header-logo header-logo

26 April 2024 / Shabnam Ali-Khan
Issue: 8068 / Categories: Opinion , Property , Leasehold , Landlord&tenant
printer mail-detail

Leasehold reform: a move too far?

169194
Government proposals to introduce radical reform in the leaseholder’s favour will have a huge impact on practitioners when acting for landlords, says Shabnam Ali-Khan

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill is currently working its way through Parliament. It is proposing some radical leasehold reforms heavily in the leaseholder’s favour. These include significant changes to the landlord’s ability to recover costs when leaseholders exercise their legal rights to enfranchise or extend their leases for flats and houses. Before we delve into the somewhat complex proposals, it is useful to have an overview of the current position.

Current position

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 governs the rights of qualifying tenants to acquire the freehold or a 50-year lease extension of their house. Pursuant to s 9 of the 1967 Act, the landlord is entitled to recover their reasonable costs in relation to most aspects of the claim, including investigating the right to acquire or extend, as well as the conveyancing and the valuation costs. The Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll