rather than dumping them on hapless leaseholders, is wrong.
These were income streams stuffed into the enfranchisement process – which is much abused, by the way – by obliging professionals serving the interests of freeholders.
LKP sought to intervene in the judicial review in May with 600 pages of evidence, much of it concerning unacceptable behaviour by freeholders in the enfranchisement process. Our solicitors, Velitor Law, put in £86,000 of work on the documents. Nonetheless, we were refused.
This is simply not a human rights fight as any non-lawyer would see it: it is fight over comparatively recent income streams cobbled together by the property sector to the detriment and expense of ordinary homeowners.
The much more substantial point that the charity makes is not in its emotive public statement – still less its uncomfortable involvement in a judicial review with some of the worst gamers in leasehold – but in a supporting document that it provides.
Here, the John Lyon’s Charity argues that it should be exempt from the reforms, joining the Crown Estate and National Trust.
It advocates an alternative approach that meant leasehold reforms should only benefit UK residents and owners of primary residences (always rather difficult to establish, as MPs could attest).
It says that some freeholders should be “sensible, targeted exemptions”, including – wrongly in our view – housing association freeholders.
The John Lyon’s Charity says it “supports the principle of leasehold reform”, but what’s the evidence for it ever having done so?
Instead of arguing this out when it should have done – last year when the Bill was before Parliament – the John Lyon’s Charity has joined an 11th-hour legal gambit mounted by some of the most dubious players in the leasehold sector.
The judicial review needs to be thrown out. It is a shame that John Lyon’s Charity might have to trim its grants to good causes – although, perhaps, moving out of its Strand offices would help with initial economies?
It is a further shame that it offers not one word addressing the misery that leasehold causes ordinary families simply trying to secure their homes.
This is from the John Lyon’s Charity additional documents, where the leasehold reforms apparently threaten the charity’s survival:
The Issue: LFRA24 and the Charity’s Survival
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (LFRA24) proposes reforms to enfranchisement and lease extension processes, including:
Abolition of marriage value
Significant changes to valuation methodology
These changes, if applied to John Lyon’s Charity, would result in a £1.37 million annual loss in income from leasehold enfranchisements – a 10% reduction in annual grants.
What This Means:
At least 30 organisations’ funding will be affected, impacting approx. 10,000 CYP per annum
Potential inability to provide core or salary funding, which underpins long-term sustainability of organisation’s JLC supports
Organisations JLC supports might have to stop delivery/close
Press release in full from the John Lyon’s Charity
Immediate Release – 08/07/2025
Leasehold reform will benefit millionaires, non-doms and investors, while 10,000 young people face losing vital support, warns leading grant-giving charity
John Lyon’s Charity legal challenge looms over “disastrous leasehold reforms” which take support from low-income families and hand cash to the mega-wealthy under a Labour government
More than 10,000 children and young people, many from low-income families, will lose access to key educational, youth and mental health programmes under controversial leasehold reforms, with the money going instead to millionaires, overseas companies, non-doms and professional property investors.
That’s the stark reality of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (LFRA 24) which is being challenged again in court in a fortnight by John Lyon’s Charity (JLC), which operates across nine London boroughs, including PM Keir Starmer’s constituency in Camden where 39% children live in poverty.1
JLC is one of London’s leading grant-giving organisations and depends on property assets to fund approx. 250 organisations each year, equating to £12-15 million in grant-giving – but the Act would slash that by NOTE 10%, transferring £1.37 million of its grants to millionaires, non-doms and investors per year.
Dr. Lynne Guyton, CEO of John Lyon’s Charity, said: “The effect of the Leasehold Reform Act cannot sit comfortably with Labour MPs, the Mayor of London, or with the Prime Minister, and is a far cry from the professed politics of the Labour Party. This law takes money and support from low-income families and disadvantaged children and hands it directly to the wealthy.”
“It will be a hammer blow to less well-off families; it will cut at least 10% of the Charity’s income, affecting the funding we award to at least 30 organisations, directly affecting their core and salary costs. As a result, many of the vital charities we support will have no choice but to close or lose staff because we are their only or predominant funder.”
