.avif)
-
17/12/25 3:30 pm
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
%20(1).png)
The publication of the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill is a significant step forward for a sector that has long struggled with complexity, inconsistency and declining consumer confidence. For the many homeowners living in leasehold properties, the system has had a far-reaching impact on transactions, affordability and confidence in the flats market.
Uncertainty around costs, responsibilities and rights has too often been the norm. For agents and landlords, operating within a system shaped by historic arrangements and evolving regulation has created its own pressures. In response to these long-standing challenges, the draft bill signals a clear intent to reset the framework, not only by reforming tenure but by addressing how disputes arise and how they are resolved.
From a redress perspective, this is where the proposed reforms become particularly important.
Redress schemes play a vital role in resolving disputes and improving standards across the property sector, but they operate within the legal and tenure framework that exists today. In the leasehold space, that framework places clear and deliberate limits on what redress can and cannot do. These limits are not always well understood by leaseholders.
There are two government-approved redress schemes for agents, both of which provide an accessible route for resolving complaints about an agent’s service, communication and professional conduct. However, redress does not extend to determining disputes over service charge levels, ground rent, or decisions about appointing or removing agents. Nor does it currently cover complaints made directly against freeholders or residential management companies.
Those boundaries exist for good reason, but they can be confusing and frustrating for leaseholders who understandably expect a single route to resolution. As a result, people often come to redress schemes feeling they have nowhere else to turn, only to discover that their dispute, however serious, sits outside our jurisdiction. From their perspective, that can reinforce a sense that they lack meaningful rights or influence within the system.
Leasehold complaints also tend to be among the most complex we see. Although leaseholders form a smaller cohort overall, the disputes are often long-running, sometimes going back many years. By the time a complaint reaches us, relationships are often strained and expectations can be difficult to manage. While we generally work within a 12-month timeframe, the issues themselves often pre-date that by a considerable margin.
We do offer mediation options, and there is clear scope for a much greater emphasis on mediation and other early, out-of-court solutions as the system evolves. Tribunals have an important role to play and are more informal and accessible than many people assume, but they should be used where resolution cannot be achieved earlier. The priority must be to prevent disputes escalating to that stage in the first place.
One area that has caused particular difficulty is forfeiture. In practice, forfeiture has sometimes been used in response to relatively minor debts or breaches, and once a forfeiture notice has been served, agents must be extremely careful not to waive the freeholder’s rights. This can restrict how disputes are handled and, in some cases, frustrate the process of redress, particularly where leaseholders are withholding charges because they are questioning the cost or quality of the service they receive.
Reforming or removing forfeiture would not remove accountability, but it would reduce reliance on a mechanism that often escalates disputes rather than resolving them. It would also encourage earlier engagement and more proportionate approaches, supporting fair resolution before positions become further strained.
Alongside this, the government’s consultation on abolishing leasehold for new flats and transitioning to commonhold presents another important opportunity, but it is not a simple fix. Commonhold will still require shared decision-making, shared funding and, in most cases, a professional property manager to deliver works and services. Challenges around rising costs, building safety and collective responsibility will remain, regardless of tenure.
In today’s climate, building safety is paramount and costs are escalating. Most property managers are not seeking to profit but are responding to regulatory requirements and genuine safety concerns. However, when costs rise sharply, agents are often the ones delivering difficult messages, sometimes where there is insufficient money in reserve funds to carry out essential works. That can lead to delays, dissatisfaction and disputes, particularly where the impact is uneven, such as a roof issue affecting top-floor leaseholders more than those below.
I recently attended a roundtable organised by the Leasehold Advisory Service, focused largely on remediation works. The strength of feeling in the room was striking. Leaseholders’ frustration and discontent were palpable, and many felt let down by a system they do not fully understand and cannot easily challenge. The issues affect ordinary people and their homes, and it is undermining confidence in the flats market more broadly.
This is why the draft bill matters. As well as reforming leasehold or introducing commonhold, it is an opportunity to close gaps in redress, clarify rights and responsibilities, and bring this part of the sector into line with others that already benefit from clearer boundaries and stronger consumer protections.
That process will take time. The bill must be consulted on, refined and debated, and even with momentum, it is likely to be at least a year before legislation is in place. Implementation will then be phased, but it is essential that this work happens decisively. The longer uncertainty persists, the greater the risk to the market for flats and the people who live in them.
Ultimately, leaseholders want to feel empowered. They want to understand their responsibilities, know what they are paying for, and have access to fair and effective routes to resolution when things go wrong. If this legislation can deliver that, it will represent a genuine step forward not just for leaseholders, but for the entire sector.
Tags:
.avif)
.avif)
Comments