For the first time since the 2002 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act, commonhold is formally back on the agenda.
The Law Commission announced today that it is to consider reforms starting with leasehold enfranchisement, commonhold and managing agent regulation.
Sir David Bean, chairman of the Law Commission, said:
“We are delighted to be able to confirm that Commissioners agreed
that a project on residential leasehold and commonhold should form part of the 13th Programme and this has been approved by the Lord Chancellor.
“Consultees suggested that we should examine numerous issues in residential leasehold law.
“Our project will commence with a review of leasehold enfranchisement, commonhold and managing agent regulation.
“Further issues raised by consultees may be considered at a later stage of the project.
“On the basis of receiving funding from the sponsoring Government Department, we expect to start work immediately.”
Related posts:
Law Commission sets out how it hopes to create a better deal for leaseholders – and look at alternatives
‘The time is right for commonhold,’ announces Law Commission. (Pity the government doesn’t agree …)
Leaseholders and the sector react to Law Commission reforms to commonhold and right to manage
Law Commission consultation on enfranchisement
Is Law Commission wobbly over 25% commercial exclusion to collective enfranchisement? (Let’s hope so)
Thanks LKP for raising Grenfell issues. Now we are giving yet more money to LEASE, says housing minister
And how many previous detailed LC recommendations to reform this area were implemented? If the “experts” still need yet more assessment, why not ask the nearest bus queue? They will likely know what is needed.
Hi Folks I just have to comment on this.
Is this good? What can we do to keep the pressure up.?
Am I bring overly optimistic In believing change is coming?
What can campaigners do to ensure that this time the Law Commission will be listened to and the Goverment must act?
I had dream that I have seen the promised….. that’s quite enough ed……
No more comments until 2018. I just feel rather excited. that something monumental might be achieved.
Happy Christmas!
Under the Law Commissions Act 1965 the Law Commission is required to submit Programmes of law reform to the Lord Chancellor. Since then, every three or four years the legal body has set out the areas it intends to work on for the next few years.
In July 2016 the 13th Programme consultation was launched to seek the public’s views on the issues most in need of reform. The consultation received the largest ever volume of responses with over 1,300 submissions covering 220 different topics.
Now the Commissioners – public appointees independent of Government – have chosen 14 topics for their new Programme. All have an acknowledgement from Government that there is a serious intention to reform the law in the relevant area.
The projects in the 13th Programme of Law Reform are:
A Modern Framework for Disposing of the Dead
Administrative Review
Automated Vehicles
Electronic Signatures
Employment Law Hearing Structures
Intermediated Securities
Modernising Trust Law for a Global Britain
Museum Collections
Registered Land and Chancel Repair Liability
Residential Leasehold
Simplifying the Immigration Rules
Smart Contracts
Surrogacy
Unfair Terms in Residential Leasehold
The Commission will also continue its ongoing work on 12th Programme of Law Reform and referral projects including the high-profile areas of misconduct in public office and search warrants.
I notice the word “commonhold” is missing ??? Why ???
Two points:
When government wants to make law it cracks on with bills.
When government is lukewarm on an issue it helps to let the Law Commission crack on – three years as a minimum? – to the sound of cans being kicked down the road.
Given LC is NOT government, so much for “government will Act”.
Why have recent consultations?
Watch this space. Little to nowt is going to improve for English leaseholders. It is a cherished English land law invention.
Listen chaps . If you expect nowt you get nowt. Capeesh? We are many they are few so let’s make it happen. The powers that be will rejoice that you do “ not think anything will happen” pull yourselves together and get ready to fight to make change. Goodness, I would not want to be stuck in the trenches with you boys.
Paddy , get ready to join a march if necessary. None of your – “ I don’t do marches stuff”.
No more comment 2018 unless I read defeatist comments from others. Capeesh?
I think I must stop watching “ Peaky Blinders”s…. No more comments from me until January 2018 unless I see “ whinging” comments from those who should know better!
Kim, I’m not aware of any marches on leasehold reform but I do participate on campaign regularly – see blog and twitter and various scribblings for campaign. Loads of hours, innit.
MeanwhileI have to say sorry, but will not be marching what with these feet as Fletcher would say.
As for defeatist comments, we all have our opinions and I see a three year law commission ‘programme’ that openly states it might not get around to all its included components, and only two thirds or its learned recommendations are ever implemented “in whole or in part”, as very far short of the promise by the Squire Javid in September that government will act.
The LC is not the government. All the government needs to do is submit a Reform Bill.
I see no point allowing my tummy to be tickled by feathery promises. I want action. There is no excuse for DCLG to wait a single day longer.
Watch this space. This ‘lot’ have no intention of reforming leasehold. Accept this and the campaign can focus. I did believe the hype a few months ago. I am cross for being so gullible.
Have a very peaceful Christmas and don’t waste any more time trying to reform my old cynical and undoubtedly jaded opinions! I am still ‘campaigning’ based on realism.
Dear Paddy you are campaigning based on “ YOUR realism”.
If my father and I and other like minded folks had adopted your view in our campaign against apartheid then perhaps there would still be segregation in South Africa. We could get into a discussion about a different form of segregation that exists under Zuma but that is for another
day and a separate forum.
I do not allow my Tummy to be tickled and am not guillable. However, I am smart enough to know when to ride the crest of a wave.
Incidentally, if “ your feet aren’t up to marching”then may I suggest you send somebody in your place. ENOUGH of your excuses. Either put up or shut up!
I say that in a caring loving way. CAPEESH.
Well I tried good humoured politeness.
1. Where are all these marches you are hectoring me about?
2. If my blogging and daily tweeting are failing your personal standards, I have…politely…. said sorry.
If that’s not nuff, I rarely obey being told to shut up.
Dear Paddy
1.The March is yet to be organised but I will talk to others to see if one large March can be organised for 2018. Rather in the same vein as the Poll Tax / Country alliance marches. EG organise coach parties to ferry fellow comrades from around the Country to London.
2.I hope it comes to fruition and it won’t be for lack of trying on my Part.
3. I of course meant “ put up or shut” in a jokey way.
Incidentally Paddy, I believe your comments on this site to be absolutely excellent. They are Informative, witty and very well constructed. Innit?
That truly is my last comment for 2017. ( Hurrah I hear you all cry)
The Law Commission is a statutory independent body. We aim:
to ensure that the law is as fair, modern, simple and as cost-effective as possible
to conduct research and consultations in order to make systematic recommendations for consideration by Parliament, and
to codify the law, eliminate anomalies, repeal obsolete and unnecessary enactments and reduce the number of separate statutes.
Academic placements
We are open to suggestions from academics and PhD students for an attachment to the Law Commission, to work on projects relevant to their research interests. Details of our current projects are given on this website.
The position would be unpaid, since the expectation would be that the candidate had funding from their academic institution or elsewhere – for example, by grant or on paid sabbatical. However, reasonable travel expenses would be paid (but not accommodation or subsistence). The skills/expertise offered by the candidate need not be solely legal. The Commission would be interested in approaches, for example, from sociologists or criminologists.
We cannot accommodate more than a few placements at any one time and the arrangements would be tailored on an individual basis. This would include details of length of attachment, expectations on contributions to the project in question, attendance and involvement at the Commission, liaison, facilities, arrangements for disclosure/publication/attribution of work undertaken.
Anyone interested in working at the Law Commission on this basis will be asked to demonstrate that they have a specific contribution to make to a current project, for example, on the basis of their expertise, previous work or field of academic work. Those interested should contact our Enquiries desk
A phrase often repeated today by many professionals ” You get what you pay for” meaning if
you want the best outcome , you have to pay for it.
And if you pay peanuts , you get the work output from monkeys.
No – its the wrong approach to seek attachment from unpaid academics.
Its far better to think “outside the box” and for Law Commission to declare its full 100% support for Justin Madders MP and his 10 minute bill for leasehold reform.
Thinking more “outside the box”,
The “unpaid academics” in the E & W Leasehold System are actually Sebastian and Martin at LKP plus the Patrons and MPs of the APPG..
Merry Christmas to all leasehold academics.
Ollie, As you so rightly say “You get what you pay for”
ARMA is paid for by managing agents and their acolytes.
The same is true for ARHM.
The Leasehold Advisory Service( which is supposed to be independent) has been tainted by having to seek commercial funding and their very controversial choice of paid executive.
Michael ,
Not sure where the idea of LEASE being independent comes from ? LEASE was not been set up to protect and enhance the profitability of the ground rent investment companies at the expense of the leaseholders. If the CEO of Lease thinks otherwise then Lease cannot meet its primary obligations to the leaseholders who as taxpayers provide the funding for LEASE..
The previous Housing Minister Gavin Barwell is on record as saying the Leasehold Advisory Service should stand firmly behind the Leaseholders. The current Housing Minister Alok Sharma has to support this policy and get rid of the CEO if the CEO fails to deliver.
A very Happy Christmas to all
– and if you have anything to spare, please consider supporting Crisis at Christmas:
https://www.crisis.org.uk/get-involved/reserve-a-place-at-crisis-at-christmas/
On e subject of corruption the EU is attempting to tackle some of the secrecy and obfuscation. Of course they don’t have leasehold but the principle is the same.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/15/eu-to-force-companies-to-disclose-owners-with-directive-prompted-by-panama-papers
And another great article from the guardian. Obscene 100 million pound bonus for housebuiders exploiting the ridiculous help to buy scheme. Who is making serious money here on the back of the housing crisis and on the misery of millions who cannot afford their first home.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/dec/15/persimmon-chair-resigns-chief-executive-obscene-bonus
I hope someone at the Law Commission reads the report in the Guardian Paper about Persimmon Chief who was given £110 Million bonus.which has to be recovered from selling the future ground rent income under the freehold title.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/17/persimmon-chief-bonus-obscene-christmas-carol
.
The New Clause Two’ amendment in the Finance Bill to stop tax dodging was blocked. Wealthy property owners.are above paying tax and in the case of freeholder investors – no-one knows (or wants to know) who they really are.
I am very confused about this – they keep going on about the ‘will of the people’ but we seem to support exploitative legislation that fleeces ‘the people’ who have a little, promotes secrecy and obfuscation and increases the wealth of the scum, who can afford to contribute much more for the good of this country.
I hope someone at the Law Commission understands the difference between the different residential property titles :
1. Sale of property under freehold title gives the buyer legal ownership of property.( usually a house )
2. Sale of property under leasehold title ( plus Nil ground rent ) gives the buyer ownership of a lease and leaseholders collectively may get ownership of the freehold title for the building .
3. Sale of property under leasehold title ( plus Paying annual ground rent ) gives the buyer ownership of a lease but ownership of the freehold passes to 3rd party landlord.
4. Sale of property under commonhold title give the buyer legal ownership of the property ( usually a flat)
5. The leasehold tenure system was introduced to England after William the Conqueror’s invasion of 1066 and has continued in England and Wales up to present date. In ancient days,there was little money in circulation; the lease for a small holding of land was entered between the local landowner and his serf /servant. for very little money and most leases lasted not much more than 20 years . Due to the hard life and lack of medical care, the lifespan of the local people was little more than 40 years.
6. In today’s times , the leases for flats within an apartment block are sold under 99 years or 125 years term and the buyers are sold a long term rental agreement without any legal ownership in the building. The developer receives 97% of the turnover from sale of leases to the flat buyers and 3% turnover from sale of freehold title to a ground rent investment company : many are controlled by companies based in offshore tax havens.
7. So for the completed development , the flat buyers have paid 97% for rental contracts whilst the freehold investment company have paid 3% for legal ownership of entire building.
8. . The Law Commission claims to ensure that the law is as fair, modern, simple and as cost-effective as possible : .
So the Law Commission must deliver back 97% legal ownership of the building to the Flat Buyers. who are 97% stakeholders and were deceived by the developers and their solicitors.
