Skip to main content
CLOSE

Charities

Close

Corporate and Commercial

Close

Employment and Immigration

Close

Fraud and Investigations

Close

Individuals

Close

Litigation

Close

Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration

Close

Public Law

Close

Real Estate

Close

Restructuring and Insolvency

Close

Energy

Close

Entrepreneurs

Close

Private Wealth

Close

Real Estate

Close

Tech and Innovation

Close

Transport and Infrastructure

Close
Home / News and Insights / Insights / Will the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform of leasehold and commonhold succeed in its avowed intention of ‘Making our homes our own’?

It was interesting to hear from Professor Nick Hopkins in his Blundell Lecture on 30 September exactly what thought processes drove the Law Commission’s recommendations to reform the leasehold and commonhold regimes in its report earlier this year.

In a nutshell these were that:

  • leasehold fails to fulfil the desire for true ‘ownership’ to which home owners aspire, because too much financial interest in (and control of) their homes remains vested in the landlord. They seek to redress that balance by recommending that it is made easier for leaseholders (both individually and collectively) to buy the freehold and exercise the Right to Manage their block, that the term of extended leases should be 999 years and that the amount of landlords’ costs which must be paid is reduced; and
  • leasehold was never designed to fulfil the function it now does and the answer to its failings is not reform but replacement by the system that was – commonhold.

The challenge is to achieve the cultural change amongst stakeholders in the development of residential property which will see commonhold recognised not just as a viable alternative to leasehold but as the preferred option.

Whilst the Law Commission’s recommendations for changes to the commonhold system undoubtedly address some of its perceived shortcomings, it is unlikely they will be sufficient to address this challenge. Most likely that requires either developers to voluntarily adopt commonhold as the preferred structure for future residential (and mixed use) schemes or for government to force them to do so by legislating. Whether either has the appetite for such action at this point remains in doubt.

Related Articles

Our Offices

London
One Bartholomew Close
London
EC1A 7BL

Cambridge
50/60 Station Road
Cambridge
CB1 2JH

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
Grosvenor House, Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

 

Reading
The Anchorage, 34 Bridge Street
Reading RG1 2LU

Southampton
Grosvenor House, Grosvenor Square
Southampton SO15 2BE

  • Lexcel
  • CYBER ESSENTIALS PLUS

© BDB Pitmans 2024. One Bartholomew Close, London EC1A 7BL - T +44 (0)345 222 9222

Our Services

Charities chevron
Corporate and Commercial chevron
Employment and Immigration chevron
Fraud and Investigations chevron
Individuals chevron
Litigation chevron
Planning, Infrastructure and Regeneration chevron
Public Law chevron
Real Estate chevron
Restructuring and Insolvency chevron

Sectors and Groups

Private Wealth chevron
Real Estate chevron
Transport and Infrastructure chevron