• 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 / Freeholders given makeover as ‘duty-holders’ with an identifiable ‘responsible person’ in post-Grenfell overhaul of building safety regs

Freeholders given makeover as ‘duty-holders’ with an identifiable ‘responsible person’ in post-Grenfell overhaul of building safety regs

June 14, 2019 //  by Admin4

Dame Judith Hackitt before the Communities Select Committee in December 2017

By Harry Scoffin

Last week government issued a call for leaseholders of flats in high-rise buildings to submit their views on how their homes can be better protected from fires and other structural risks. The public consultation closes on July 31.

This development comes as a response to the Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, which was published in late May and commissioned in the immediate aftermath of the Grenfell Tower fire.

Authored by former health and safety commissioner Dame Judith Hackitt, the final report found that residents were being systemically denied a voice in the management of both social and privately-owned blocks. It also identified a “lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities … ambiguity over where responsibility lies, exacerbated by a level of fragmentation within the industry, and precluding robust ownership of accountability”.

With the words “leasehold” and “leaseholder” appearing just 7 times across the 159-page report, there was little discussion of how the structural deficiencies of leasehold as a residential tenure can lead to the neglect of not only resident voice, but also the building itself.

It is sometimes difficult for leaseholders to have their grievances addressed when the identity of their freehold landlord is obscured. The “building owner” could be a shell company, or an offshore vehicle where the beneficial ownership is hidden behind nominee directors. At least serfs knew who their feudal lord was …

Nonetheless, in its consultation paper on implementing Dame Judith’s reform package, government has signalled some awareness of the murky world of leasehold:

“Dutyholder roles can be fulfilled by either an individual (defined legally as a ‘natural person’) or a legal entity. However, we are considering whether, where this is discharged by a legal entity, there should be a single accountable person at board level who can be identified as having responsibility for building safety.”

It intends to adopt Dame Judith’s concept of a “dutyholder” into law by creating an “accountable person” role. This will apply to the party who claims service charge monies and other fees related to the upkeep of the external façade and common parts of a tall building.

Possibly in recognition of the blurred lines of accountability that leaseholders often have to navigate, the proposals maintain that the “accountable person” be a third-party freeholder or head lessee; a management company embedded in the leases; a right to manage company; or a commonhold association.

Government helpfully acknowledges that freehold landlords have no legal duty to pay any money towards the upkeep of the buildings they own, with all costs shouldered by leaseholders:

“… we are mindful that this may be costly and remediation works are likely to be different to other costs of the new building safety regime because they may be one-off, unpredictable and vary considerably between buildings. Currently, we would expect such costs to fall to leaseholders and landlords in the same way that costs for other major works in multi-occupied residential buildings would”

[Er … leaseholders do all the paying, as it happens.]

Pre-empting the blame shifting between landlord and managing agent that could hinder the effectiveness of the new national regulatory body for building safety, the landlord would be forbidden from devolving his accountability function to a managing agent or contractor. He would be entitled to enlist professionals to help him discharge his duties through the “occupation period” of the building, though the regulator would only take enforcement action against the landlord himself.

Can new laws really make freehold landlords ‘long-term custodians’ of the buildings they are supposed to own? A postcard from 1909 suggests not (British Library)

It is clear government is becoming more familiar with the shortcomings of the ancient leasehold property system, with “building owners” facing a raft of new legal obligations. These include a requirement to provide an address in England and Wales to which the new national regulator for building safety can issue notices.

Despite the stated ambition to “give residents a stronger voice in the system – and ensure their concerns are never ignored”, the proposals seem to work according to the logic that third-party freeholders can be made to perform a stewardship role and listen to leaseholders who have the majority financial stake in the block.

But this overlooks the fact that the relationship between landlord and tenant is an antagonistic one. Their interests do not coincide.

Where leaseholders seek to be safe in their homes, the absentee landlord may be less concerned for the maintenance and structural integrity of their building, especially when he has negligible reversionary value with occupiers on 999-year leases.

Additionally, although leaseholders look to the cost and quality of the work being done to the building, the third-party freeholder may use section 20 as a profiteering exercise since he will not be paying the final bill.