Don’t get me wrong, Ollie – we all want the same thing – but I was just wondering, looking at your post:
Do they create leases with a Nil ground rent?
And did the Normans introduce leasehold tenure? I thought lease agreements were as old as the hills, but that the Doctrine of Estates was extended to leases in the 1300s, to protect lessees.
Previously, I believe, they could only sue their lessor for money, if dispossessed, rather than recover possession. Leases were classed as Personalty, not Realty, so the old ‘Real Actions’ had not been available to them.
Following this extension of the Doctrine of Estates, leases are to this day classified as ‘Chattels Real’, a hybrid form of property.
The downside was that 14th century lawyers soon realised how to use the doctrine against the lessee if he denied his lessor’s title, to escaper rent. (Possession was nine-tenths of the law, so a lessee had many opportunities to outmanoeuvre the lessor). Lawyers soon worked out that, since the doctrine of estates now applied, and since there could be ‘no estate without a lord’, it followed that the lessee owed Fealty to the lessor, who effectively became his ‘lord’, not just party to a contract.
Thereby hangs the confusion that features, very understandably, in many writings about leasehold tenure. The ‘feudal’ aspect in reality derives more from about 1366 rather than 1066. The way we all of us only ‘hold’ land is the antiquated bugbear, in a way. Including freeholders, we are all ‘tenants’, in the law-French derived terminology of our statutes. This blurs the very concepts, along with the language, confusing many lawyers, let alone laymen. A complete rewrite of the Law of Property Act 1925 is long overdue!
You can find this info from a website ” History from the internet ”
The feudal system was introduced to England following the invasion and conquest of the country by William I, The Conqueror. The feudal system had been used in France by the Normans from the time they first settled there in about 900AD. It was a simple, but effective system, where all land was owned by the King.
The last invasion of England was in 1066 ( its what you learn in history class at school ). The basis of “Divide and Rule ( Conquer } ” strategy and that management thinking came from the Roman Empire. Not aware of what leasehold event happened in 1366 ???
Sorry, Ollie – Looking it up, the date was 1499. That year, for the first time, the courts held that a leaseholder could regain possession. (Holdsworth: History of English Law vol.3 p.216-217). This completed the transition of leaseholds from bare contractual arrangements to Tenures, and then to Estates.
History books tend to start at 1066 for convenience. We should not infer that William the Conqueror introduced either leases OR feudal tenure. Feudal systems date from ancient Rome and beyond, by definition involving service and status: a joined-up communal approach to land, duty, jurisdiction and rank. Holdsworth describes pre-conquest feudal structures. He notes, for instance, that it simply did not seem to occur to the Anglo-Saxon mind, to distinguish between private and official property. (Vol.1 p.54-55).
Leases were a purely commercial arrangement that developed separately. Assimilation took place gradually, with feudal tenures, in the way that I have described above, due to the (then!) several advantages of long leases over freeholds. Hopelessly out of date now of course.
Have a good Christmas!
In 2002 Efforts and recommendations by the law commission to outlaw “forfeiture clauses” were derailed and never implements
A few observations on Commonhold:
1-Commonhold can not co-exist with Leasehold.
2-Freeholders, managing agents and developers will never be interested in Commonhold
3-Commonhold should not be based on conditions or agreements between flat owners. Some flat owners donot know each other and will never get to meet
4-The commonhold is the Block or the Estate itself; It should not be dependent on an Agreement.
5-Keep private law firms and the law industry in order for commonhold to succeed
New property can be sold under Commonhold Title if the Government including Cabinet and HMRC are willing to give support to Commonhold title and make leasehold property more expensive .on first sale by the developer and more expensive to hold. .
You cannot stop property owners selling leases so lets treat sale of lease as provision of property accomodation, like hotel room accommodation and charge 20% VAT. on the first sale of such leases where annual ground rent is demanded.
HMRC can give charge NIL rate VAT for new property sold under freehold title or commonhold title or leasehold title with peppercorn ground rent. No need to wait for Law Commission to recommend changes – it just needs leadership by the Housing Minister and Chancellor to make history NOW.