“We will see £1.37million of our funding redirected into the pockets of millionaires, instead of the charitable organisations that support vulnerable young people. This funding cut will affect around 10 thousand children and young people to access educational, mental health, art, emotional support and youth programmes, which are now at risk.”
The LFRA24, enacted by the previous Conservative government – although the majority of its provisions are not yet in force – jeopardises the financial stability and operational capacity of organisations supported by John Lyon’s Charity.
Luke Hollowell-Williams, Artistic Director at the Primary Shakespeare Company, which encourages young people into the arts, said: “John Lyon’s Charity is more than just a funder. They understand what we do and for so many years they’ve advised us and guided us. The Primary Shakespeare Company would not exist in the form that it does now without John Lyon’s Charity. This reform will have a huge impact on JLC and the hundreds of vital groups it supports. This reform steals.”
Yusuf Deerow, Director at Somali Youth Development Resource Centre (SYDRC), a youth community organisation in Camden, said: “This is going to have huge detrimental consequences for the people that we support, and we’re totally against it. Yes, some of our young people are from Camden where there is a lot of wealth but there is also a lot of poverty and having youth provisions through the support of John Lyon’s Charity makes such a difference to those communities that we provide the services to. The risk of losing our funding is going to make things worse in what’s already a difficult time.”
The Act is meant to strengthen leaseholders’ rights, making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders in houses and flats to extend their lease or buy their freehold, including by removing the requirement to pay marriage value and changing the qualifying criteria to give more leaseholders the right to extend their lease, buy their freehold and take over management of their building.
But it does not recognise the unique position of organisations like John Lyon’s Charity. It offers no exemption for organisations funded by historic property endowments, yet it does exempt entities such as the Crown Estate, the National Trust, and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.
In addition, JLC’s estate in St John’s Wood is not typical. It contains some of London’s most expensive properties, with the majority of leaseholders being high-net-worth individuals, overseas companies, non-doms and professional investors, rather than the first-time buyers the reforms were designed to protect.
John Lyon’s Charity has worked with the Government for many years, and the Prime Minister is familiar with the Charity.
“This isn’t about ‘nice-to-haves’. John Lyon’s Charity has invested over £230 million in youth services since 1991, often stepping in where local and central government fall short,” Guyton points out.
“We are the largest independent funder of children and young people’s services in Greater London, and in our nine boroughs, we routinely outspend local authorities on youth support.
“From funding Young People’s Foundations with over £8 million, to mobilising £30 million for children’s groups after the Grenfell Tower Fire, and digging deep during the Covid crisis with an extra £22 million released from our endowment – this is what long-term, strategic partnership looks like.
“If this leasehold reform goes ahead, it will severely damage the very safety net that government itself relies on in times of crisis.”
Mark Stephens CBE, solicitor with Howard Kennedy representing John Lyons Charity, said: “This is a disastrous policy for a Labour government to enforce, with Tory leasehold reforms entirely missing their target. While John Lyon’s Charity supports the principle of leasehold reform, it is a travesty of justice for them to be robbed of income used solely to support young people, while the rich get richer. Exemptions must be introduced, and we are confident our Judicial Review hearing will find heavily in our favour.”
To continue awarding grants each year, JLC depends on two primary sources of income: investment returns and revenue from the John Lyon’s Charity estate, a portfolio of residential and commercial properties.
Today, the Charity’s endowment is valued at around £389million, with around 60% of income generated from property and 40% from investments. The income from properties is essential to sustaining its grants which amount to up to £15m per year
Since 1991, JLC has granted over £230 million to more than 1,700 organisations.
The final hearing in the Charity’s Judicial Review is due to take place on July 15th at the High Court.
ENDS
Related posts:
Freeholders on course for judicial review showdown against leasehold reforms in January
What the accounts say … St John’s Wood leasehold estate is worth only 8% of the £380m John Lyon’s Charity
Leaseholders blocked from intervening against freeholders’ judicial review against reforms
Judicial Review Day 1: Bad start for freeholders but three days to go
Judicial Review Day 2: Heat is on and the wigs come off in sweltering courtroom 76
Damp cycle ride on a Saturday morning leads to Building Safety Act victory in Court of Appeal
If implemented, the proposed Leasehold and Freehold reforms are expected to benefit an estimated 5.4 million leaseholders, including elderly and vulnerable pensioners with limited financial resources, as well as working families of moderate income who may face challenges in meeting daily expenses.
