Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to either
abolish or reform leasehold as a housing tenure.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper and declare my interest as a leaseholder.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Levelling Up, Housing & Communities () (Con)
My Lords, home ownership provides people with greater control
over their own homes and lives. We are committed to creating a
housing system that works for everyone. This includes our
programme of reform to improve leasehold. Following the
introduction of the ground rent Act in June, we are due to bring
forward further leasehold reforms later in this Parliament,
helping millions of households genuinely to own their own
home.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have raised leasehold issues many times in the
Chamber in recent years, and the response I receive is never
unsympathetic to the problems of this tenure. The frustration is
that, despite this, not a lot is happening. I ask the noble
Baroness, who I warmly welcome to her new job as a Minister, what
we are going to do to move things forward. I will come back month
after month and take every opportunity I can until we finally get
some real action on this and the change that the Minister has
promised finally happens.
(Con)
The noble Lord is right: I answered a Question from him not many
weeks ago. I have spoken to myself a great deal since that time,
as I promised. Noble Lords have to understand that these are very
complex and technical issues. The reform will be felt for
generations to come, so we need to take time and care. We have
made very clear—it is in our manifesto—that we will bring further
leasehold reforms in this Parliament. To move things on, I hope
the noble Lord opposite will agree that we should meet and talk
about what are the important parts of leasehold. I am happy to
open that meeting to others in the House, because I know how
important it is for noble Lords.
(CB)
Can the Minister confirm that the recommendations from the
Government’s own working group on regulation of managing agents
will see the light of day in these new reforms? Managing agents
look after nearly all the 5 million or so leasehold properties,
and their quality and performance vary from the excellent to the
dreadful. Will we see these regulatory measures, as recommended
by that working group, in the new legislation?
(Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the work that he did on that group.
The Government are making sure that tenants and homeowners are
protected from abuse and poor service; it is happening—we know
that. This includes raising professionalisation and standards
among property agents, protecting consumers and defending the
reputation of good agents. There are many good agents out there
and they have to be protected from the actions of rogue
operatives. The Government welcome what the industry itself is
doing; it has set up a code of practice for property agents. We
will work continually, keeping our eye on the working group on
the regulation of property agents, chaired by the noble Lord,
, but also working with the
industry to ensure that it continually improves best
practice.
(LD)
My Lords, I wish that the Minister, who I welcome to her
position, would recognise the urgency of leasehold reform. I have
had a letter from leaseholders in a single block who have
themselves had letters from their freeholders listing their
liabilities as a consequence of the building safety scandal. The
liabilities are an astronomical, unbelievable £3.4 million—for a
single block. The developer responsible may pay some of those
costs but certainly not all of them. The leasehold model is
broken and urgent action is needed to reform it—abolishing it
would be a preferable way forward. I recognise that the Minister
wants to make a difference but please can she help these
leaseholders?
(Con)
I obviously cannot comment on a particular instance. I would like
to have more information; if the noble Baroness would like to
write to me, we will meet and I will look into it. That is not
what should be happening. Leaseholders should not be paying; it
should be others who are paying. We made that very clear in the
Building Safety Act.
(GP)
My Lords, the Government promised to make this whole system
fairer, faster, easier and cheaper, yet somehow it has absolutely
stalled. It is fair enough to have meetings; that is wonderful
and very fair of the Minister. At the same time, “before the next
election” may be a rather difficult timetable to be sure of. Can
the Minister please get some sort of date—some idea—of when this
will happen? There is urgency; I ask as a leaseholder.
(Con)
The noble Baroness is right, and I can assure her that I am
talking about it almost daily in the department. I will continue
to do so and hope that, the next time I come to the Dispatch Box
on this issue, I will have a date.
(Lab)
Some of the companies issue contracts in which the small print
declares that their leaseholders will be liable for any costs
that the companies might incur if they are called before a
tribunal. Does this have any legal sanction and, if it does, can
steps be taken to prevent this happening?
(Con)
I am not sure what the noble Lord is talking about. If he is
talking in particular about leaseholders with a freeholder who
does not have a managing agent, that can often be quite
difficult. The Government are looking at that; we are looking at
suitable legislation slots so as to have something in place if
they do not employ a managing agent. If I am wrong on that,
perhaps the noble Lord could write to me and I will answer.
(Lab)
It is a clear issue and I will give the Minister instances of its
occurrence.
(Lab Co-op)
Is the Minister aware that, notwithstanding the appalling
situation of housing in England, there is one part of the United
Kingdom where it is even worse? The First Minister of Scotland
refuses to visit the Homeless Project Scotland in Glasgow,
students are sleeping in hotels and on the floor, and the housing
policy in Scotland is engineered by two Ministers who are
eccentric members of the Scottish Green Party. Is that not a
ridiculous thing? This minority party is driving the policy in
Scotland and causing so much hardship.
(Con)
I am afraid I have no line into the Scottish Parliament but it
does not seem a very good reflection on the way that party
works.
(GP)
Does the Minister agree that many tenants in England would
absolutely welcome a freeze on rents, as tenants are enjoying in
Scotland?
(Con)
My Lords, we are continually looking at how we can support the
rented sector through this particularly difficult time. On
Section 21, as the noble Baroness probably knows, the Prime
Minister has said that she will not change her decisions on that
either.
(Con)
My Lords, does not the point of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes,
underline the importance of doing all we can to induce voters in
Scotland to vote for parties other than the Scottish
nationalists, preferably the Conservative and Unionist Party?
(Con)
I agree with my noble friend.
The Lord Speaker ()
We have a remote contribution from the noble Lord, .
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, with dramatically escalating service charges nationally
aggravating the position, is not the answer greater transparency
over leasehold, freehold and sub-lease title issues more
generally? Transparency alone can often solve problems where
landlord anonymity hides accountability. If that is combined with
the rolling-up of lease liability payments pending payment on the
death of a lessee under the debenture arrangements I proposed on
20 June, it would ease the problem. Will the Government please
look at what I am proposing?
(Con)
The law is very clear that service charges must be reasonable, as
in Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Leaseholders
can apply for a First-tier Tribunal for a determination on this.
The Government are also committed to ensuring that service
charges are, as the noble Lord says, transparent and that there
should be a clear route to challenge or redress if things go
wrong. We will continue to work on that for the people affected.