Ultimately, that government is having to rename third-party freeholders as “duty-holders” is another vindication of what Leasehold Knowledge Partnership has been saying for some time: landlords in the leasehold sector are not landlords in the traditional sense of the word.

They own these buildings to monetise them. They provide no service.

Even if residents gain new routes and rights to challenge their landlords who may heighten fire and other structural risks by sweating the asset, they will never have control so long as there is a place for speculators in ordinary people’s homes.

It is time to finally phase out leasehold and make commonhold … common.

Building a safer future: proposals for reform of the building safety regulatory system

Only go outside for food, health reasons or work (but only if you cannot work from home) If you go out, stay 2 metres (6ft) away from other people at all times Wash your hands as soon as you get home Do not meet others, even friends or family.


The only two meetings on combustible cladding held in parliament were organised by LKP for the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, with one in July 2018 and the other last month.

Related posts:

Reviewer of building regulations admits post-Grenfell safety regime open to abuse by rogue freeholders fire safety in flatsPost-Grenfell fire safety regime brings closer scrutiny of building owners … even shadey freeholders anonymously lurking in sunny tax havens Top civil servant warns Robert Jenrick over £1bn cladding bailout … promises post-Grenfell blame game won’t happen again Robert Jenrick claddingJenrick: ‘We owe it to Grenfell community to get building safety right’ Sector announces new building safety test for leasehold blocks to ‘keep the high-rise property market flowing’

Category: Latest News, NewsTag: Building safety reform, Cladding scandal, Dame Judith Hackitt, Fire safety, Grenfell

Sign up to the LKP newsletter

Fill in the link here

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @LKPleasehold

Mentions

Anthony Essien (34) APPG (44) ARMA (91) Benjamin Mire (32) Cladding scandal (71) Clive Betts MP (33) CMA (46) Commonhold (56) Competition and Markets Authority (42) Countryside Properties plc (33) FirstPort (55) Grenfell cladding (56) Ground rents (55) Israel Moskovitz (32) James Brokenshire MP (31) Jim Fitzpatrick (36) Jim Fitzpatrick MP (31) Justin Bates (41) Justin Madders MP (75) Katie Kendrick (41) Law Commission (61) LEASE (68) Leasehold Advisory Service (65) Leasehold houses (32) Liam Spender (39) Long Harbour (51) Lord Greenhalgh (32) Martin Boyd (87) McCarthy and Stone (43) National Leasehold Campaign (42) Persimmon (49) Peverel (61) Property tribunal (49) Retirement (38) Robert Jenrick (33) Roger Southam (47) Sajid Javid (38) Sebastian O’Kelly (67) Sir Peter Bottomley (211) Taylor Wimpey (106) Tchenguiz (33) The Guardian (33) The Times (34) Vincent Tchenguiz (45) Waking watch contracts (40)
Previous Post: « Estate agents say extortionate charges are blighting the lives of 10% of leaseholders
Next Post: BBC R4 MoneyBox hears that a CMA mis-selling ruling could see leaseholders suing plc house builders. Hope so! »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Michael Epstein

    June 16, 2019 at 8:14 am

    Aside from not knowing who the ultimate freeholder is, just to add another layer of “confusion” the “developer” is almost certainly not the “builder”.
    The days of developers having their own in house workforce are long gone.
    So it is now more than likely that your house developed by Persimmon/Taylor Wimpey has in fact been built by sub contracted contractors who most probably do not have a direct labour force either and further sub contract to individuals.
    Each layer of sub contracting is another step away from responsibility.
    Possibly this is a reason as to why so many new builds are built to such a shoddy standard?
    Were the developers the builders, they could readily identify an individual who installed faulty electrics for example?
    I strongly suspect, that if you asked Persimmon/Taylor Wimpey “Who installed the faulty electrics?” they would not be able to answer.
    Years ago housebuilders were different.
    Many years ago, my parents were buying a Laing built house.
    The surveyor came round and said “it’s Laing it’s fine” End of survey!
    Accountability has been shifted and obscured.
    Whilst the developer and builder are not one and the same, poor quality will abound.

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 © 2025 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