Should a judicial review take place, the courts will consider the arguements presented by all parties before issuing a judgement. Ultimately, it is anticipated thst the court’s decision will aim to balance the interests of the 5.4 million leaseholders with the possible implications for the John Lyons Charity and up to 10,000 young people who may be impacted by a reductions in available support.
I’m the CEO of John Lyon’s Charity and and I’d like the right to reply to your article.
I understand completely how many people are negatively affected by the current Leasehold system. However, all freeholders are NOT the same. John Lyon’s Charity is not campaigning at the 11th hour, or on a whim. We have been supportive of the majority of reforms, giving substantial written support and other positive suggestions since the Law Commission’s original report in 2018. I have been campaigning through the House of Commons and House of Lords and though the relevant ministers for the past 8 years. I think they thought we weren’t relevant or that (in the words of Sir Humphrey “that dear lady” would go away. Well I haven’t. I’m still here, fighting for exemption for the largest funder of children’s charities in London – we put more money into children’s services than the government.
Neither have we joined forces with the other claimants. We are very much on our own, fighting our own corner. The Great Estates are not interested in us at all and actively do not share or confide in us.
Furthermore, to mention Edward Colston and JLC in the same sentence is an insult. John Lyon lived in the time of Elizabeth I (the original John Lyon, and NOT Sir John Lyon who was different) and was a yeoman farmer in Harrow. He built the original Edgware and Harrow Roads and owned a farm on the land now know as St John’s Wood, He had no links to slavery at all and died and was buried at St Mary’s in Harrow on the Hill, with his wife. There were no dependents, and the money was held in trust since that time.
To be clear: John Lyon’s Charity is not opposing leasehold reform. We fully support the principle and have worked constructively with governments over the years to help make the system simpler and fairer for leaseholders. What we are doing is asking for a narrow and reasonable exemption for us. We are a charity that happens to have a historic estate. We rely on historic property endowments to fund vital work with children and young people. Our estate is in St John’s Wood. Our analysis shows that 90 per cent of our leaseholders are commercial investors and or/non doms. They are not poor or needy and they are not naïve leaseholders. This would be a transfer of wealth from a funder whose only rationale for being is to fund children and young people’s charities.
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 does not currently recognise the unique position of such charities, even though exemptions have been made for organisations like the Crown Estate, the National Trust, and the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The financial impact of this law would redirect millions from a children’s charity into private wealth – significantly reducing what we can provide to the thousands of young people we support each year.
Many of the charities we support are grass roots community charities. We are facing unparalleled demand for our funding and are already digging deeper into our endowment to fund this demand. A reduction in enfranchisement income will lead to us cutting grants, which will lead to job cuts in the sector we fund.
Our legal challenge is about protecting that future. It is only right that we stand firm in our responsibility to safeguard their long-term interests. To find out more about our stance on leasehold reform, please read our latest blog from me, the CEO, Lynne Guyton in the link below. Thank you for taking the time to share your views. We hear you, and we hope this helps explain ours. I wish you well and no animosity. ➡️https://www.jlc.london/media/blogs/jlc/
“Job cuts in the sector” cry me a river – people are struggling with their mental health and losing their homes across the UK!!
Dr Guyton,
Could you please provide the estimated cost associated with your involvement in the Judicial Review and the John Lyons Charity?
There are 5.4 million people with freeholders taking every penny they can screw out of the leaseholders. The result is that 90% + leaseholders are living every day in fear of another increase in g rents, insurance and s20s major works to lifts, cladding and roofs. While the majority of freeholders avoid paying any contribution and claiming expenses so NO taxes paid. £billions goes to offshore companies every year and these people lobby any government to keep the status and money. The government of the day are responsible to their citizens and should know the nhs is picking up the costs of mental healthcare of leaseholders families. The government makes the Law not freeholders, so should instruct the courts that these companies are not party to any Human Rights as it was written for citizens.
John,
I concur with you. The human rights of about 5,400,000 (Five Million Four Hundered Thousand ) Leaseholders must be protected from what I consider and believe to be the “insatiable greed” of certain Freeholders who continue to deploy all and any resources at their disposal to maintain the “status quo”. The phrase “Smoke & Mirrors” comes to mind. I would like to see documentary evidence from any Freeholder that supports this reform?
I own one of the leasehold properties under the John Lyon’s Charity portfolio in St Johns Wood.
The reality of the matter is that argument that the St John’s Wood Estate is argued to be owned by “millionaires” is simply presumptuous and lacks factual integrity. It’s a vague argument created to skew attention from the real matters here.
As if human rights and other laws work differently depending on the assumed financial status of individuals involved in specific cases. How does the charity know so well people’s individual financial status? How and who gave them the right to judge them based on it and penalise them and strip them of their own human rights to property?
Besides that this argument is also untrue.
The fact of the matter is that most of the people who bought properties owned in our building HAD NO IDEA of the ground rent review provisions in their leases, and even if they did they did not understand them. And let’s be honest, had they known of the ground rent review provisions *would not* have bought – who would have? To end up in such a situation knowingly?
They are being portrayed by the charity as “private individuals” who are “wealthy” however the I don’t see anywhere any commentary on the fact that their rights to property have been stripped – they are sitting on properties they are UNABLE to sell until the ground rent review gets settled, or a lease extension is agreed – which until even 2 years ago (when people were buying the leaseholds) were NOT getting flagged as honerous by solicitors or agents.
Also many of the leaseholders in our building, are not millionaires with hundreds of thousands to spare against a charity with 300million in management. Most of my neighbours work and their homes are potentially their ONLY homes – and maybe even their only large asset.
It is beyond ludicrous for the Charity to carry out a coordinated PR campaign twisting the arguments on their head and to engage in such rhetoric that it’s “wealthy” vs “the poor”, when it’s about seeing the reality of how the feudal system, which the charity is trying to benefit from, was designed in a way to increase confusion, uncertainty and benefit absentee landlords like John Lyon’s Charity.
Thank you for confirming what all of us suspected already – smoke and mirrors from the charity and that’s being polite!!
I own one of the leasehold properties under the John Lyon’s Charity portfolio in St Johns Wood.
The reality of the matter is that argument that the St John’s Wood Estate is argued to be owned by “millionaires” is simply presumptuous and lacks factual integrity. It’s a vague argument created to skew attention from the real matters here.
As if human rights and other laws work differently depending on the assumed financial status of individuals involved in specific cases. How does the charity know so well people’s individual financial status? How and who gave them the right to judge them based on it and penalise them and strip them of their own human rights to property?
Besides that this argument is also untrue.
The fact of the matter is that most of the people who bought properties owned in our building HAD NO IDEA of the ground rent review provisions in their leases, and even if they did they did not understand them. And let’s be honest, had they known of the ground rent review provisions they *would not* have bought – who would have? To end up in such a situation knowingly?
They are being portrayed by the charity as “private individuals” who are “wealthy” however the I don’t see anywhere any commentary on the fact that their rights to property have been stripped – they are sitting on properties they are UNABLE to sell until the ground rent review gets settled, or a lease extension is agreed – which until even 2 years ago (when people were buying the leaseholds) were NOT getting flagged as onerous by solicitors or agents.
Also many of the leaseholders in our building, are not millionaires with hundreds of thousands to spare against a charity with 300million in management. Most of my neighbours work and their homes are potentially their ONLY homes – and maybe even their only large asset.
It is beyond ludicrous for the Charity to carry out a coordinated PR campaign twisting the arguments on their head and to engage in such rhetoric that it’s “wealthy” vs “the poor”, when it’s about seeing the reality of how the feudal system, which the charity is trying to benefit from, was designed in a way to increase confusion, uncertainty and benefit absentee landlords like John Lyon’s Charity.