header-logo header-logo

09 January 2020
Issue: 7869 / Categories: Legal News , Property
printer mail-detail

Leasehold purchase reforms

The Law Commission has launched its proposals for reform of leasehold, which it claims could potentially save homeowners millions of pounds

Its report, Reforming valuation in leasehold enfranchisement, published this week, follows a consultation with leaseholders, landlords and investors. It sets out three options to make it cheaper for homeowners to buy their freehold or extend their lease―a process known as enfranchisement. Each option uses a different method to calculate the value of the leasehold and therefore the premium the occupant should pay.

The elements of an enfranchisement premium are the term (value of ground rent over the remaining years of the lease), the reversion (value for the landlord of getting the property back at the end of the lease), the marriage value (extra value gained when landlord’s and leaseholder’s interests are joined) and the hope value (a slice of the marriage value).

The three options for calculating the premium are: term and reversion (marriage value is ignored); term, reversion and hope value; and term, reversion and marriage value.

The Commission also suggests a range of other reforms, including: prescribing the rates used in calculating the price, to eliminate a potential source of argument; helping leaseholders with onerous ground rents by capping the level used to calculate the price; creating an online calculator; and enabling groups of leaseholders collectively enfranchising a block of flats to avoid paying development value unless development has been undertaken.

Professor Nicholas Hopkins, Property Law Commissioner, said: ‘We were asked to provide options for reform that save leaseholders money when buying their freehold or extending their lease, while ensuring that sufficient compensation is paid to landlords. This is what we’ve done.’

Issue: 7869 / Categories: Legal News , Property
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll