Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill

Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2024.

Clause 41 - Limitation of estate management charges: reasonableness

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I beg to move amendment 145, in clause 41, page 66, line 28, at end insert—

“(c) only where they are incurred in the provision of services or the carrying out of works that would not ordinarily be provided by local authorities.”

This amendment would mean that services or works that would ordinarily be provided by local authorities are not relevant costs for the purposes of estate management charges.

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 150, in clause 41, page 66, line 28, at end insert—

“(c) where they are incurred in the provision of services or the carrying out of works, only where the requirement for those services or works is not the result of defects in the original construction.”

This amendment would ensure that services or works on private or mixed-use estate that are required as a result of defects in its construction are not relevant costs for the purposes of estate management charges.

Clause stand part.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I remind colleagues that we have moved from the clauses that relate to what was termed the “feudal” system of leasehold to the rather more modern problem of estate management charges, which in large part, although not exclusively, are incurred by those who own their homes. Essentially, the charges have arisen because of issues to do with adoption by local authorities. They are charges for a range of services in what might be termed, but are not necessarily, public areas, and for what might be, but are not necessarily, services or provisions that would normally be provided by a local authority.

It is worth bearing in mind how rapidly the issue of estate management charges has grown. From being essentially non-existent, or at least very rare, I think the charges now cover at least 1 million or 1.5 million homeowners—perhaps the Minister will tell us it is an even higher number. One issue is that we are essentially creating a two-tier society of council tax payers: people who pay council tax once to cover a range of public services, and residents in parts of our country who pay for those services twice—once through their council tax and again through their estate management charges.

The provisions in part 4 deal with a number of changes that seek to improve the rights of those subject to estate management charges and to improve access to redress. I commend a number of my local residents and councillors, most importantly Councillor Jim Weir of Great Denham, as well as 30 of my Conservative colleagues who wrote with me to the Prime Minister and Secretary of State to ask them to include the provisions in the Bill. I am grateful to them for doing so. Most particularly, I thank the former Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch—and the current Minister for their help and guidance on these matters. The provisions will enable us to make a great amount of progress. However, it is clear—and it was clear from the evidence the Committee received—that there is another path, or at least it is clear that the public also desire to abolish or reduce the current system of estate management charges, rather than improving it and the rights that people have. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.

At issue is the matter of adoption. In the summary on page 4, paragraph 2 of the Competition and Market Authority report that looks into estate management charges and other issues, it states that

“evidence gathered in our market study to date has shown that, over the last five years or so, amenities on new housing estates that are available for wider public use (ie not for the exclusive use of households on the estate), are increasingly not being adopted by the relevant authority. This appears to be driven by the discretionary nature of adoption, housebuilders’ incentives not to pursue adoption and by local authority concerns about the future ongoing costs of maintaining amenities”.

That gets to the crux of the issue. The decision process for creating estate management charges takes place in a cosy discussion between the developers of new estates and the local authorities, both of which have an interest in ensuring that they are not the ones to carry the cost for a range of communal services. Guess who ends up paying the bill? It is homeowners up and down the country, who have no role in that cosy discussion. I wish to influence that cosy discussion through my amendment.

It is tricky to change the process of adoption, and I think you would consider it out of scope, Sir Mark, if we sought to do so in the Bill. In the evidence session, I heard colleagues talk about some of the risks involved in leaving councils with unadoptable roads and poor-standard infrastructure that the council tax payer has to pay to bring up to standard. No one on the Committee wishes to see that happen. My amendment would not force adoption, then, but essentially take the payer—the householder or homeowner—out of the equation for paying for those costs. It would exclude services or works that would ordinarily be provided by local authorities so that they would not count as costs that could be incurred by estate management charges.

My hope is that the amendment would pour a dose of reality on to developers by saying that they could no longer pass the buck for the costs of poor-standard infrastructure used by the public to homeowners on their estates. They would have to bring them up to standard, and then councils could adopt them.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

It is a pleasure to continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill with you in the Chair, Sir Mark. I rise to speak to amendment 150, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale. As we have heard, part 4 of the Bill deals with the regulation of estate management. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire provided an extremely comprehensive overview of the problem and its prevalence.

The distinct set of problems faced by residential freeholders on private or mixed-tenure estates that part 4 seeks to address is well known and well understood. Those problems include: excessive or inappropriate charges levied for minimal or even non-existent services; charges imposed for services that should by right be covered by council tax; charges that include costly and arbitrary administration fees; charges hiked without adequate justification; and charges levied when residential freeholders are in the process of selling their property.

In addition to a general lack of clarity and transparency about how estate management charges and fees are arrived at and how they break down—these problems are not dissimilar to those experienced by long leaseholders in respect of service charges—residential freeholders on privately owned and managed estates clearly suffer from inadequate transparency in other unique respects. For example, as I have said in past debates on the subject in the House, it would appear to be fairly common for residential freeholders not to be notified of their future liability for charges early in the conveyancing process; many learn of their exposure only at the point of completion. Even in instances in which residential freeholders are notified about their future liability in good time, many have to confront the fact that their contracts do not specify limits or caps on charges and fees.

There is clearly a distinct problem with management fragmentation on many privately owned estates that have been constructed throughout the country in recent years, with residential freeholders even on relatively new estates frequently having to navigate scores of management companies, each levying fees for services in a way that further exacerbates the general lack of transparency and potential for abuse that they face in respect of charges and fees. Underpinning all those issues of concern is a fundamental absence of adequate regulation or oversight of the practices of estate management companies and the fact that residential freeholders currently do not enjoy statutory rights equivalent to those held by leaseholders.

There has been a broad consensus across the House for some time that residential freeholders on new build private and mixed-tenure estates require greater rights and protections, and the Government have recognised publicly—for at least six years, by my count—that they need to act to address the range of problems that freeholders face. Labour therefore welcomes the Government’s decision to use the Bill to create an entirely new statutory regime for residential freeholders based on leaseholders’ rights and is fully supportive of the intent behind the provisions in this part of the Bill.

Although part 4 sets the broad framework for regulating estate management, much of the detail necessary to bring that framework into force will come via regulations. We take no issue with that, and do not intend to pre-empt the regulations by attempting to prescribe a series of requirements on the face of the Bill. However, we believe that, where possible, we should seek to use part 4 not only to provide greater protection to residential freeholders who live on the estates, but to contribute to a reduction in the prevalence of such arrangements—a point that the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire was driving at.

Although additional protections of the kind introduced under part 4 will almost certainly still be required, in its “Private management of public amenities on housing estates” working paper, published on 3 November last year, the Competition and Markets Authority stated that

“we consider that reducing the prevalence of private management arrangements would be the most direct route to address the root cause of our emerging concerns”.

The CMA made it clear in that working paper that reducing the prevalence of private management arrangements would require a mix of legislative and policy changes more fundamental than the introduction of regulatory protection, and drew attention to the fact that it would result in a wider set of consequential changes, not least the potential for

“significant impact on local authority finances and resources at a time when local authority funding is already stretched.”

That is why, while we very much sympathise with its intent of ensuring that residential freeholders on private or mixed-tenure estates are not charged for services that should by right be covered by council tax, we have reservations about amendment 145. We are concerned that it will, in effect, force local authorities to adopt public amenities on new housing estates, irrespective of circumstance, or—if compulsion is not the intent of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire—would see those amenities degrade and deteriorate as a result of not being maintained by either the private management company or the local authority.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his detailed look at my amendment. First, will he explain to the Committee where he sees compulsion on local authorities in the amendment? I cannot see it. Secondly, will he explain why his more material concern about the possibility of items degrading and estate management not doing anything would not be addressed by the strengthening provisions that the Government are putting in the Bill on behalf of homeowners?

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Under my reading of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, if it is ensured that services or works that would ordinarily be provided by local authorities are not relevant costs for the purposes of charges in this part, who will pick up the bill? If the local authority is not compelled to adopt the amenities, our concern is that no one will maintain them. To address his point directly, I worry that his amendment would not ensure that the private estate management company picks up the charge. I will come to why I think our amendment is a superior way of addressing this very real problem.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. It may interest him to know that I was on a private estate in Kingswood at the weekend, for some reason. It soon became apparent that the developer had gone into liquidation and the estate was being run down in a quite dreadful way. As my hon. Friend said, in that situation, the developer itself and the management of the estate had, to all intents and purposes, ceased—residents were very voluble on things not being done—but the local authority had not adopted the road in the first place, and the services were suffering accordingly.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We are all driving at the same point. I was very much taken by the CMA’s conclusion that reducing the prevalence of these arrangements requires a combination of the mandatory adoption of amenities and putting in place corresponding common adoptable standards. If we do one without the other, we risk some unintended consequences.

My concern about the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire is that we cannot simply remove from estate charges costs that should in an ideal circumstance be borne by local authorities and then expect the private management company to simply pick them up. I fear that the more likely scenario will be that the amenities are not properly maintained. That is a real concern, and should be for residential freeholders on the estates. As the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire outlined, there are some good reasons why local authorities are reluctant to adopt public amenities on private or mixed-tenure estates.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I would hate to detain the Committee because we have a lot to go through, but let us understand the economic process here. Initially, the local authority and the developer will work out whether to adopt roads. The developer will then have to decide whether to set up an estate management company, which may or may not deliver facilities and services that would normally be covered by council tax. If the amendment is part of legislation, no property manager in their right mind will accept taking on the responsibility because they will not wish to be liable. Here is the flow of responsibility: one cannot lumber home owners with the cost, the property manager will not be lumbered with the cost for the reasons outlined—it may go bust—so the developer will then have to recognise that there is nowhere for it to turn.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

We fundamentally disagree on where the logic chain leads. I do not think that, on the basis of the amendment, the developer will be forced to pick up the costs. It is far more likely that they would build below what would be considered a common adoptable standard and then leave residential freeholders to live with substandard amenities. We could debate this further, but that is my take on the hon. Gentleman’s amendment: it would not force the management companies to do that. That is a real concern.

As I said, there are a variety of reasons why local authorities often do not take on responsibility. The most common one is that the public amenities on new housing estates are not built to a determined, adoptable standard. In those circumstances, one can hardly blame the local authority in question for a reluctance to adopt roads and common services that it will have to repair and maintain a great cost. My central argument is that if we are to reduce the prevalence of these arrangements, we must ensure that we introduce a common adoptable standard for public amenities on estates at the same time as we require mandatory adoption, as the CMA advises.

Eddie Hughes (Conservative, Walsall North)

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Mark. The civil engineer in me rises to agree with the hon. Gentleman completely; it is slightly embarrassing that we once again find common cause. The point is well made: if a set standard is identified that will be accepted universally by councils as one they would be prepared to adopt, and forced on the developers, the developers will meet that standard, but if they are left with any opportunity to build something substandard, they will always take it and they will frequently try to go further and not even meet the standard that they have prescribed in their own design work. I am sure that all Committee members will have seen examples of that in their constituencies. I again find common cause, and I hope the Minister considers these points.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention; it is a habit that I hope he continues because I think there is common ground here. When it comes to common adoptable standards, Ministers have often put it to me—the Minister no doubt will; previous Ministers have done—that local authorities have the tools they need to drive up the standards of public amenities that are constructed, but there is clearly something going wrong in that they are not ensuring that those standards are in place. As a consequence—not in every instance, but in many—local authorities have good reason to be reluctant to take them on.

We have tabled amendment 150 in an attempt to challenge the Government to consider how they might utilise the regulatory framework introduced by part 4 to drive up the standards of public amenities on the estates in question—that is the other half of the equation that I think we are all agreed we need. Our amendment would ensure that services or works on private or mixed-tenure estates that are required as a result of defects in construction are not relevant costs for the purposes of estate management. I think that, rather than the amendment of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, would be the incentive that developers need to ensure that high standards are in place at the point that they hand the estate over. Ours is consciously a probing amendment and I hope the Minister will understand and appreciate the problem that it attempts to address, as does the hon. Member’s amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on it.

Alistair Strathern (Labour, Mid Bedfordshire)

I rise briefly to add my weight to the comments of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. I wholeheartedly share the concerns on this issue expressed by my Bedfordshire neighbour, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. I know that, like me, he has received a lot of correspondence from constituents who find themselves with a variety of challenges and exposed by a situation whereby regulation simply has not kept pace with best practice.

As the CMA outlined last year, we have gone from a situation in which it was simply the norm that estates were adopted by the local authority to one in which that is far from the norm. In the last week, I have spoken to residents right across my constituency who have faced incredibly high service charges. Estate management companies are looking for the next frontier for their rent-seeking behaviour, often by charging fees for services that would normally be covered by council tax. Such is the fragmentation on estates, as the shadow Minister set out, that they sometimes even duplicate the fees charged by other management companies on the same estate.

Alongside that, there is a lack of quality provision, because residents do not have the same level of recourse or challenge as they would in the case of a local authority, which could ensure that services were delivered in an effective, timely and transparent way.

Finally, there are challenges around the sale of properties. The opaqueness of some of the fees arrangements and, frankly, the shoddy standard of the work that often results mean that residents can face real challenges when moving house. Last year, the CMA set out the real necessity of Government action on the issue. It gave some good reasons, which both the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire and the shadow Minister have set out. I will not duplicate what they said about why the issue requires Government action, rather than leaving it to the CMA or other actors.

I welcome action on the regulatory side to drive up standards, empower homeowners and correct some of the persistent power imbalances that enable such exploitation. However, as the CMA has set out, those power imbalances, and the inherent inequity of the relationship between a management company and individual freeholders, mean that some of the challenges are likely to persist, absent removing them at source, which would mean enabling estates, finally and with confidence, to be adopted.

I share the desire of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire to drive change as quickly as possible, although I am afraid I share the shadow Minister’s concern that the hon. Member’s amendment might do so in a way that left homeowners in a situation in which their estates were not well maintained. It could actually exacerbate some of the challenges of requiring homeowners to ensure that public areas are built to a common standard.

If we cannot resolve the issue now, I urge the Minister and the shadow Minister to go away and think about actions to tackle it, whether that is in the Bill or in other legislation. It is one of the biggest emerging challenges facing new towns and new communities, such as those in Mid Bedfordshire, and we should not enable such practices to continue. Exactly the same logic that the Minister set out last week—cracking down on rent-seeking behaviours in other areas, which the Bill does good work on—applies here. I urge him and my Front-Bench colleague to continue their work with renewed vigour, so that the Bill and subsequent legislation can tackle the issue once and for all.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

The Minister will recall that in response to a Government consultation in 2018, the Government committed to introducing a section 24 right for freeholders on housing estates, but that has not appeared in the Bill. It would have given those freeholders the right to go to a first-tier tribunal and appoint a court protective manager. The Minister and his officials may wish to reflect on and remedy that failing in the Bill. However, even that would be an imperfect measure, because it would not ensure that leaseholders in homes on estates had the same rights as leaseholders in a development block, for whom the Bill seeks to facilitate the right to manage. Will the Minister look at that issue and ensure that that provision is realised?

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and it is good to continue debating these issues this morning. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have raised such important points. I do not think that the disagreement between Members on any of the Benches is about whether there are issues; the question is rather about the technicalities of how to approach them, what to do and what is proportionate.

I will talk briefly about the amendments. Although the Government cannot accept them now, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and the shadow Minister will listen to the points that I make; the broader point is that I am listening carefully and have a lot of sympathy for the underlying point, which we are all trying to solve. The question is about how we do it and whether we need to go further.

There was an extended debate between my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. I will not try to repeat that, but not because I do not want to give due regard to everything that my hon. Friend put on record or to his underlying point. He is absolutely right that there is a problem; we all see it in our constituencies. The challenge, as I see in my constituency of North East Derbyshire, is that there is now a move towards greater estate management outside the demise of the local representation of the state. It works in some areas and for some elements, but there are specific areas and specific estates in which it clearly does not work. We have all heard the stories about the issues that are visible.

In the past, it would have been typical for local authorities to have adopted estates, but that is moving further and further away from reality. There is a question about whether there are some elements of estate management where it is reasonable to have some kind of arrangement outside the aegis of the state, but equally I accept the argument that that has gone too far in certain areas.

Rachel Maclean (Conservative, Redditch)

I have listened carefully to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for his reference to the work that we did together.

I want to ask the Minister to expand a bit more on his comments, as I am sure he will. The argument has often been made that if we make clear to the people who are buying those homes what they are actually getting into, and if we give them a schedule of charges, the regime will be more acceptable. That is the heart of the issue: if customers know what they are buying, presumably they can freely choose whether to buy that property or a different type of property.

I think we all agree that there should be freedom of choice and that the buyer should take responsibility for their choices. However, does the Minister think that the current regime and framework are adequate to provide choice? My personal view is that we do not have that, and that that is at the heart of the problem. But even if we provide that choice, a fundamental philosophical problem remains. I am interested in his view on the balance of those two issues.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has a huge amount of knowledge, expertise and background in the subject. She is right to highlight the tension with agency. As long as there is sufficient knowledge in the decision being made, the logical extension is that the decision was made on the basis on the preponderance of the facts, and people should therefore be willing to accept the consequences of their choices.

Equally, through colleagues and in our postbags, we have all seen the reality that this does not work in all instances, and it is not necessarily clear where it works. We have examples of where an indication was given about some of these things, but the reality is very different from what may have been said during the sales process. A different estate manager may take over, the developer may disappear or things may change. The reality of what happens on the ground with estate management charges can be very different from what has been talked about.

The question is therefore not whether there is an issue, but how we drive up standards. Clause 41, which I will address in a moment, seeks to drive up standards through transparency. There is a perfectly legitimate question—it has been correctly posed via the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, and has been outlined by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire and others—as to whether that is sufficient or whether additionality is needed. Although I cannot accept the amendments today, because I think that there are genuine questions about whether they would work, the Department wants to continue looking at the issue. I would be happy to talk about it at a future stage.

Andy Carter (Conservative, Warrington South)

I am listening carefully to the debate. Warrington is a new town. Over the past 60 years, about 100,000 homes have been built in total. From looking carefully at the borough council’s own details on estate adoption, it is clear that there are currently 13 estates that are not adopted, where there have been agreements in place with the council but, for all kinds of reasons, developers are not doing anything. One problem seems to be that in many cases the estates are built out over many years and things change. Some estates have been building for 13 years. The builders have changed, the involvement of council officers has changed and the structure of how things are built out has changed.

There seems to be no redress for householders so that what was promised in the first place can be delivered. That is a real problem. When the Minister is looking carefully at the issue, can he bear in mind that it is not a straightforward case of “The developer promised to do this, but they haven’t”? Things can change dramatically over time, and there is a complicated path. I think that that is what the Minister is saying; it is certainly my experience in Warrington.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Committee will indulge me, I have personal experience of examples of this in North East Derbyshire, and I know the complexity involved in getting this correct. I have an estate by an unnamed developer in the south of the constituency, near Wingerworth, where this discussion is going on already. Before Christmas, I spent two hours talking to representatives of owners on the estate and to the estate management company itself. I recognise the complexities on an estate that was being managed relatively adequately from afar but clearly still had issues.

The second example—this is why we have to be so careful to get this right—is from the other side. Fenton Street in Eckington has been unadopted for more than a century. The residents recognise that it is unadopted and have bought their houses understanding and acknowledging that. Possibly it was been adopted many decades ago, but there is no record.

We have to make sure that this works for everybody. In an ideal world, everybody would be scooped up and this would all be fixed in one fell swoop with whatever a benevolent Government could do, but that is not the reality of the choices that we face. Nor is it often the reality of what happens when a Government try to do things that work in the way that we all intend. Although I understand the intention behind the two amendments, I encourage hon. Members to withdraw them.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

The Minister has not responded to the point about a section 24 court-appointed manager. Would that not give a power enabling redress for residents in situations such as the one he outlines, where there has been a complete failure to adopt and maintain? Will he commit to considering that point as part of the mix?

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

We may touch on some of those elements under later clauses. The hon. Gentleman’s core point is about whether the Government are willing—without providing any guarantees in this place—to look at additionality. Of course we are. There are the usual caveats, which I have explained in previous sittings, about what we can do, how we do it, and the priorities, but this is an area in which we are listening carefully.

In conclusion, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to consider withdrawing their amendments. I hope that they have heard that I am serious and willing to look at the issue again, although I cannot offer guarantees at this stage.

I will turn briefly to clause 41, to put on the record exactly what the clause contains and what we are voting for. Freehold homeowners on private and mixed-tenure estates who pay estate management charges have fewer protections than leaseholders paying the service charges that we have spoken about. Clause 41 will introduce limitations on what estate management companies can charge homeowners through estate management charges. Subsection (1) states:

“Costs incurred by an estate manager are relevant costs…only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred.”

Clause 41 will ensure that where these costs are incurred in the provision of services or the carrying out of works, they will be relevant costs only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard.

Subsection (2) makes it clear that when an estate management charge is payable in advance, only reasonable costs are payable. Furthermore, after reasonable costs have been incurred, any necessary adjustment must be made to the charge by repayment, reduction of subsequent charges or any other method. Those new rules are equivalent to requirements in the leasehold regime and provide homeowners with more confidence that they will not be overcharged. We seek to provide increased protections for homeowners through the clause. I commend it to the Committee.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Amendment 150 was a probing amendment. I take on board the Minister’s statement that the Government are looking at the issue and that they do not believe that this legislation is the appropriate vehicle to deal with it.

If the Minister is willing to respond again, I would like a bit more clarity on precisely why in many cases amenities on estates are not being built to an adoptable standard. I think we all agree that we would like to see such a system. The Minister introduced a different problem, namely circumstances in which residents might not want their amenities adopted; I think that that would be a relatively small number of estates, but we would have to account for them. In general, we want to reduce the prevalence of arrangements and see adoption becoming mandatory in most circumstances.

Will the Minister expand on why the Government think the common amenable standards are not being met across the board? In a previous debate, the then Minister stated:

“The local authority has powers to ensure that developers build and maintain communal facilities to the standards and quality set out in the planning permission.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 132WH.]

Is something going wrong with the standards that most local authorities require at the planning permission stage? Is the section 106 agreement breaking down in some way? What is the reason? That might give us an insight into the solution that the Government have in mind and into why common adoptable standards are not currently the norm.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are a variety of scenarios. I am not sure that residents of Fenton Street would not take the opportunity to adopt if they were given the opportunity; it is more about the broader challenges of getting a single coherent answer to a very complicated set of questions that have come about in the past few decades or over a longer period.

The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point about the outcome of the planning system. Everybody, irrespective of party, would want the planning system to work to a point where there are common standards for roads and public spaces. There is an interesting question as to why that is not the case. It is an area that as a Minister I intend to look into in more detail.

The question is whether is it a systemic problem or a matter of individual circumstances, where it is working okay in some areas but not in others. Anecdote leads to bad policy and bad law, but in my experience as a constituency MP it has worked in a number of areas and not in others. That suggests that there is variability and that it is therefore not a systemic issue, but that might be different elsewhere in the country. It is an area that I think we should look at more; I am not sure whether it needs legislation. That is an open question, but it is definitely something that I am keen to understand more.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I have listened with interest to hon. Members’ contributions, particularly in respect of my amendment 145. I strongly believe that we need to close down the trend to create two tiers of council tax payers —those who pay once and those who have to pay twice—and ensure that we all pay only once. My amendment would directly address that issue. I would therefore like to put it to a vote.

Clause 42 - Limitation of estate management charges: consultation requirements

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Clause 42 introduces new obligations on estate managers where the costs they wish to charge a homeowner exceed an appropriate amount. It mirrors sections 20 and 20ZA of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Subsection (1) places an obligation on estate managers to consult homeowners where the costs for works or services exceed a given threshold. Subsections (2) to (4) confer a power to allow the Secretary of State to determine the appropriate threshold in regulations; the Secretary of State may also determine whether the threshold is to be a total sum or if the costs for individual homeowners exceed an appropriate amount.

Subsections (6) and (7) confer a power on the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the consultation require-ments and the provisions that may be included in the consultation process. Issues that may be in regulations are not exhaustive, but may include matters of relevance, including details of the proposed works, the provision of estimates, and requirements to have regard to homeowner observations and to specify reasons for carrying out the works if they proceed. We recognise that there are occasions where it may not be appropriate or possible for estate managers to consult homeowners—for example, where urgent or emergency works need to be carried out. Subsections (5) and (8) to (10) therefore allow estate managers to seek dispensation from the relevant tribunal of the need to consult. However, should estate managers fail to obtain dispensation or follow the consultation requirements, individual homeowner contributions are capped at the appropriate amount. The Government will engage extensively with stakeholders to determine the appropriate threshold for consultation and what the detail of the consultation arrangements should be. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I wish to probe the Minister a little further on the clause. As he said, it introduces requirements for estate managers to consult managed owners if the costs of any works to be charged as an estate management charge exceed an appropriate amount, which will be set out in regulations. Overall, the Government’s aim in this part of the Bill is clearly to introduce statutory protections for residential freeholders equivalent to those enjoyed by long leaseholders with regard to service charges.

If I understood the Minister correctly, he has confirmed that the Government’s intention with the clause is to establish for residential freeholders an equivalent to section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. If that is the intention, can the Minister confirm that the new requirements provided for by the clause will include requiring estate managers to have regard to written observations from residential freeholders on charges in excess of the to-be-determined appropriate amount, and where necessary to justify in writing the reasons why they awarded a contract to a tenderer that neither submitted the lowest estimate nor was nominated by a resident?

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich encourages me to seek to overturn decisions of the Supreme Court! That could start a whole heap of discussion early on a Tuesday morning, but I will withhold further comment for now.

The hon. Member is absolutely right that clause 42 is intended to mirror section 20 of the 1985 Act. He is correct that the intention is to consider written responses as well; I hope that that reassures him. We will need to go through a consultation process: although we have said that our intention is to mirror section 20 of the 1985 Act to give confidence about the direction of travel, what is appropriate for these individual circumstances will need to be discussed, and I hope that we can pick up that discussion within the consultation.

Clause 43 - Limitation of estate management charges: time limits

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 43, page 68, line 7, leave out from “not” to end of line 12 and insert

“given a future demand notice in respect of the costs before the end of the period of 18 months beginning with the date on which the costs were incurred.

(2) A ‘future demand notice’ is a notice in writing that—

(a) relevant costs have been incurred, and

(b) the owner will subsequently be required to contribute to the costs by the payment of an estate management charge.

(3) A future demand notice must—

(a) be in the specified form,

(b) contain the specified information, and

(c) be given in a specified manner.

‘Specified’ means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) The regulations may, among other things, specify as information to be contained in a future demand notice—

(a) an amount estimated as the amount of the costs incurred (an ‘estimated costs amount’);

(b) an amount which the owner is expected to be required to contribute to the costs (an ‘expected contribution’);

(c) a date on or before which it is expected that payment of the estate management charge will be demanded (an ‘expected demand date’).

(5) Regulations that include provision by virtue of subsection (4) may also provide for a relevant rule to apply in a case where—

(a) the owner has been given a future demand notice in respect of relevant costs, and

(b) a demand for payment of an estate management charge as a contribution to those costs is served on the owner more than 18 months after the costs were incurred.

(6) The relevant rules are—

(a) in a case where a future demand notice is required to contain an estimated costs amount, that the owner is liable to pay the charge only to the extent it reflects relevant costs that do not exceed the estimated costs amount;

(b) in a case where a future demand notice is required to contain an expected contribution, that the owner is liable to pay the charge only to the extent it does not exceed the expected contribution;

(c) in a case where a future demand notice is required to contain an expected demand date, that, if the demand is served after the expected demand date, the owner is not liable to pay the charge to the extent it reflects any of the costs.

(7) Regulations that provide for the relevant rule in subsection (6)(c) to apply may also provide that, in a case set out in the regulations, the rule is to apply as if, for the expected demand date, there were substituted a later date determined in accordance with the regulations.

(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to the negative procedure.”

This amendment would require notice of future service charge demands (as envisaged in clause 43(b)) to be given in accordance with regulations.

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

We are aware that there is no clear limit on when homeowners on private and mixed-tenure estates can be charged for works and services, regardless of when the costs were incurred. Homeowners could therefore be subjected to unexpected estate management charge demands, making it difficult for them to plan for and finance those costs. That could be the case if in future there are long-term works that take some time to complete.

Clause 43 introduces a new 18-month time limit for estate management companies to demand payment for works that have been carried out. If they fail to issue a demand within this period, the costs will not be recoverable and homeowners will not be required to pay them. Paragraph (b) sets out arrangements making it clear when the homeowner will not receive a demand for payment within the 18-month period. It requires the estate manager to notify in writing before the end of the period that the costs have been incurred and that the homeowner will be required to contribute through their estate management charge. If the estate manager does not notify, the homeowner is not liable to pay. The clause seeks to provide greater certainty for homeowners; I commend it to the Committee.

Currently, when works are undertaken estate managers may require a homeowner to pay the costs up front or pass on costs to the homeowner once the work has been carried out. Clause 43 will require estate managers to charge homeowners for works within 18 months. Amendment 53 introduces new subsections (2) to (9), which require estate managers to specify the costs incurred, the expected contribution of homeowners and the date by when the demand will be served. The intention is to give homeowners certainty about the costs that have been incurred by the manager, their own individual liability, and when they are likely to receive the demand. The amendment requires estate managers to issue a future demand notice if they will be passing on costs more than 18 months after works are carried out. Subsection (2) defines a future demand notice as a notice in writing that the relevant costs have been incurred and the homeowner is required to contribute.

New subsection (3) sets out that the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers can, by regulations, specify the form, the information to be included and the manner in which the future demand notice must be given to the homeowner. Subsection (4) details that regulations made by the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers may specify as information to be included in the future demand notice an estimated amount of the costs incurred, an amount that the homeowner is expected to contribute, and a date by which it is expected that the service charge will be demanded. We will work with estate managers, managing agents and homeowners to set out what a future demand notice may contain, to ensure that notices have the right level of information.

New subsection (5) lays out that regulations may provide for a relevant rule to apply where the homeowner has been given a future demand notice and the demand for payment is served more than 18 months after costs were incurred. New subsection (6) details the relevant rules and the homeowner’s liability to pay the estate management charge where a future demand notice contains estimated costs, an expected contribution or an expected demand date. New subsection (7) allows estate managers to extend the expected demand date in cases specified by regulations, for example because of unexpected delays in completing the work.

Through these measures, we seek to provide homeowners with more certainty about costs. I commend amendment 53 to the Committee.

Clause 44 - Determination of tribunal as to estate management charges

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I beg to move amendment 139, in clause 44, page 68, line 31, at end insert—

“(3A) Where the appropriate tribunal has made a determination on an application under subsection (1) or (3) that an estate management charge is not payable because the costs incurred by an estate manager are not relevant costs under section 41(1)(b) (services or works to be of a reasonable standard), the tribunal may impose a penalty on the estate manager which is payable to the residents of affected managed dwellings; and the tribunal may determine how much of the penalty is to be paid to the residents of each affected managed dwelling.”

This amendment would enable the tribunal to impose a financial penalty, payable to residents of affected managed dwellings, where estate management work has not been completed to a reasonable standard.

The clause is an excellent step forward in ensuring that freeholders will have rights to access a tribunal when there are errors and poor provision of services on their estate, so I very much welcome it. Through the amendment, I seek to probe the Minister about whether we have got the balance right to enable effective use of the tribunal. The amendment essentially says that in addition to requiring that poor-standard, poorly provided services are brought up to standard, the tribunal could impose a financial penalty on the management company.

It requires a tremendous effort for people to take cases to a tribunal: they often have to make a collective effort and gather evidence about what has gone wrong, and they may have to go through weeks, months or potentially years to get to the point where they can take a case successfully to tribunal. If the only remedy at the end of that is that those services have to be brought up to standard, where is the incentive not to provide defective services in the first place? By enabling the tribunal to impose financial penalties, the amendment would redress the balance, with the bias more towards those suffering from poor service in the first place.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling this probing amendment. I agree that where works and services are provided and charged for on freehold estates, their costs should be charged to residents only if they are of a reasonable standard. As he indicated, clause 41 makes progress in that regard. Clause 44 allows for the appropriate tribunal to determine whether an estate management charge is payable. Should the tribunal find that services or works charged for have not been carried out to a reasonable standard, it will determine the amount that the homeowner is liable to pay. That is equivalent to the leasehold regime, and I do think that tribunals are the best placed to make that decision.

On whether additionality is required, the appropriate tribunal is not an enforcement body; it is not a weights and measures authority or a district council. If a financial penalty were applied for works not completed to a reasonable standard, the appropriate tribunal would need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that that was the case. My hon. Friend may say—I have some sympathy with the point—that people would probably not go to tribunal, given its complexity. In addition, if people want to sue for defective works and such things, they can do so through other parts of the legal system; that form of redress is available if necessary.

If we were to introduce penalties for works or services not completed to a reasonable standard on freehold estates, the challenge would be in the implications for the tribunal and the equivalent leasehold regime. Therefore, while I have a lot of sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point, I hope that he will consider withdrawing the amendment it on the basis that it would probably move the tribunal too much in one direction and create a whole heap of other consequences that we would need to think carefully about, and which I do not think we can accept at the current time.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I beg to move amendment 140, in clause 44, page 69, line 6, at end insert—

“(7) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide—

(a) that an estate manager’s litigation costs incurred as a consequence of an application under this section may not be recouped through the estate management charge, except where the tribunal considers it just and equitable for such costs to be so recouped;

(b) for the right of an applicant under this section to claim litigation costs incurred as a consequence of an application under this section from the estate manager, where the tribunal considers it just and equitable in the circumstances.

(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may amend primary legislation.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations preventing estate managers from passing their litigation costs on to residents through the estate management charge, and providing for residents to be able to reclaim their litigation costs from an estate manager.

The amendment, which is in a similar vein to the previous one, is designed to probe the Minister on whether we have got the balance right in the clause to enable effective use of the tribunal by those who would wish to bring a case against estate managers. As we heard when we discussed the clauses on leasehold, one of the biggest concerns that people have is that they will face open-ended litigation costs. In this case, the litigation costs will essentially be cycled back through the estate management charges, and therefore effectively end up being paid by homeowners on the affected estates.

Amendment 140 is designed to prevent that passing on of litigation costs. It also recognises that many homeowners may wish to take action but not have the wherewithal to pay the litigation costs. Paragraph (b) of the amendment therefore enables residents to claim the litigation costs arising from their application. I am interested in the Minister’s view on the balance of litigation in such circumstances—we have spoken about it in relation to other circumstances. I think we all want the tribunal to work, but for that to happen, people must not be put off by the fear that they may face significant direct or indirect litigation costs.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I rise to support the amendment. We discussed litigation costs in relation to clause 34; we strongly argued for a general prohibition with very limited exceptions. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact, which applies to part 4 as a whole, that we should not replicate the flaws of the leasehold system in the newer system of estate management charges. Our arguments in relation to the leasehold regime therefore apply equally here, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the point.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I will try directly to address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, to which we are sympathetic. It is important that litigation costs are not passed on. On the leasehold side, there is clear evidence that that is happening, but the question is whether there is clear evidence of it happening in the area of estate management. From speaking to officials, we do not see that clear evidence at the moment. However, if any members of the Committee or others have such evidence, I would welcome it. If it is happening, I am sure that we would be happy to consider the issue as the Bill progresses.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

With the Minister’s assurance that he will keep a watching brief on the issue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Clause 44 grants homeowners a new right to apply to the appropriate tribunal for a determination on whether their estate management charge is payable, and if it is, how it should be paid, by whom and to whom it should be paid, and the date by which the payment should be made. Under this provision, the tribunal will enforce the newly established reasonableness principle set out by clause 41, which requires estate management services to be reasonable, and any works or services to be of a reasonable standard.

The clause requires estate management companies to charge the correct fees from the outset, thereby reducing the number of homeowners being overcharged for works and services on their estate or being at risk of legal action. The clause also sets out the circumstances in which an application cannot be made, including when the homeowner has already agreed to, but not paid, the charge, or in which the issue has already been subject to a decision by a court. That will prevent homeowners from bringing unjustified or vexatious claims, which can lead to delays in the payment of valid estate management charges and negatively impact the upkeep and good management of the estate. The clause delivers on a Government commitment to increase protections for existing homeowners, and I commend it to the Committee.

Clause 45 - Demands for payment

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Where homeowners on a managed estate pay an estate management charge, it is essential that they have transparency about what they are paying for. Currently, there is no universal approach for demanding payment of such a charge, so there can be inconsistencies between estates and potential confusion for homeowners. Clause 45 mirrors the obligations that we introduce for leaseholders elsewhere in the Bill. Subsection (1) enables the Secretary of State to prescribe a standard form for demanding payment and the information that it should contain. We will work closely with the sector to ensure that that is the right level of information and detail. Subsection (2) makes it clear that failure to provide information in the new standard format means that homeowners do not have to pay the charge, and any provisions in the deed, lease or any other contractual document for non-payment will not apply. The Secretary of State will also have the power to create any exemptions if our work with stakeholders demonstrates a good case for them both now and in the future. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 46 - Annual reports

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Clause 46 introduces a new obligation for estate management companies to provide homeowners on their estates with an annual report, which might cover issues such as budgets for the year ahead and details of planned works.

Subsections (2) and (5) require that the report must be provided within one month of the end of the 12-month accounting period, although it may be provided earlier if it is practical and expedient to do so. Subsection (4) defines the 12-month accounting period as starting either on a date agreed between the company and homeowner or, if no period is agreed, on 1 April. Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to prescribe the detailed contents of the report, while subsection (6) allows the Secretary of State to provide exceptions from the duty to provide a report.

The detail will be set out in secondary legislation and allows the Secretary of State to respond effectively to changing market circumstances. We will work closely with the sector and relevant parties to ensure that we have the right level of detail and consider the case for any exceptions.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Briefly, when we discussed the regulation of service charges in clauses 26 to 30, we made a number of specific arguments about how those clauses might be tightened and strengthened. Can the Minister give us a commitment that if the Government determine to amend those clauses in any way, they will seek to read across the equivalent changes to this part of the Bill or, if they do not think that they apply, to justify where wider deviations between the two regimes are necessary? As I said, we are mirroring broadly the statutory protections in place for long leaseholders here, but where they differ, the Committee would certainly welcome clarification as to why.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He tempts me into hypotheticals, but I hope that we are demonstrating our willingness to try to work constructively to see where areas can be improved. I must caveat that with clarity that we will not be able to improve every area; of necessity, prioritisations will need to be made. Of course there will be disagreements in this place and elsewhere about what is possible, but we shall see; if there is read-over, we shall see.

Clause 47 - Right to request information

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 48 stand part.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

As part of our reforms to drive up transparency, clause 47 introduces new provisions to enable freehold homeowners of managed dwellings to request information from their estate manager.

Subsections (1) and (3) give owners of a managed dwelling the right to require an estate manager to provide information. As per subsection (2), that information may relate to estate management. One example of such information might be a health and safety assessment of communal areas. The estate manager will be required to provide relevant information that they have in their possession.

We know that, sometimes, the estate manager will not have that information to hand, so subsections (4) and (5) introduce an obligation for the estate manager to request the information from a third party and, if they hold it, that the third party is required to provide it. Subsections (6) and (7) create an obligation where the other person under subsection (4) does not have it, but knows who does. This person must make the request to the person who does have it, who in turn must provide the information, and—presumably—so on and so on.

Subsections (1) and (8) allow the Secretary of State to prescribe further details of these requirements in secondary legislation, such as the type of information to be provided, how a request can be made and when the request can be denied. We will consult on that to make sure that it works effectively. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 48 introduces additional provisions to give full effect to the right of an owner of a managed dwelling to obtain information under clause 47. Subsections (2) and (3) allow homeowners the right to access premises where they can inspect or make copies of any information that they have requested. It also requires information to be provided within a time specified by the Secretary of State in regulation.

Subsections (7) and (8) set out further provisions that might be covered in regulation made by the Secretary of State, including the circumstances in which the specified period is to be extended and how the requested information should be provided. These measures will ensure that estate managers do not delay in providing information to the homeowner.

None the less, we also recognise that there is a cost associated with providing information, so subsection (6) allows the estate manager to charge through an estate management charge. The sort of things that the estate manager will be able to charge for include making copies of information, but they will not be able to charge for granting homeowners access to premises so that they can inspect the information located there. That seeks to mirror existing leasehold provisions to ensure that we are improving transparency and ensuring that estate managers are answerable to the homeowner. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 49 - Enforcement of sections 45 to 48

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I beg to move amendment 141, in clause 49, page 72, line 26, leave out “£5,000” and insert “£50,000”.

This amendment would increase from £5,000 to £50,000 the maximum amount of damages which may be awarded for a failure on the part of an estate manager to comply with the obligations imposed by clauses 45 to 48 (rights relating to estate management charges).

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

The Minister or shadow Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe we covered issues to do with penalties earlier. The intent of this proposal is to ensure that damages in the leasehold and freehold system are the same. I therefore think I ought to ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Without rehashing the debate on clause 30, I rise briefly to put on record that the Opposition think that the point the amendment is driving at is well made. We need equivalence between the two regimes, but we were concerned, notwithstanding damages versus penalties and all the rest, that the proposed financial penalty is too low to act as a serious deterrent to the type of behaviour that we are trying to do away with.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 50 - Meaning of “administration charge”

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Currently, freehold homeowners on managed estates have very few protections relating to the cost of administration charges they may be liable to pay. This can leave homeowners paying excessively high administration charges that they are unable to challenge. We will address this issue and give homeowners greater protection. We intend to do that by mirroring the existing framework in place to protect leaseholders.

Clause 50 provides a definition of an administration charge. It is

“an amount payable…by an owner of a dwelling”.

That amount must be in connection with applications or approvals in connection with a relevant obligation, the provision of documents, the sale or transfer of land, a failure to make a payment by the owner, or a breach of a relevant obligation. Subsections (2) and (3) allow the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to amend the definition of an administration charge by regulations, which must be done using the affirmative procedure. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 51 - Duty of estate managers to publish administration charge schedules

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 143, in clause 52, page 74, line 10, leave out “£1,000” and insert “£10,000”.

This amendment would increase from £1,000 to £10,000 the maximum amount of damages which may be awarded for a failure on the part of an estate manager to comply with the provisions of clause 51 (duty of estate managers to publish administration charge schedules).

Amendment 144, in clause 52, page 74, line 13, at end insert—

“(5) An estate manager may not for any purpose set off damages payable by the estate manager to the owner under subsection (2)(b) against any present or future liability of the owner to the estate manager.”

This amendment would prevent estate managers from recouping damages from residents through subsequent charges.

Clause 52 stand part.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Homeowners on managed estates can be subject to high and unreasonable administration charges, as I indicated. Part of the problem is the lack of clarity or transparency surrounding them. Clause 51 introduces a duty for an estate manager to publish an administration charge schedule if they expect to impose an administration charge.

Subsection (2) requires that the schedule should include the detail of administration charges that the estate manager considers to be payable and their associated costs. Where the cost cannot be confirmed before a charge is payable, the method of determining the cost should be included. Subsection (3) requires a revised schedule to be published if an estate manger revises the administration charges. Subsection (5) allows the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to prescribe in regulations the form and content of the administration charge schedule and how it is to be provided to homeowners. We will work with all relevant partners to ensure that we obtain the right level of detail in regulations.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for his amendment 143, which would increase the maximum amount of damages from £1,000 to £10,000. I hope that, potentially, our discussion on the previous clause would apply here, and I repeat that the Government intend to write to all Committee members about this issue in the days ahead.

Amendment 144 seeks to ensure that any damages that the tribunal orders payable under Clause 52 (2)(b) cannot be recouped from residents through subsequent charges. I agree with my hon. Friend that residents should be protected from future charges. An estate manager can only recover costs incurred in estate management. A tribunal order to pay damages would not be regarded as falling within the definition of costs of estate management.

The transparency measures included in clauses 46 and 47, in the form of the annual report and the right to obtain information upon request, would also deter estate managers from attempting to recoup these costs. That is because it would become obviously visible and it would be clear that it was not related to estate management. I note, however, my hon. Friend’s concerns and I am listening carefully on this matter. I hope that he might see fit to withdraw his amendment, having heard the Government’s response.

Finally, clause 52 sets out the enforcement provisions that reinforce the new duty in clause 51 to publish a schedule. A freehold homeowner on a managed estate may make an application to the appropriate tribunal if an estate manager has not published a schedule, or has done so but contrary to any provisions determined by the relevant Ministers.

The appropriate tribunal may order that the estate manager provides a correct schedule within 14 days of the order being made, and it may also order that the estate manager pays damages not exceeding £1,000 to the homeowner. We believe that this is a proportionate and effective enforcement mechanism where an estate manager fails to comply with its obligations. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

Many thanks to the Minister, again, for proposing further changes to help homeowners who are affected by estate management charges. I am pleased to hear him reiterate that he will consider the issues raised in my amendment 143 about the appropriateness of charges. The shadow Minister raised similar concerns about those being set at an effective level.

On amendment 144, will the Minister consider writing to the Committee about how, in practice, not passing on damages, fees or charges to residents will work? Great Denham is a new part of my constituency, and in an estate of a few thousand houses, there may be 50, 60, 70 or more property management companies. All of them are discrete limited companies and all were set up as subsidiaries of one or more parent company. We need to be sure, from the Government’s point of view—given that some of these limited companies could go bust—about where the trail leads to. Under corporate law, as I understand it, there is no requirement for a parent company to be liable for the losses of a subsidiary that goes bust, and we want to ensure that liabilities flow upwards to the ultimate holding company.

Presumably, the payment of administration fees or dividends may go from subsidiary companies to the very large companies that are the ultimate parents. Is the Minister able to explain how he sees that working in practice? If not, or if it is too detailed to talk about now, perhaps he could agree to write to give some examples to the Committee in due course.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

My hon. Friend highlights an important point. I think it is better that I write, but in principle, the transparency we seek to bring and the requirement to clearly articulate the charges that have been made, either in the annual report or elsewhere, aim to provide the sunlight that means that it is clear who is paying for what, and, if it is not a reasonable charge, there is a process that can be followed. But I will write to him with more on that, if that is helpful, because we all want to get this right.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I rise briefly to support the argument made by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. There is a specific problem on privately managed estates, which I referred to when speaking to clause 41, relating to the fragmentation of multiple estate management companies. I share his concern, which partly speaks to whether the penalties are appropriate in terms of enforcement. On some estates, residential leaseholders will face a situation where, yes, there may be a requirement for an annual report and there may be a degree of transparency, but the onus will be on them to go through six or seven sets of accounts from the different subsidiaries. We need to look at how we can simplify some of the management structures that companies use, which could cause huge amounts of confusion for residential leaseholders, and, as I say, put the onus on them to try to work through different sets of accounts in a way that they might find difficult to do.

Clause 53 - Limitation of administration charges

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I hope that some of the comments I am about to make will reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire that we are keen to get this right.

Homeowners on managed estates can be subject to excessive administration charges, with little understanding of what fees they may be liable to pay. Subsection (1) puts a stop to that by introducing a requirement for all administration charges to be reasonable. Subsections (2) and (3) require that an administration charge is payable only if the amount or the description of how the amount is to be calculated has been published on an administration charge schedule for 28 days. Subsection (4) sets out other conditions under which an administration charge is not payable to the estate manager. They include circumstances where the estate manager is charging homeowners on the same estate different amounts for carrying out similar tasks, and therefore prevents them from being charged at different rates. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 54 - Determination of tribunal as to administration charges

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Clause 54 introduces a new right for homeowners on managed estates to challenge the reasonableness of administration charges they are liable to pay. This approach delivers on a Government commitment to give freehold homeowners the equivalent right as leaseholders with regards to the charges they pay, and allows homeowners to get an independent assessment of whether the charge they are being asked to pay is justified and appropriate.

Subsection (1) sets out the basis on which homeowners may make an application to the appropriate tribunal and describes those issues on which the tribunal is able to be determined. They include: whether the administration charge is payable and, if so, by whom and to whom it is payable; the amount that is payable, as well as the date by, or on which, it is payable; and the manner in which it is payable. Subsection (2) is clear that this application can be made whether or not any payment has been made. Subsection (4) confirms that any payment made by the homeowner does not mean that they have agreed or admitted to its reasonableness. Subsection (3) sets out instances when an application may not be made to the tribunal. These measures mirror those provisions that apply to leaseholders under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

This clause, alongside clauses 50 to 53, brings the rights of homeowners on managed estates in line with those of leaseholders with regard to administration charges. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 55 - Codes of management practice: extension to estate managers

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Clause 55 amends section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. It enables the Secretary of State to approve or publish a code of practice in relation to managed estates. The effect of this clause mirrors the position in leasehold, for which the Government have approved two codes of practice. These codes outline best practice for managing agents, landlords or other relevant parties in relation to residential leasehold property management. An approved code of practice may be taken into account as evidence of a breach of an estate manager’s obligation at a tribunal or a court. I commend this clause to the Committee.

Clause 56 - Part 4: application to government departments

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Clause 56 deals with the issue of Crown land, and makes it clear that the measures in part 4 should apply in circumstances where estate management functions are carried out by or on behalf of Government Departments. We consider that there are no grounds to exclude homeowners who live on land owned by Government Departments where they pay a contribution. They have as much right to hold the estate manager accountable for the charges it spends. There may be a very small number of locations where land that could now or in the future be built on is owned by His Majesty or other parts of the Crown Estate. In such circumstances, the Crown will act by analogy—in other words, it will ensure homeowners on such estates have access to equivalent rights. Prior to Second Reading, the King and the Prince of Wales granted consent in writing. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 57 - Interpretation of Part 4

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Clause 57 provides a comprehensive definition of terms used in part 4 of the Bill. For key terms used in the Bill, such as “estate manager” or “relevant costs”, it points to other parts of the Bill where they are defined. Subsection (2) sets out the definition of an “owner” of a dwelling as being either the person who owns the freehold land that comprises a dwelling, or the person who is a leaseholder of a dwelling under a long lease. This ensures that all homeowners who pay a contribution can enjoy the new protections in this part. It also makes it clear that, where homeowners rent out their property or let it out under an assured tenancy, they—not the occupants of the dwellings—are entitled to these protections. This clause provides the more comprehensive definition of relevant measures that inform the regulatory framework in part 4. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 58 - Meaning of “estate rentcharge”

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Part 5 of the Bill addresses issues relating to rentcharges. Since the Rentcharges Act 1977, the creation of most types of rentcharge has been prohibited. The main class of rentcharge excepted from the general prohibition is known as an estate rentcharge. Estate rentcharges are usually mechanisms for a management company to obtain contributions towards the costs of maintaining communal areas.

Part 4 of the Bill creates new protections for homeowners who pay an estate rentcharge to an estate manager for the provision of estate management services. Clause 58 makes a minor amendment to the Rentcharges Act 1977 to amend the definition of “estate rentcharge” in section 2 of the Act. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that payments may be made to cover improvements to communal areas as well as maintenance and repairs. This ensures that it aligns with the definition of the service charges that leaseholders must pay, and allows estate managers to pass on costs of any improvements to the areas they look after, and will ensure that they meet their legal obligations as well as having sufficient funds to carry out such works. The sums paid for improvement will still be subject to the protections in part 4—for example, the requirement to be reasonable. This is a clarificatory amendment, and I commend clause 58 to the Committee.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

This is a clarificatory amendment, and we do not take issue with it. I will speak on our concerns about rentcharges in relation to clause 59.

Clause 59 - Regulation of remedies for arrears of rentcharges

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Remedies for the recovery of annual sums charged on land—

“(1) Section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925 is omitted.

(2) The amendment made by subsection (1) has effect in relation to arrears arising before or after the coming into force of this section.”

This new clause, which is intended to replace clause 59, would remove the provision of existing law which, among other things, allows a rentcharge owner to take possession of a freehold property in instances where a freehold homeowner failed to pay a rentcharge.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

An income-supporting rentcharge is an annual sum paid by a freehold homeowner to a third party who normally has no other interest in the property. Under the 1977 Act, no new rentcharges of this type may be created, and all existing ones will be extinguished in 2037. Most income-supporting rentcharges can be for relatively small amounts—typically between £1 and £25 per annum—and the majority of freehold properties affected by these rentcharges are located in the north-west and the south-west of England.

However, a loophole remains. Failure to pay a rentcharge within 40 days of its due date means that, under section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the recipient of the rentcharge may take possession of the subject premises until the arrears and all costs and expenses are paid. The rentcharge owner may alternatively grant a lease of the subject premises to a trustee that the rentcharge owner may set up themselves. The Government believe that that law is unfair and can have a grossly dispro-portionate consequence for a very small amount of money not being paid. This clause seeks to address that and ensure that freeholders cannot be subject to a possession order or the granting of a lease for rentcharge arrears.

Subsection (2) introduces new sections into the 1925 Act. Proposed new section 120B details that no action to recover or require payment of regulated rentcharge arrears may be taken unless notice has been served and the demand for payment complies with the new requirements. Those requirements set out what information the notice must include. The section also sets out that the homeowner does not have to pay the rentcharge owner any administrative fee.

Proposed new section 120C sets out various requirements relating to the serving of notice under proposed new section 120B, aimed at ensuring that freeholders receive the demand of payment at the address of the charged land. Proposed new section 120D confers powers on the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a limit on the amounts payable by landowners, indirectly or directly, in relation to the action of recovering or requiring payment of regulated rentcharge arrears. That provision seeks to avoid abuse of administration costs charged when simply accepting payment of arrears, and the process of removing any restriction on the freehold title at the Land Registry. The charge does not affect the cost that is paid directly to the Land Registry itself.

Clause 59 (3) and (4) to clause 59 seek to disapply rentcharge owners from using the provisions set out in sections 121 and 122 of the 1925 Act. In doing so, they provide additional protection to avoid rentcharge owners rushing to invoke those provisions. The effect of those subsections is to make any action to reclaim arrears using the 1925 Act void retrospectively once the provisions are introduced. Subsection (5) ensures that the provisions of the clause apply to rentcharge arrears that have arisen before and after the changes come into force. Subsection (6) inserts new section 122A into the 1925 Act, which details that an instrument creating a rentcharge, contract or any other arrangement is of no effect to the extent that it makes provision contrary to the provisions in this clause. Clause 59 delivers on a Government commitment to protect freehold homeowners from the disproportionate effects of falling into arrears in the payment of their rentcharge.

I turn to new clause 4, for which I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. It seeks to abolish section 121 of the 1925 Act. The effect of the new clause would be that a failure to pay any form of rentcharge would prevent the owner of the rentcharge from granting a lease on the property, or from taking possession of it until the fee was paid. We are sympathetic to the issue raised by the shadow Minister, and we have recognised that forfeiture is an extreme measure and should only be used as a last resort. Although in practice it is already rarely used, I recognise that the potential consequences may feel disproportionate. That is why we have included clause 59, which disapplies this remedy for income-supporting rentcharges where we know that homeowners pay nominal sums for very little in return.

As with leasehold forfeiture, any changes will require a careful balancing of the rights and responsibilities of interested parties. We are concerned as to what this new clause could mean where a homeowner pays estate rentcharges that are essential for the management of their estate, or any other form of legitimate rentcharge. The Government want to ensure that where they are required to be paid, these charges are paid in a timely manner so that the smooth running of the estate can continue. If estate management companies are unable to recover these sums, there is the potential that the costs will fall to other homeowners or that the upkeep of the estate will worsen. We are keen to understand any unintended consequences before abolishing section 121 of the 1925 Act all together. We need to weigh up the needs of the estate with the stress and uncertainty that we know this law can cause for some homeowners and lenders. We are listening carefully to the arguments, and I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that commitment. I hope that, with those reassurances, he may consider not moving his new clause.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I was slightly surprised, in a welcome way, by the Minister’s response, in that he seemed to indicate that the Government are open to considering the abolition of section 121 of the 1925 Act all together, notwithstanding the need to ensure that there are no unintended consequences, but we are debating clause 59 as it stands, which does not propose that, so I hope to convert the Minister’s sympathy into agreement with our position if I can.

Part 5 of the Bill concerns rentcharges, which in general terms can be understood as an indefinite, periodic payment made in respect of freehold land by the current freeholder to a third party or “rent owner” who has no reversionary interest in the charged land in question. In some cases, the charge relates to the provision of a service; in others it is, in effect, simply a profit stream for the interested third party. All rentcharges, as the Minister made clear, are covered by the Rentcharges Act 1977, which prohibited the creation of new so-called income-only rentcharges and provided that all such rentcharges will be extinguished in 2037.

The 1977 Act does not detail the remedies available to a rentcharge holder whose rentcharge is not paid, although any can simply sue for a money judgment. It is section 121 of the Law of Property Act 1925 that creates two additional remedies for rentcharge non-payment. First, unless excluded by the terms of the rentcharge itself, there is a right for the rentcharge holder to take possession of the charged land in question and retain any income associated with it so long as the money owed, whether demanded or not, is unpaid for 40 days. Secondly, unless prohibited by the terms of the rentcharge, and assuming that the money owed is outstanding for at least 40 days, there is a power to demise the land to a trustee by way of a lease in order to raise the funds necessary to pay the arrears and costs.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He makes a strong case for his arguments. As I have indicated, although I will not accept new clause 4, we do think there is an argument that is reasonable to be had here, while recognising that we need to consider the consequential potential of any change. I am happy to discuss that further with him separately to see whether we can make further progress at a later stage of the Bill.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank the Minister for that answer. I am tempted to not move the new clause, but I can only deal with the piece of legislation in front of me. What is in front of me is not a placeholder clause that says, “We will review the 1925 Act”; it is a clause that puts in place an amended version of the remedies. We feel so strongly about this point that we will vote against clause stand part, but I will take the Minister up on his offer to discuss a more sensible way of dealing with the types of contraventions that we have discussed.

Clause 60 - Interpretation of references to other Acts

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Clause 60 sets out the meaning of references throughout the Bill to other Acts. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 61 - Power to make consequential provision

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Clause 61 gives the Secretary of State the power to make provision that is consequential on the Bill through regulations, including provision amending an Act of Parliament. We do not take such a power lightly and, in drafting this legislation, we have sought to identify necessary consequential amendments on the face of the Bill. Long residential leasehold is, however, a complex and interdependent area of law. Therefore we consider it prudent to take the power in Clause 61 in order to ensure that, should any further interdependencies be identified at a later date, those can be addressed appropriately.

There are various precedents for such provisions, including section 92 of the Immigration Act 2016, section 213 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, section 42 of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, and section 20 of the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022.

Clause 62 - Regulations

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 62, page 80, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) A power to make regulations under Part 4A also includes power to make different provision for different areas.”

This amendment would expressly provide that a power to make regulations under the new Part to be inserted after Part 4 includes the power to make different provision for different areas.

Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-operative, Preston)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 56.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Turning first to new clause 15, some leaseholders and homeowners on freehold estates do not currently have access to redress outside of the tribunal or the courts. I should note that part 4 of the Bill will give comprehensive rights and protections to homeowners on freehold estates, including access to the relevant tribunal. Though property managing agents are required by law to join a Government-approved redress scheme, there is no such requirement for leasehold landlords and freehold estate managers who manage their property or estate themselves. This means that for issues that fall outside the court or tribunal’s jurisdiction, such as poor communication or behavioural issues, those leaseholders and homeowners on freehold estates can make a complaint only through their landlord or estate manager’s own complaints process. If there is no complaints procedure, or once the leaseholder or homeowner has exhausted it, their access to redress is exhausted.

New clause 15 will fill this gap by providing that leasehold landlords and freehold estate managing agents who manage their property or estate can be required to join a redress scheme. The redress scheme will independently investigate and determine complaints made by a current or former owner. A redress scheme will need to be approved by, and administered by or on behalf of, the “lead enforcement authority”—the Secretary of State or other designated body. The Government have taken powers that will allow us to make exemptions to the requirement in specific circumstances and also a power to amend the definitions in this section. New clause 15 will fill gaps that leaseholders and homeowners on freehold estates currently experience in access to redress. I commend the clause to the Committee.

New clause 16 makes it clear that the redress scheme provided for under this part may act under a voluntary jurisdiction. That means they may allow for members to join the scheme who are not required to join under new clause 15. The scheme may also investigate and determine complaints outside their jurisdiction at their discretion, including complaints by people who are not current or former owners of a relevant dwelling. The scheme may offer voluntary mediation services and allow for certain complaints or circumstances to be excluded from their remit. The voluntary jurisdiction may be subject to the approval conditions that the redress scheme must comply with under new clause 18, which I will come to in a moment.

New clause 17 gives the Secretary of State the power to make payments, including loans, or give financial assistance to establish or maintain a redress scheme. The Government expect the costs of the redress scheme to be funded by the scheme themselves—for example, through charging membership fees. However, there may be some circumstances where the provision of funding is needed. The clause offers flexibility in that instance.

New clause 18 makes provision for the approval and designation of redress schemes. The approval conditions will apply to the future redress scheme and must be satisfied before the redress scheme is approved or designated. The approval conditions will be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State and will include, but are not limited to, those conditions set out in subsection (3). In addition, new clause 18 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide for the process for making applications for the approval of a redress scheme, the time the approval or designation remains valid, and the process for approval or designation to be withdrawn or revoked. It also allows for a scheme to set membership fees to cover the cost of providing the service.

I will now turn to new clauses 19, 20 and 9, and new schedule 1. To ensure compliance from landlords and freehold estate managers who are required to join a redress scheme, we need to ensure that robust enforcement mechanisms are in place. New clause 19 does that by allowing an enforcement authority to impose financial penalties where breaches of regulations by not joining a redress scheme occur. It also allows for the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow for the investigation of suspected breaches, and for co-operation and information sharing between enforcement authorities for the purposes of investigation.

New clause 20 sets out the amounts of the financial penalty that enforcement authorities may impose on landlords and freehold estate managers who do not comply with the requirement to join a redress scheme. An initial penalty for breaching the requirement may be up to £5,000. However, repeated breaches could lead to a penalty of up to £30,000. The new clause also allows the Secretary of State to amend the amount of financial penalty in regulations to reflect changes in the value of money.

New clause 9 provides a route for leaseholders to apply to the tribunal for an order to appoint a manager in place of their landlord if their landlord has failed to join the redress scheme. As with other “reasons”, leaseholders can apply for an order that a manager be appointed, and the tribunal will make one if

“it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case”.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

The Minister will be aware of concerns about the practical application of this provision when it is put into practice, and the pressures on the tribunal. Under new clause 9, as I best understand it, homeowners will have the right to go to the first-tier tribunal to ask to change from company A to company B as their estate manager. If that is the case, why does it have to go through a tribunal? Why is it not feasible for people to determine that themselves without referring to a tribunal?

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I recognise the significant body of views in this place and elsewhere about the ability to appoint a right to manage company or a representative directly, and I have certainly heard those concerns. In this case, working within the framework of the proposed legislation, we wanted to ensure that there is a route to allow a manager to be appointed if a landlord refuses to comply. Of course, we would hope that a landlord would not refuse in the first instance.

The Government have also provided in new clause 13 that homeowners on freehold estates can apply to the tribunal for an order to appoint a new manager for the estate if a relevant estate manager has breached the requirement to join a redress scheme. New schedule 1 sets out further provisions relating to the penalties set out in new clause 19. It will require an enforcement authority to give a landlord or freehold estate manager whom they suspect of breaching the requirement to join a scheme a notice of its intention to issue a financial penalty before issuing a final notice. Those who are given a notice by the enforcement authority may make representations. The schedule sets out that where an enforcement authority imposes a financial penalty, it may apply the proceeds towards meeting the costs and expenses incurred in carrying out its functions. Any proceeds that are not so applied will be paid to the Secretary of State.

New clause 21 gives the Secretary of State the power to provide that a future redress scheme provider may apply to a court or tribunal for an order that a decision made under the scheme be enforced as if it were an order of the court. That may be necessary if there is an issue with landlords or freehold estate managers not complying with the redress scheme’s decisions.

New clause 22 makes the necessary provisions for the role of the lead enforcement authority. That is defined by new clause 15 as the Secretary of State, or another person designated by the Secretary of State. New clause 22 provides that the lead enforcement authority will have necessary oversight of the scheme. It also provides that if the Secretary of State decides to designate the role of the lead enforcement authority to another person, the Secretary of State will still have the appropriate power to direct the lead enforcement authority. That includes provisions to make payments and to bring the arrangement to an end.

New clause 23 provides for the Secretary of State to issue or approve guidance for enforcement authorities and the administrator of the future redress scheme about co-operation. It makes clear that the Secretary of State will exercise powers under new clause 18 to ensure that the administrator of the redress scheme has regard to guidance issued or approved under the section. Importantly, the amendment also requires the enforcement authority to have regard to the same guidance. New clause 24 makes necessary provision for the interpretation of this part of the Bill, including the definitions used. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

Amendment 55 provides that regulations made under powers in the new part may make different provision for different geographical areas. Amendment 56 provides that a draft statutory instrument under the part will not be treated as a hybrid instrument, which is necessary to allow redress schemes to be rolled out flexibly should the need arise.

Finally, clause 62 itself makes provision relating to regulations under the Bill. Subsection (1) is a standard provision that enables consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional, saving or differential provision to be made, if necessary, in connection with the exercise of powers under the Bill. As is usual, subsection (2) provides that regulations under the Bill must be made as statutory instruments. Subsection (3) relates to the procedure if the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, and subsection (4) relates to the procedure if the regulations are subject to the negative procedure. Subsection (5) sets out that the section does not apply to regulations under section 64, namely regulations relating to the commencement of the Bill.

Clause 63 - Extent

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Clause 63 states the territorial extent of the Bill. It applies to England and Wales. We have worked closely with the Welsh Government to develop the reforms, and we will continue to engage with them. That will ensure that the legislation operates effectively to deliver long-term improvements to home ownership across both England and Wales. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Clause 64 - Commencement

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Clause 64 makes provision for the commencement of the Bill. The substantive provisions of the Bill will come into force on a day appointed by the Secretary of State by regulation. For a number of policy areas, regulations need to be drafted and laid before Parliament before the provisions in the Bill can commence. Hon. Members should be assured that we are not intending to have any unnecessary delay in implementation, and the Department is working hard to plan and carry out the associated programme of secondary legislation. Subsection (2) sets out that the provisions for section 59, namely the regulation of remedies for rent charge arrears, come into force two days after the Act is passed. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I have two brief points. On the general commencement provisions, the Minister just made it perfectly clear that there are no firm dates for commencement on all the issues that require regulations. I take on board what he said about not seeking any unnecessary delay, and that is welcome. However, I push him to go slightly further to give us a sense of the timetabling of some of the more important provisions in the Bill, because leaseholders watching our proceedings will want to know when the rights provided for by the Bill can be enjoyed.

I have a point specifically on subsection (2), which specifies that clause 59 comes into force at the end of a period of two months, as I understand it—the Minister said “two days”, and I think it is two months. Given that some of the provisions in clause 59—I am thinking particularly of new subsection 120D(4)—bring the relevant provision into force on First Reading on 27 November 2023, why is there a two-month delay after Royal Assent? Why not bring the measures into force on Royal Assent?

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Obviously, as he will know, I do not need to push too heavily the point that we need to get the Bill through this place. We are trying to move it as quickly as we possibly can, but the other place may have other ideas, although I hope that it will not. I hope I can provide assurances that we will try to get these things moving as quickly as possible.

On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about subsection (2), I thank him for correcting me; it is two months. As I understand it—I am happy to go away and review it—there is a relative convention in these instances. However, given the desire and intention of all parties, including the Secretary of State, to move as quickly as possible, we will see whether we can speed it up.

Clause 65 - Short Title

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Clause 65 sets out that the short title of the legislation is to be the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act. I commend the clause to the Committee.

New Clause 6 - Notice of future service charge demands

New Clause 7 - Restriction on recovery of non-litigation costs of enfranchisement, extension and right to manage

New Clause 8 - Appointment of manager: power to vary or discharge orders

New Clause 9 - Appointment of manager: breach of redress scheme requirements

New Clause 10 - Notices of complaint

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Homeowners who pay estate management charges for the upkeep and management of their estate must be able to hold their estate management company to account. The Government are committed to giving homeowners the right to apply to the appropriate tribunal to appoint a substitute manager where the estate management company is failing them. The intention is that the substitute manager will then carry out the services set out in an order that will be issued by the tribunal.

New clause 10 introduces the first stage in the procedure for doing so. It will require one or more homeowners to issue a notice of complaint to their estate management company.

Subsection (2) sets out what information must be contained in the notices. Subsection (3) sets out the grounds for issuing a complaint, which largely mirror the grounds set out under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 that apply to leaseholders. Subsections (4) and (5) make it clear that a notice may be issued jointly with more than one complainant, and that it is not necessary for the grounds for complaint to be the same for each complainant.

Subsection (7) defines the term “qualifying period”. It gives the estate management company a period of six months from the time at which a complaint is received to remedy the complaint before the homeowner can move towards the next step. That is a sensible period to ensure that estate management companies have sufficient time to address concerns fully. It gives homeowners time to gather the evidence required to demonstrate failings, should that be necessary, to any tribunal. I commend new clause 10 to the Committee.

New clause 11 will introduce arrangements to allow owners of managed dwellings to apply for the appointment of a substitute estate manager. Subsection (1) requires an application by an owner of a managed dwelling to be made to the appropriate tribunal. Once it receives an application, the appropriate tribunal may appoint a person to carry out functions in connection with estate management as the tribunal sees fit. That appointed person would then carry out functions instead of the estate manager or the agent acting on its behalf.

Subsections (2) to (4) refer to other new clauses that set out the process to be followed and the issues that must be take into account. Subsection (2) refers to new clause 12, which sets out the conditions that must be met for the person to make an application. Subsection (3) refers to new clause 13, which sets out the criteria that the appropriate tribunal must consider in deciding whether to make an order.

Subsection (4) refers to new clause 14, which makes further provision in relation to appointment orders, including what may be contained in such an order and under what terms an order may be varied or discharged. Subsection (5) sets out the two key definitions that apply to this new power: it defines an appointment order, and then defines a substitute manager as the person appointed under the appointment order. New clause 11 sets out the parameters for the new power and how it should be used; I commend it to the Committee.

New clause 12 sets out the conditions for an application for an appointment order to be made under new clause 11. Subsection (1) sets out the main condition that must be met: the homeowner must have given a notice of complaint and must have given the estate manager the required six-month period to resolve that complaint. The homeowner must also have issued a subsequent final warning notice, such that it is clear within a reasonable time period that either the estate manager is not capable of taking steps or not willing to take steps to remedy the problem.

Subsections (2) and (3) set out the arrangements for an appointment notice where it is given jointly by a number of homeowners. Critically, they allow additional homeowners to join the final warning notice even if they were not part of the initial complaint. Importantly, people who have provided the initial notice of complaint must also sign the final warning notice.

Subsection (4) sets out what a final warning notice must contain, such as the addresses and names of those issuing the notice. The notice must also set out the grounds on which those people consider that the appropriate tribunal should make that order. The final warning notice must give the estate manager a reasonable period in which to solve the problem. The Secretary of State and equivalent Welsh Ministers have the power to specify what other information might be required.

Subsection (6) allows the appropriate tribunal to dispense with the need to make a final warning notice if it is satisfied that it would not be reasonably practical to do so. New clause 12 provides clarity about what steps are required in order to make an appropriate order to the tribunal. I commend it to the Committee

New clause 13 sets out the criteria and grounds on which the appropriate tribunal may make an appointment order. Subsection (1) defines the estate management arrangements that are within scope of an appointment order by allowing the appropriate authority to set out in regulations any exemptions, should they be required.

Subsection (2)(a) states that the appropriate tribunal may make an appointment order if it is “just and convenient” in the circumstances. Subsections (2)(b) and (3) set out the grounds under which an appointment order may be made. In broad terms, these are where the estate manager has breached an obligation; where a management charge or an administration charge may be unreasonable; where a manager has failed to comply with a relevant code of practice; and where the estate manager has failed to belong to a redress scheme. However, the appropriate tribunal is also able to issue an order if it considers that there are other circumstances that make it just and convenient to do so.

Subsection (4) sets out the grounds under which an estate management charge under subsection (3)(b) is taken to be unreasonable. Subsection (5) will allow the appropriate tribunal additional freedom to make an order in circumstances in which

“a period specified in a final warning notice was not a reasonable period”,

or in which the final warning notice did not contain all the required information. I commend new clause 13 to the Committee.

New clause 14 sets out further provision relating to the making of orders to appoint substitute estate managers. Subsection (1) sets out matters for which the appropriate tribunal may wish to make a provision in an appointment order, such as provision allowing the substitute manager to become party to certain rights and liabilities, provision for remuneration to be paid to a substitute manager by the estate management company, and provision setting a time limit for how long the manager may carry out its functions.

Subsection (2) allows the appropriate tribunal to

“vary or discharge…an appointment order.”

Subsection (3) sets out the conditions under which an appointment order may be varied or discharged. Subsection (4) states that

“the appropriate tribunal must have regard to whether”

or not the estate management company is part of a “redress scheme” in deciding the terms of the appointment order, or when it considers variation or discharge of the order. I commend new clause 14 to the Committee.

New Clause 11 - Appointment of substitute manager

New Clause 12 - Conditions for applying for appointment order

New Clause 13 - Criteria for determining whether to make appointment order

New Clause 14 - Appointment orders: further provision

New Clause 15 - Leasehold and estate management: redress schemes

New Clause 16 - Redress schemes: voluntary jurisdiction

New Clause 17 - Financial assistance for establishment or maintenance of redress schemes

New Clause 18 - Approval and designation of redress schemes

New Clause 19 - Financial penalties

New Clause 20 - Financial penalties: maximum amounts

New Clause 21 - Decision under a redress scheme may be made enforceable as if it were a court order

New Clause 22 - Lead enforcement authority: further provision

New Clause 23 - Guidance for enforcement authorities and scheme administrators

New Clause 24 - Interpretation of Part 4A

New Clause 42 - Leasehold sales information requests

‘Sales information requests

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

New clause 42 will introduce a requirement for a landlord to provide specific information requested by a leaseholder. That information is vital for a leaseholder to enable the sale of their property; it also provides the detail that a prospective purchaser needs to make an informed decision. Regulations will set out what information is to be provided, as well as a maximum timeframe and a maximum cost for providing that information. Regulations will further specify how a request must be made, how the requested information must be provided, in what circumstances a request can be refused and when the time period for its provision may be extended. The clause also sets out enforcement mechanisms, including the various orders that a tribunal may make such as requiring compliance, awarding damages and requiring the repayment of excessive fees.

Under the current system, there is no consistency for leaseholders, some of whom are left paying thousands of pounds and waiting months for this information. Some of them never receive the information at all. The clause will reduce the time that leaseholders have to wait to receive the information that they need, which should reduce delays in selling their properties. It will also make the selling process cheaper and less uncertain. I commend new clause 42 to the Committee.

I turn to new clause 43. There is currently no obligation for an estate manager to respond to a sales information request from a homeowner who wishes to sell their property. Although many estate managers do provide information in a timely manner, failures by some managers mean that it can take weeks or months for homeowners on freehold estates to receive the information that they need, if they receive it at all.

The new clause, along with new clauses 44, 45 and 46, will provide for a fairer, more streamlined system in which homeowners can get the information they need when they need it. It will introduce a requirement for an estate manager to provide specific information requested by a homeowner who intends to sell their property. Subsection (2) will require the request to be set out in a specified form and given in a specified manner. This will ensure that the estate manager can confirm that it is indeed a request for sales information, rather than a general request for information. The information will be specified in regulations but must relate to estate management, estate managers, estate management charges or relevant obligations, and must be reasonably expected to help a prospective purchaser to decide whether to purchase a property. We intend to work with estate managers, homeowners and other stakeholders when preparing the regulations, to ensure that we capture the right level of detail. I commend new clause 43 to the Committee.

New clause 44 will introduce a requirement for an estate manager to provide sales information requested by a homeowner on a freehold estate, within a timeframe set out in regulations. Subsections (2) and (3) will require estate managers to request from another party information that they do not hold, if they consider that the other party holds it; the other party must provide the information that they possess. Subsections (4) and (5) will place an additional obligation on the other party to forward on the request if it does not hold the information; the further party must provide the information that it possesses.

Subsection (6) requires that the information must be requested within a specified period. Subsection (7) states that if a person receives a request but does not hold the required information, they must confirm to the person who made the request that they do not hold that information. This is called a negative response confirmation. The negative response confirmation should detail that the individual does not hold the information and the actions taken by the individual to determine that. Subsection (10) allows regulations to set out the detail of how the process for making onward requests for information should work.

New clause 44 will create the framework for ensuring that relevant sales information is provided in a timely manner, and will cut the time that it takes for a homeowner to receive sales information. I commend it to the Committee.

I turn to new clause 45. Estate managers have considerable discretion as to what they can charge for collating and providing sales information. This means that homeowners can often be left paying an excessive amount. The new clause will allow for a maximum fee to be set out in regulations and will introduce a maximum fee for onward requests for information. The new clause also sets out that any cost incurred by the homeowner for the provision of sales information by the estate manager is to be an administration charge and should not be treated as an estate management charge. I commend it to the Committee.

I turn to new clause 46. Under the current arrangements, homeowners often feel powerless when information is not forthcoming or if they are charged what they consider an extortionate fee for obtaining it. New clause 46 will introduce an enforcement mechanism where sales information has not been provided or where the cost charged has exceeded the maximum permitted cost. Subsection (2) will allow a homeowner who has made a sales information request or an individual who has made an onward request to make an application to the relevant tribunal. The tribunal, in turn, may make one or more orders. This includes an order that the estate manager or other party provide the sales information within a specified time frame.

New clause 46 will also allow the tribunal to award damages of up to £5,000 to the homeowner or person making the onward request. In cases of overcharging, the tribunal may require the excess amount to be repaid or, where there has been a charge in breach of regulations, may require the full amount to be repaid. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I rise to say simply that the Opposition welcome this group of Government new clauses.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I, too, welcome the new clauses, but I do so in the knowledge that they do not provide a perfect solution. My concern, and the question I put to the Minister, relates to situations such as the one that I outlined the other day. Where information is held by a series of Russian dolls, as it were, the ultimate one of which is located in the Cayman Islands—as is the case with Wembley Central Apartments in my constituency—what ultimate redress do the leaseholders have? Damages does not get to the nub of the problem.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

As the hon. Member has outlined, we spoke about this issue on Thursday. I have a lot of sympathy for the point that he makes, and I think we agreed that we would explore it further; I was going to write to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee, if I recall correctly. He is right to raise and highlight that point. Where we can make further progress, we should try to do so. As I know he will appreciate, there is ultimately a challenge when entities move out of jurisdictions, but that should not mean that we should not have a look at whether we can make things better, if not perfect.

New Clause 43 - Estate management: sales information requests

New Clause 44 - Effect of sales information request

New Clause 45 - Charges for provision of information

New Clause 46 - Enforcement of sections (Effect of sales information request) and (Charges for provision of information)

New Clause 1 - Abolition of forfeiture of a long lease

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to continue our line-by-line proceedings with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. For the sake of probity, simply because I will make reference to the organisation’s work, I once again declare that my wife is the joint chief executive of the Law Commission.

The reason for tabling the new clause is simple: forfeiture is a wholly disproportionate and horrifically draconian mechanism for ensuring compliance with a lease agreement, and it needs to be abolished through the Bill. To remind the Committee, the law of forfeiture gives the landlord the right, following a breach of a clause in the lease or an unpaid debt of £350, or a lesser sum if it has been outstanding for more than three years, to terminate the lease, regain possession of the property and pocket the unmerited windfall gain that would accrue from its sale.

Not all forfeiture actions relate to trivial breaches—some are made in response to serious transgressions of a covenant in a lease, such as instances of persistent and egregious antisocial behaviour—but many are initiated for entirely trivial breaches, such as nominal ground rent or service charge arrears. The current laws of forfeiture render it entirely possible, for example, for a tenant to lose possession of a £500,000 flat or house for a debt of as little as £351, or even £15 if unpaid for more than three years, with the landlord keeping the entire difference between the value of the property and the debt owed.

Eddie Hughes (Conservative, Walsall North)

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling speech. It seems crazy that in the 21st century somebody can lose possession of their property for such a small amount of money. I sincerely hope that he continues his compelling speech in such a way that he has a very positive effect on the Minister.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I hope that I do have that effect, and that he can use his good offices to persuade the Minister of the merits of adopting new clause 1.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

The shadow Minister is making a good point, but to play the cynic on this issue, there is a difference between things that could take place and things that are taking place. What is the evidence? We should probably get rid of this latent power in any case, but how often is the power being used in practice? Is this a real thing that is happening?

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank the hon. Gentleman. If he allows me to develop my case, I will address that very point, which was well made.

Not only is the potential penalty for a breach incredibly draconian in the circumstances in which it is used, but even in instances in which a lease is not terminated, with the landlord gaining the financial benefit of any capital loans attached to it, the laws of forfeiture can lead to a significant financial loss for leaseholders. Take the following scenario. For whatever reason, a leaseholder accumulates a small arrears—perhaps a demand has not been received—and the freeholder or managing agent issues reminders, which add to the initial debt. That debt is then handed over to a debt collector, whose means of remuneration incentivise them to pursue it aggressively. The leaseholder might then attempt to pay, but they also have to find the money to cover large legal costs. If there is a mortgage, the bank is often drawn in to secure its interest, so a compulsory loan is added to the leaseholder’s account. In our view, it is the lack of any proportionate relationship between a breach of a lease and its consequences that makes forfeiture so unjust.

Since 1925, this House has regularly taken steps to make it more difficult for a freeholder to successfully forfeit a lease. For example, the Housing Act 1996 and the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 introduced prohibitions on the serving of a section 146 notice under the Law of Property Act 1925 in relation to service charges and breach of a covenant, respectively, in instances in which the amount payable has not been determined. Those were not the first attempts to constrain the laws of forfeiture. History shows that Parliament has returned to the matter every few decades in an attempt to mitigate forfeiture’s manifest injustices. Despite the laws of forfeiture being made stricter, a great many freeholders and managing agents still routinely use forfeiture powers as a first resort when seeking to recover alleged arrears of payments from leaseholders, and they rely—this is in some ways the more important point—on the mere threat of forfeiture, and the financial risks it presents, to deter leaseholders from disputing any unreasonable costs and defending claims.

Those who advocate retaining forfeiture often argue that it is a minor issue that does not affect many leaseholders. However, although termination of a lease under forfeiture may be relatively rare—I deliberately use the word “may”, because His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service does not track the number of cases—evidence from across the country shows hundreds of cases and scores of outright forfeitures on average each year. As I said, the threat is as damaging as the use of the power, because it puts landlords in a nearly unassailable position of strength in disputes vis-à-vis leaseholders, which is why forfeiture is routinely threatened in money disputes.

Because the law of forfeiture remains so manifestly unjust, despite successive attempts to render it more palatable, there have been many calls over recent decades for more wholesale reform. For example, hon. Members may know that in 2006 the Law Commission proposed abolishing the current law of forfeiture and replacing it with a statutory scheme for the termination of tenancies. It even drafted legislation, the Termination of Tenancies Bill, to implement that proposal. Yet nothing has been done. Indeed, the relevant section of the Law Commission’s website states—this amused me—that, 18 years on,

“We are awaiting the Government’s response to our recommendations”—

eighteen years and counting.

There is, of course, a need to carefully balance the rights and responsibilities of landlords and leaseholders, and there must be effective means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement, but those means must be appropriate and proportionate to the breach in question. We can debate precisely what alternative arrangements are needed to deal with breaches of the covenant or unpaid arrears, whether orders of some kind are necessary to sell a property when a debt is not paid, and what kind of measured method is appropriate to removing problem tenants from a building—we heard about that in our oral evidence sessions. The starting point, however, must be that we finally grasp the nettle and abolish forfeiture, and the windfall it provides, once and for all. It operates to the prejudice of leaseholders and it cannot be justified.

The Secretary of State made clear on Second Reading that he was open to this Committee looking at how we end the abuse of forfeiture. I believe there is a broad consensus across the House—indeed across this Committee —that we should consign it to history, even if there is a debate about precisely what replace it with. Following the point made by the hon. Member for Walsall North, I sincerely hope that the Minister will not disappoint us and the many thousands of leaseholders who support the abolition of forfeiture by resisting this new clause out of hand. I very much look forward to his response.

Rachel Maclean (Conservative, Redditch)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I wish to place on the record my support for the eventual removal of this most feudal and abusive practice—one of the worst examples in this whole system—and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans to eventually do that.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, I just want to let him know that there is ample evidence that this abusive practice has had a deleterious impact on decent people who have bought their properties in good faith. Take, for example, the evidence from Free Leaseholders, which represents many people in this position. The organisation says,

“Forfeiture has no place in a modern housing market”

and that it gives

“the freeholder landlord complete whip hand over his ‘tenant’.”

It is a “draconian remedy” that really has very few comparators anywhere else. Unlike mortgage foreclosure, where there is a balancing payment at the end of it, someone loses all the equity in their own home. That means they could actually lose, for example, a flat worth half a million pounds because of non-payment of a £5,000 bill. The freeholder would seize that flat, take back the lease, and make a windfall irrespective of the size of the contested charge. It kicks in at just £350.

There are alternative ways of resolving these debts available in our system. For example, the freeholder could sue for an injunction. He does not need forfeiture and the windfall to enable him to carry out good management of the block. The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee looked at this issue and also recommended its abolition, on the grounds that it puts the freeholders in an unassailable position of strength in disputes. Once again, it is about that power imbalance, which we have highlighted all the way through this Committee. We should absolutely take up the Law Commission’s proposals to remove forfeiture. It is true that it is relatively rare, with perhaps an estimated 80 to 90 cases every year, but it is the threat that hangs over people—people who are not legal experts, fighting a very uneven battle against these big boys with deep pockets and plenty of lawyers on speed dial.

As well as the evidence I have just referred to, I want to represent again the fantastic testimony from the National Leasehold Campaign, which I think has 29,000 members. It has described again and again the impact of this sword of Damocles hanging over its members who have bought these properties in good faith, doing their best to navigate this thicket of rules, with the debt completely stacked against them. I look forward to hearing about the pathway that I am sure the Minister will set out for us, where we can remove this element from our laws once and for all.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for this new clause and for the opportunity to debate it. The hon. Gentleman set me a challenge at the end of his speech. He said he hoped I would not resist the new clause out of hand—I will not resist it out of hand, but I may resist it. In all seriousness, this is an important part of the discussion and I do not disagree with what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch said—I absolutely accept it. I am happy to confirm that the Government are aware of the strength of feeling on this issue and sympathetic to some of the objectives of the amendment. It is absolutely the case that forfeiture is an extreme measure. That is why we committed on Second Reading to look at this.

On the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, it is difficult to get numbers. As has been outlined by others, the principle is clearly a real problem. The disproportionate nature of the outcome completely outweighs the likely loss being pursued. The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, or one of the other witnesses, suggested in oral evidence that there were 80 to 90 forfeitures a year, but the Government do not have specific data to validate that at this stage. We understand that most of the threats are defused during the process—particularly if a mortgage company is involved, it tends to, in extremis, step in and offer to put the amount of money on to the mortgage or equivalent. The evidence base is and will always be challenging, but we absolutely accept that the principle is disproportionate and unreasonable.

However, as with so many of these clauses and elements of law, there is the question of how to make something in the system better while still ensuring the ability to balance all the things underneath. That is probably one of the reasons why this place has returned to this issue so often over the decades—it is not just because the Government may not respond in time, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich indicated. This new clause is definitely well intentioned. We are sympathetic, but we do not necessarily believe in the full abolition of forfeiture without some form of replacement for some elements of it that may still have validity—not the forfeiture itself, but a recognition that people cannot just not pay things without some form of process to address that. That is one of the reasons we cannot accept this amendment at the moment.

However, I do not condone the abuse of forfeiture. I want to be absolutely clear that we are listening very carefully to the arguments being made. We have already committed to look at this again, and we are currently looking at it. I hope we will be able to say more at future stages of the Bill. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich will consider withdrawing his clause.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

That was a slightly frustrating response from the Minister. I had hoped for a little more. I am glad that he thinks the new clause is well intentioned and sympathises with some of its objectives. From the Opposition’s point of view, as with rent charges, another example of draconian and wholly disproportionate Victorian-era property law, we need to cut the knot and get rid of these provisions entirely. As I said, we can have a debate on what we replace them with. We are very clear that there must be a replacement. There must be an effective means of ensuring compliance with a lease agreement, but it must be appropriate and proportionate to the breach in question. We all agree that forfeiture is not proportionate or appropriate to the breach, so why retain it? What I did not get from the Minister, but had hoped for, was a clear indication that that is the Government’s intent, at whatever stage of the Bill.

I suspect this is one of those new clauses that the Minister has resisted—perhaps not out of hand, but resisted none the less—but that we may see back in a different form at a later stage with the Government’s seal of approval. However, I would like to make very clear our strength of feeling on the matter, and I will therefore press the clause to a vote.

New Clause 2 - Requirement to establish and operate a management company under leaseholder control

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As I made clear at the outset of our line-by-line consideration of the Bill, while we have no intention of trying to convince this Government to radically overhaul this limited piece of legislation to enact the Law Commission’s recommendations on enfranchisement, right to manage and commonhold in full, we do want to make the case for a limited number of new measures that would give future leaseholders greater control and strengthen the foundations on which bolder reform will be enacted. New clause 2 seeks to incorporate one of those measures into the Bill—namely, that all leases on new flats should include a requirement to establish and operate a residents’ management company responsible for all service charge matters, with each leaseholder given a share.

The new clause seeks to remedy two significant flaws in the current leasehold system. The first is that unless leaseholders in blocks of flats either take it upon themselves to acquire the right to manage, collectively enfranchise and then establish an RMC or buy a property on a development where an RMC has been set up, they find that despite being the people who pay all the costs associated with maintaining and managing their building, they have no control whatever over how their money is spent. The second is that the rights that this House has chosen to give leaseholders to empower them to exercise a degree of control over the management of their buildings—for example, the right to make an application to the first-tier tribunal, to appoint a manager under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 or to acquire the right to manage under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002—can be exercised only following what is often an arduous and costly legal process.

New clause 2 would go some way to remedying both of those problems. It would mean that, where a new residential block of flats was constructed and its units sold, the development would have to be a tripartite lease between the freeholder, leaseholder and a new residents’ management company. Each leaseholder in the block would own a share of the RMC and it would be under their exclusive control, giving them full responsibility for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance and the cost of managing their building, and thereby enabling them to control how their money was spent. Their share of the company and ability to influence the management of their building would be theirs by right and at no additional cost.

The importance of this proposed measure lies not only in the greater control it would give to leaseholders over the maintenance and management of their buildings, but in it being one of several ways by which we can lay the groundwork for a future in which leasehold has been rendered obsolete and commonhold is the norm. New clause 2, even if it is in operation for only a few years prior to commonhold being made the default tenure for new blocks of flats, as is our intention, would facilitate the reinvigoration of that tenure by creating a cohort of leaseholders who, of necessity, have experience in running their building as they would under a commonhold arrangement, even if that experience extends only to appointing and overseeing a managing agent—hopefully one properly regulated as a result of the Government’s accepting our new clause 25.

In facilitating leaseholder control of the operation of a site and giving them responsibility for everything covered by a service charge, new clause 2 would also further undermine freehold by depriving unscrupulous landlords of the ability to extract income from leaseholders using opaque and potentially unlawful practices such as appointing managing agents that are just related companies and using captive insurance brokers.

Lastly, if enacted in conjunction with leaseholders being given a mandatory share of freehold, as provided for by new clause 29, mandatory RMCs in new blocks of flats would ensure that we have a standardised management model and an agreed set of rules for those new blocks of flats where the freehold is collectively owned, making the process of converting buildings to commonhold at scale far easier.

Let me be clear with the Committee: we do not pretend that this is a perfect solution. It would obviously not help those leaseholders who have already purchased their flats and who do not currently have an RMC. We will need other solutions, building on the measures already in the Bill, to address the challenges that they will continue to face. However, if the Committee believes —as I think it does—that commonhold is the ideal form of tenure, and that reinvigorating it is the solution for blocks of flats, we should take practical steps to pave the way for that to happen. New clause 2 is one of the ways we can do so, and I urge the Minister to consider it.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his new clause which, as he has indicated, seeks to require the establishment of leaseholder-owned management companies for all new leasehold flats. I understand that his intention is to ensure that, by default, all leaseholders of new flats would be responsible for the management of their buildings. I support the well-intentioned desire to give more homeowners control over the management of their buildings. The Bill as a whole is intended to do that, and I hope everybody accepts that it is moving in the right direction.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, existing leaseholders can already use the right to manage to take over management responsibility for their building. It is an established no-fault right that allows leaseholders to take over management responsibility when a majority of them wish to do so. The Bill accepts and implements key elements of the Law Commission recommendations that broaden access to the right to manage and reduce leaseholders’ costs when they make a claim. The Bill gives leaseholders the right to take control over their building, but it does not compel those who do not wish to. There is an important point there: I understand the intentions behind the new clause, but there is a question about compulsion and there may be a question about operation if some leaseholders do not wish to step up. For that reason, the requirement would not easily apply in some scenarios and a blanket requirement to establish such companies is probably not appropriate.

Although I accept, understand and sympathise with the intention of the new clause, I am afraid that we will resist it because there are times when it would not be appropriate for it to apply, and we should not change the law on that basis.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am disappointed by that response from the Minister, as he would expect. We very much agree that the Bill is moving in the right direction, but we do not think it goes far enough for two reasons, which I will reiterate to help the Committee to understand why we feel strongly about this issue. Yes, the right to manage is an established right. The Bill makes provisions to enhance and expand access to RTM, but the RTM application process comes after an arduous and costly legal process. We are saying that, as a matter of right, residents in new build blocks of flats would have an RMC put in place and a share of it, without that cost. That is one point.

There is a more fundamental difference of principle, which is that if we are serious about reinvigorating commonhold, we need a number of steps. We need the legal changes that are recommended by the Law Commission, and we need to do those as one process, not in a partial way. However, there are other non-legislative policy changes that we need to make if we are to pave the way for commonhold. This new clause is one of them, and we feel quite strongly that it should be included in the Bill.

The Minister argued that there may be limited cases in which a mandatory RMC is not appropriate. If the Government want to bring forward their own amendment to provide for general RMCs across the board with limited exceptions, they are more than welcome to do so. However, we feel strongly, on a point of principle, that we should take this step alongside providing a share of the freehold, which I will argue for when I speak to new clause 29. Given our strength of feeling on this issue, as with the previous new clause, I will press this one to a vote.

New Clause 5 - Power to establish a Right to Manage regime for freeholders on private or mixed-use estates

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I will be relatively brief in speaking to the new clause, because I trust that it is self-explanatory, and we believe that the case for it is robust and well understood. Part 4 of the Bill, which we have already considered, will give residential freeholders on private and mixed-tenure estates rights to challenge the reasonableness of estate management charges and to hold estate management companies to account that are equivalent to those of leaseholders, but it does not give those same residential freeholders the right to take over the management functions on their estate.

We appreciate the concern among some that the right to manage would be too complex and onerous in a freehold estate setting, but it is only a right; it is not a requirement that it be exercised. We believe that there is evidence of an appetite among residential freeholders not only to be able to change a poorly performing or exploitative estate manager, for which part 4 provides, but to have more direct control of the management of their estates. We also believe that it is right in principle that there is parity between residential leaseholders and freeholders when it comes to the right to manage. New clause 5 simply seeks to provide them with that right.

In their June 2019 response to the 2018 consultation on reforms to the leasehold system in England, the Government committed to considering the implications of introducing a right to manage for residential freeholders, as part of their wider commitment to ensuring that leaseholders and residential freeholders enjoy equivalent rights. The Secretary of State made it clear on Second Reading that this Committee should look at the issue, as well as the issue of the abuse of forfeiture. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Redditch went even further. She stated:

“I know that the Government intend to introduce a right to manage for freeholders”.—[Official Report, 11 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 677.]

We hope that she is right and that that remains the Government’s intent, but there are no Government amendments that would incorporate the power to establish a right to manage regime for freeholders on privately managed estates. New clause 5 would do so, and I hope the Minister will accept it.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clause.

Let me separate my remarks into two parts. First, am I relatively sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s point? The answer is yes: there is a strong case for the measure. It has not been brought forward to date, and we will have to see whether it is possible to do so in the future. I cannot guarantee that, but we are looking at it and listening carefully. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and he made a strong case for it. We will not be able to do everything that we have said throughout this process, in the end, but I assure him that we are interested in this potential area.

However, we will resist the new clause, not because it is the convention to do so but because we genuinely think that it is not the right measure, even if we did agree with the principle. To go back to the Henry VIII powers discussion, this is probably an area in respect of which, if we were to do something—again, there are no guarantees—we would do it on the face of the Bill.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I am listening carefully to the Minister, as I did to the shadow Minister. The current Minister says he is sympathetic to the intentions, but I take his point that it is the wrong new clause, so I will oppose it if it is pressed to a vote. However, the shadow Minister said that the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch, said on the Floor of the House that she was sympathetic to the measure. That is two up. Will the Minister outline what the impediments might be? Will he give some reassurance that by the time we get to Report the Government may have turned sympathy into action? By the way, I think it is empathy, not sympathy.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

My hon. Friend makes a number of salient points—

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

And puts you on the spot.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Indeed—so let me see how to get out of this one. Out of principle, from a Conservative perspective, we would want people to have choice about how they approach such things. It is also the case that there is an additional operator, which is the person who owns the capital or the asset. We need to consider that carefully. Having started conversations with officials in the Department, I think there is a challenge around complexity. There is always a challenge with complexity; that is not an argument in itself but a recognition of the reality. I recognise that there are people in this room with much more experience than me on this issue, and hope colleagues will take what I say in the spirit in which it is meant. There will be a point at the end of this process when the sheer number of additional things that have been requested mean that there will need to be prioritisation.

This is a good Bill, and we should not take away from that fact—I think everybody present acknowledges that—but as the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, where we can improve it, we will seek to do so. I confirm that we are looking at this issue in more detail and hope we will be able to say more in the Bill’s following stages, if that is possible—I emphasise the “if”, with no guarantees. I urge the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, if he is willing, to withdraw his new clause, solely on the basis that if something happens in the future, the provisions should be in primary legislation, not introduced under Henry VIII powers.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I think I quote the Minister accurately when I say that he said, “Let me see how to get out of this one.” He is developing a reputation not just for reasonableness but for undue honesty. This is one of those features of the parliamentary process that I think anyone watching our proceedings will struggle to understand: there is clearly agreement here, and there is clearly a high chance that the Government are going to introduce a right to manage on privately managed estates, yet the Minister cannot accept the new clause.

I take the point about the particular drafting of the new clause. It was done to put the onus on the Government, who have the resources to bring forward the necessary amendments, given that it is a complex area. I did not hear a clear commitment from the Minister to bring forward those provisions. If he had given one, I would have withdrawn the new clause, but he has not. All he has said is, “We’re looking and listening but won’t be able to do everything”—despite the fact that the Government are dumping hundreds of amendments into the Bill at the last minute and no doubt will dump hundreds more. If we want to put these important measures in the Bill, we can, and we think we should. We feel strongly about this issue and I am going to press the new clause to the vote.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

We look forward to a Labour Government always accepting Opposition amendments. [Laughter.]

New Clause 25 - Regulation of property agents

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I hope that on this occasion the Minister will give me enough reason to withdraw the new clause. I always prefer to withdraw a new clause with a commitment that the Government will introduce what we seek to incorporate into the Bill. New clause 25 raises the important issue of the regulation of property agents, particularly managing agents.

For all that the various measures in the Bill seek to give leaseholders greater control over the buildings in which they live, and to give residential freeholders greater control over their estates, managing agents will remain responsible for day-to-day management in almost all circumstances. In the case of newly empowered leaseholders involved in either an RMC or an RTM company, there will be managing agents they have to take advice from and instruct. The ultimate success of many of the provisions in the Bill, and the extent to which leaseholders experience a tangible improvement in the quality of the services they receive, is dependent on the performance of those managing agents.

In its current form, the Bill contains no measures designed to prevent bad practice and improve performance in the industry. We believe that that issue should be addressed. We know that there are good managing agents who work hard to ensure that residents for whom they are responsible are safe and secure, and that the homes that they manage are properly looked after. However, we also know that there are a great many substandard agents whose behaviour reflects poorly on the industry as a whole.

If property agency were a well-functioning market, there would be no need for regulation—managing agents providing a bad service would eventually be dismissed, struggle to secure new contracts and go bust, and in instances where such companies broke the law, they would be investigated and prosecuted—but property agency is not a well-functioning market. In the main, residential leaseholders and freeholders do not choose and cannot easily remove poorly performing managing agents, and they do not have access to the information required effectively to hold such agents to account.

As we have repeatedly argued in recent years, the case for doing more to protect leaseholders from poor service and exploitation at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents by means of regulating the industry is extremely strong. In our view, the alternative—seeking to rely on incremental improvement, the sharing of best practice in the industry and the ability and willingness of RTMs and RMCs collectively to weed out poorly performing agents—is bound to fail.

The Government clearly recognise that it is a problem that currently there is no overarching statutory regulation of managing agents in England, and that the existing powers under consumer protection legislation do not provide leaseholders with sufficient protection. That is why, in their response in April 2018 to the “Protecting consumers in the letting and managing agent market” consultation, the Government committed to regulating managing agents to

“protect leaseholders and freeholders alike.”

It is why they proposed to introduce a single mandatory and legally enforceable code of practice covering managing agents as well as letting agents, and it is why they established a working group and tasked it with bringing forward detailed recommendations on how a new regulatory framework for property agents should operate.

The working group was chaired by a respected Cross-Bench Member of the other place, Lord Best, and its membership included a number of distinguished professional bodies. It issued its final report in July 2019, which included a series of proportionate and sensible recommendations with appropriate transitional and grandfathering arrangements as necessary, designed to

“prevent bad practice and drive cultural change within the industry, focussing on prevention rather than enforcement after the event”.

However, 55 months on, the Government have done nothing whatever to progress the implementation of those recommendations. Not only is the Government’s general procrastination on the issue a matter of regret, but their decision not to take the opportunity to use this Bill to introduce relevant property agent regulation is incomprehensible, given the extent to which it would help to ensure that many of the provisions in it operate effectively. We believe that Ministers should think again.

The case for regulating property agents has been accepted in principle by the Government. There is extensive support for it, not just among leaseholders and residential freeholders, but in the sector itself, as attested to by Andrew Bulmer, CEO of the Property Institute, and others in our evidence sessions. The blueprint for making it a reality is ready and waiting to be implemented in the form of the working group’s detailed final report. All that is required now is for Ministers to determine that the Government should use the Bill as the legislative vehicle for honouring the commitment they made in 2018 to regulate managing agents to protect leaseholders and freeholders alike.

Although the Government have had the working group’s final report for more than four and a half years, we appreciate that introducing an entirely new regulatory framework is not without challenge. They may need to consider carefully how best to implement a number of the recommendations or how to appropriately phase in some requirements. They might even have good reason to refrain from implementing a limited number of the specific proposals made by the working group on the grounds that they are not necessary or are too burdensome.

We have therefore deliberately not sought to compel the Government to bring each and every one of the recommendations made by the working group into force on Royal Assent. Instead, new clause 25 would give the Government two years to implement the working group’s proposals as far as they relate directly to matters in the scope of the Bill, with a requirement to report on progress to that end after 12 months to ensure that sufficient progress is being made. We think that our new clause is a necessary and reasonable measure. I urge the Minister to accept it.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I will not detain the Committee particularly long on this provision. I regret that we will not be able to accept new clause 25, for two reasons. First, I accept that people come down in different places on the use of broad Henry VIII-type powers, but we are not sure that those would be proportionate here. This measure concerns a considerable framework that would require a significant level of scrutiny to make it work. We are not convinced that it would be agreeable or acceptable to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, either.

Secondly, the new clause relates to an area that has been under debate for a number of years, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has outlined, and we think that it is without the scope of the Bill. It is a significant area on which further consideration is needed, and we do not think that there is space for that among all the other discussions. That will ultimately be a matter for the House to determine, but the Government do not think that this is the place to do it, given its significance and given the significance of the other things that we are trying to bring forward in the Bill.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I expected a little more from the Minister, because the Government have accepted in principle that property agents need to be regulated. We think it important that this matter be discussed in connection with this Bill, and that some form of regulation be introduced. As I say, the effective functioning of many of the provisions in this Bill will rely on the standard of managing agents being driven up, and on substandard agents being driven out of the market.

At the moment, all the Minister is saying is that the lack of an overarching regulatory framework in this area is fine. The Government have had four and a half years and are comfortable with taking many more years to come to consider this matter. From our point of view, that is not good enough. The Government have had the working group’s report for some time. They should have made better progress in implementing at least some of its recommendations, if not the vast majority of them. I will press new clause 25 to a vote.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I should put it on record—just in case, although it was many years ago—that I used to be an estate agent. I should probably make that clear.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Dear me—even lower than a politician.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Indeed, and via banking.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Well, that’s an admission.

New Clause 26 - Pre-consolidation amendments of legislation relating to residential leasehold and freehold and estate management

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I do not intend to press new clause 26 to a vote, because it is very much a probing amendment. My remarks on it will be brief because it is extremely simple and straightforward.

Leasehold enfranchisement and the right to manage are extremely complex areas of law. There are at least eight Acts relevant to the rights of residential leaseholders, namely the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, the Landlord and Tenant Acts 1985 and 1987, the Housing Act 1988, the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and the Building Safety Act 2022. There are also two Acts relevant to residential freeholders on private and mixed-tenure estates, namely the Rentcharges Act 1977 and the Law of Property Act 1925, both of which we have debated extensively.

This limited Bill has made significant changes to almost all of those Acts. If and when it receives Royal Assent, it will add a further layer of complexity and interpretation to a legislative landscape that is perplexing even to those with legal training. The law as it relates to residential and freehold leaseholders is crying out for consolidation. The statute law must be made clearer, shorter and more accessible so that those who work with the law, are concerned with making it or need to access or use it can do so more easily.

This is not a consolidation Bill, but the Opposition believe that it would be useful to give the Secretary of State the power to amend a number of the Acts to which I referred, so as to facilitate their consolidation. I trust that the Minister will see the benefit of incorporating such a power into the Bill, and I hope that he will accept it.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for moving new clause 26. He is right that this is an extremely complicated area of law and that there is a significant amount of interaction and overlap between the relevant legislation, which has built up over many decades. He is also right that there is a legitimate question to be asked about whether consolidation or spring cleaning of the relevant Acts is reasonable and proportionate. I am grateful to him and his party for seeking to provide the Government with additional powers to do so. The challenge is in whether that would be proportionate and whether the broad powers are necessary, even given the points that he made.

While I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman highlighted, the Government are taking a self-denying ordinance. We believe that such broad powers should be used only when absolutely necessary and that the test is not met in the case, so we will resist the new clause if the hon. Gentleman chooses to press it, although I hope that, as he indicated, he will not do so.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I commend the Minister for continuing to deny himself additional powers to do very sensible things. Notwithstanding that self-denying ordinance, I hope that he will at least take on board the point and give some further consideration to how we might tidy up the statute law in this area. It has been complex for all members of the Committee to understand. As I said, it is complex even for those with legal training, let alone those who need to access or use the law, whether or not it is through one of the means of redress we have been debating.

I hope that the Government will give some further thought to what might be done on the issue, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 27 - Qualifying leases for the purposes of the remediation of building defects

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 28—Meaning of “relevant building” for the purposes of the remediation of building defects—

“Section 117 of the Building Safety Act 2022 is amended by the insertion after subsection (6) of the following—

‘(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, amend subsection (2) so as to bring additional descriptions of building within the definition of “relevant building”.’”

This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to bring buildings which are under 11m in height or have fewer than four storeys within the scope of the protections of the Building Safety Act 2022.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

New clauses 27 and 28 concern building safety. The building safety crisis exists within the context of leasehold property and has been rendered more acute by the iniquities on which the leasehold system rests, yet the solutions to the specific problems faced by leaseholders in unsafe buildings are different from the general failings of the leasehold tenure that the Bill has sought to address in a limited number of areas. However, while the provisions in parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill are not answers to the problems of dangerous cladding and non-cladding defects, the relationship between the building safety crisis and residential leasehold properties makes the Bill the ideal vehicle for implementing a number of those solutions.

As the Committee will know, the building safety crisis is far from over. It has been almost seven years since the horrific fire at Grenfell Tower that claimed the lives of 72 innocent men, women and children, yet the Minister will know that there remain many thousands of unsafe buildings across the country that still require remediation.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

The Minister may also know that last night in my constituency the London fire brigade had to attend with 125 firefighters and 25 fire engines—three with the tall turntables—to put out a fire at King Edward Court. More than 100 people were evacuated from the building—safely, I am pleased to add—but the cladding on that building was similar to that at Grenfell. Here we are, seven years on from Grenfell, and three and a half years since the survey of that building took place in which it was reported that the cladding was of that combustible type, and still the Building Safety Act 2022 has not been able to ensure that, between the manager and the developer, those residents remain safe.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I am very glad that the residents were evacuated safely, but my hon. Friend highlights a problem that will apply to many other buildings across the country. The pace of remediation is far too slow. We often talk about remediation works as if they were just a practical issue—“When will it start and when will I be updated?”—but for so many residents there remains a very real risk to their health, their safety and in many cases their life. That is why we need to grip the crisis and ensure that it is addressed. No one disputes the fact that some progress has been made over recent years in addressing the building safety crisis, or the fact that the Minister has personally devoted considerable time and attention to the issue, but it really is a damning indictment of the Government’s record that nearly seven years on, the crisis remains unresolved for the vast majority of blameless leaseholders whose lives remain blighted by it.

It has been the Labour party’s consistent position that all blameless leaseholders should be protected from the costs of fixing historic cladding and non-cladding defects and associated secondary costs, irrespective of circumstances. That is why we sought to reduce leaseholder non-cladding remediation contributions to zero during the passage of the Building Safety Act 2022; it is why we opposed the Government’s decision to arbitrarily divide blameless leaseholders into those who qualify for protections under that Act and those who do not; and it is why we have always taken issue with the imposition of a crude and arbitrary height threshold that not only fails to adequately reflect the complexity of fire risk, but remains an entirely unsound basis for determining which leaseholders in unsafe buildings can and cannot access state support to cover the costs of remediation, should they need it.

Our firmly held belief that all affected leaseholders should be fully protected from the costs of remediation is a principled one. The building safety crisis is the product of pernicious industry practice and state regulatory failure. Affected leaseholders played no part whatever in causing it, and none of them should have to pay to resolve a scandal of which they are the victim. It is manifestly unjust that a minority of them remain trapped in their homes physically, mentally and financially, having been all but abandoned by their Government. If hon. Members doubt the impact that non-qualifying status is having on leaseholders so designated, I recommend spending just a few minutes on the “End Our Cladding Scandal” website and listening to some of the testimonies.

We also take our view for practical reasons, because we know that the decision to exclude a minority of leaseholders from protections under the Building Safety Act and to prohibit a limited number of unsafe low-rise buildings from accessing central Government grant funding will almost certainly ensure in many cases that remediation simply does not take place.

In tabling new clauses 27 and 28, we seek once again to press the Government to reconsider their decision to exclude certain categories of leaseholders and buildings from the protections that have been afforded to others. New clause 27 would give the Secretary of State the power to bring non-qualifying leases within the scope of the protections of the Building Safety Act 2022; new clause 28 would do the same in relation to non-qualifying buildings. I have no doubt that I will be disappointed by the Minister, given the Government’s intransigence on the matter. Nevertheless, I urge him, as I have urged his predecessors on countless occasions, to think again and consider accepting our new clauses.

New clauses 27 and 28 also provide me with the opportunity to raise a number of specific problems that arise from the Building Safety Act and that this Bill could potentially rectify. Some of those problems were unforeseen; many others are the entirely predictable result of the manner in which and the pace at which the Building Safety Bill, which was already a complex and technical Bill when it completed its Commons stages, was overhauled in the other place to reflect the Government’s belated change of approach.

We know that the Government are considering using the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill to address a number of outstanding building safety problems. The background briefing notes accompanying last year’s King’s Speech explicitly signalled the Government’s intention to use the Bill to build on the 2022 Act and to ensure that freeholders and developers are unable to escape their liabilities to fund building remediation work and that leaseholders are protected by extending the measures in the 2022 Act to

“ensure it operates as intended.”

As we approach the conclusion of the Bill’s Committee stage in this place, the Government have not tabled any building safety-related amendments to achieve those objectives. On Second Reading, in response to an intervention from me, the Minister made it clear that he was

“looking at what may be possible.”—[Official Report, 11 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 712.]

Even accounting for the Christmas break, he has had many weeks to do so. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister set out for the Committee the Government’s current thinking on how we might use the Bill to better protect blameless leaseholders who are struggling with the inability or unwillingness of their freeholder or original developer to progress remediation works, or are still waiting for such works to commence.

In addition, I would appreciate it if the Minister provided me with answers to the following questions. First, will the Government amend the Bill to make it clear that leaseholder protections under schedule 8 to the Building Safety Act apply irrespective of when service charge demands were issued, and thereby prevent the Court of Appeal from potentially overturning the November 2023 ruling of the upper tribunal to that effect?

Secondly, will the Government amend the Bill to protect qualifying leaseholders in buildings classed as leaseholder-owned and excluded from schedule 8 protections simply because a company owns the freehold and a director of the company personally has a lease or leases of a flat or flats in the building? For us, that was a hypothetical problem; in recent cases that I have seen, it has become a reality. We think that it needs to be addressed.

Thirdly, will the Government amend the Bill to finally address the detrimental impact on property valuation and mortgage lending resulting from the fact that non-qualifying leases are designated as such in perpetuity, irrespective of whether a building has been fully remediated?

Fourthly, given the extent to which the Bill seeks to encourage leaseholders to acquire their freehold, will the Government amend it to protect leaseholders in enfranchised buildings from the impact of building safety defects? The call for evidence on that subject closed on 14 November 2022, and unless I am mistaken we have heard nothing since then.

Fifthly and finally, if the Government persist in refusing to review the definitions of a qualifying lease and qualifying building in part 5 of the Building Safety Act, will the Minister at least consider amending the Bill to ensure that freeholders and managing agents acting on their behalf must agree reasonable prepayment plans and a permitted maximum annual sum, to provide a measure of protection for non-qualifying leaseholders who are horrifically exposed by their current liability for payment of costs within what are often extremely short timelines? Will the Minister also consider protecting non-qualifying leaseholders from litigation costs relating to building safety?

I look forward to the Minister’s response to those questions and to the more fundamental issues raised by new clauses 27 and 28.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich and for Brent North for the new clause and the contributions to the debate. I put on record how sorry I was to hear about Petworth Court, on which I was briefed overnight. It must have been a real challenge, and very scary for the residents of the property. I hope that we can move that on as quickly as we can. I am grateful for the efforts of London Fire Brigade and others, which ensured that no one came to any harm. It is a salutary reminder of the importance of the work that has been outlined by the hon. Members, which we all support.

The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich asked me a number of detailed questions. We have had many exchanges on these issues in the past, so he will appreciate that this is a sensitive and detailed area, and one that we need to get right. The Building Safety Act 2022 made huge steps forward, and there have been many steps forward in the practical reality of building remediation. I want to ensure that we deal with those questions in turn and in the depth that they deserve. We will have different views on some of those questions. Take, for example, the perpetuity issue. Without going into detail, my answer is that all the buildings have pathways to remediation, so long as they choose one or, in extremis, an actor in the system forces them to take one, and that once the remediation has happened the perpetuity point should become moot and fall away. However, it is better that I write to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee on all those points in due course.

Putting those important matters aside, we come to the question of whether the Secretary of State should have specific powers to amend the definition of “qualifying”. This gets to the point of where the Secretary of State’s powers should lie, which is obviously a contested matter. It is one on which the Government have a clear view, which we have articulated, notwithstanding the challenges that that brings to some people who are impacted by it. That is better dealt with in primary legislation, rather than through the Secretary of State making changes or having the ability to make regular changes. On that basis, we will resist the new clause.

Let me turn to new clause 28 on buildings under 11 metres, in the name of the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich and for Weaver Vale. I have taken a particular interest in buildings that are under 11 metres, and I and the hon. Gentlemen have had interactions on the issue in the past. There are specific issues about a small set of buildings that are under 11 metres. The previous Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and I have made repeated commitments from the Dispatch Box, from as far back as 2022, to look into each and every one of those buildings, and we have done so. A number of them have been raised with us, and we are working through them and getting to the end of the processes.

I encourage any hon. Members with examples—and I see occasional repetitions in parliamentary questions—to raise them with the Department, as I know members of the Committee have, and we will see what we can do to move those cases on or get clarity that no works are required. With almost all under-11 metre buildings, when we get to the end of the discussion there are no works required under the PAS 9980 assessment. That is positive. There is a clear reality that buildings under 11 metres are less likely to be impacted by this issue, and we will resist the new clause on that basis.

As a result of the fire, as I said to the hon. Member for Brent North, it is important that we make progress. Significant progress has been made, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich for his recognition of that. Every month, we see more buildings complete and more buildings starting the process. Where freeholders are willing to make their buildings safe, we have mechanisms and processes in place, both centrally and locally, to make sure that is happening; and I continue to see lots of progress. It will take time, but we are cognisant of the importance of moving fast, and we have certainly sped up over recent months.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I thank the Minister for his response. I will pass over his criticisms of the technical flaws of the new clauses. Their intent is very clear; we can debate whether primary or secondary legislation is the best means of achieving it. I think there is a point of disagreement on qualifying and non-qualifying leaseholders. On a point of principle, we think that the distinction is arbitrary and we should get rid of it. From the evidence I have seen across the country, we should also undoubtedly get rid of it on a practical basis. I do not have responsibility for building safety directly any more—my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale does—but I continue to hear of cases where buildings with a significant proportion of non-qualifying leaseholders see remediation works stalled or held up entirely.

I have always conceded that buildings under 11 metres are small in number and that there is not a systemic issue, but because of the drafting of the Building Safety Act, there remains a problem about liability. In those cases where the Government certify that the buildings are unsafe and require remediation—as the Minister knows, I have a case in my constituency—the stage that we have got to, after many years, is that the Government ask the original developer to put them right. We do not know what lies behind that request or whether there is any enforcement of it, so we are at the same point that we were at many years ago.

We come back to the question, “What is the need for the distinction?” I would argue that if under-11 metre buildings are that small in number, that is all the more reason for opening them up to access for Government grants should they require that—where the developer will not remediate them voluntarily. But that is beside the point.

I thank the Minister for his willingness to provide me detailed answers to all five of the non-specific questions—that is very welcome—but on the point of principle raised by new clauses 27 and 28, there is a clear difference of opinion. I think it is worth us putting on record, again, our strong feelings about that, so I will push both new clauses to a vote.

New Clause 28 - Meaning of “relevant building” for the purposes of the remediation of building defects

New Clause 29 - Report on providing leaseholders in flats with a share of the freehold

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

When making the case for new clause 2, which sought to ensure that all leases on new flats should include a requirement to establish and operate an RMC with each leaseholder given a share, I stressed that it was one of several ways by which we could lay the groundwork for a future where commonhold is the norm. New clause 29 seeks to press the Government to bring forward legislative options to enact another—namely, mandating that leaseholders in all new blocks of flats should automatically be granted a share of the freehold.

I want to be clear about what such a proposition entails. It is not an alternative to leasehold. If such a measure were brought into force, any leaseholder resident in a new block of flats would own both a lease and a share of the freehold. It would, in effect, ensure that all new blocks of flats were collectively enfranchised by default, without the need for leaseholders in them to go through the process of acquiring their freehold. The advantages of having a default share in the freehold is that it would give the leaseholder a direct say in what happens in their building, as is the case with those that have been collectively enfranchised. It would also provide for additional valuable rights, such as the right to a long lease extension on the basis of a peppercorn rent—or, in other words, the rights that will be accorded to existing leaseholders under clauses 7 and 8 but without the cost of paying a premium to the freeholder that is still required to exercise that modified right.

As we know, having flat owners with a share of freehold can cause tensions—for example, in agreeing how to proceed on crucial decisions such as whether to cover the costs of major works through service charges. That is why it is essential that proper management arrangements are in place as a matter of course, to reduce the likelihood of damaging disputes between neighbours, and why we proposed mandatory RMCs on new blocks of flats as a corollary to the new clause. Much like new clause 2, new clause 29 would also help give leaseholders greater control over their buildings and pave the way for commonhold as the default tenure.

Labour is unequivocal about the fact that commonhold is a preferable tenure to leasehold, in that it gives the benefits of freehold ownership to owners of flats without the burdensome shortcomings of leasehold ownership. As we have heard, the Law Commission made 121 recommendations on commonhold, designed to provide a legal scheme that would enable commonhold to work more flexibly and in all contexts. We share the concern expressed by Professor Nick Hopkins in our evidence sessions:

“With commonhold having failed once, there is a risk of partial implementation”—[Official Report, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2024, c. 39, Q84.]

of those recommendations and “a second false start” that could be “fatal” to the tenure. That is why we have not sought to persuade the Government to incorporate any subset of Law Commission commonhold recommendations into the Bill. We need to reform the legal regime for commonhold in one go, and Labour is committed to doing so if the British people give us the opportunity to serve after the next general election. Given your indication earlier, you are confident of that outcome too, Sir Edward.

We have also expressed a clear preference for commonhold to be the default tenure. That would be a policy decision distinct from the implementation of the Law Commission’s recommendations and would necessarily have to follow the legal scheme those recommendations would introduce. However, there will inevitably be a transitional period after the reformed legal regime for commonhold has been introduced, during which Government would need to consult thoroughly on the practicalities of making commonhold the default tenure for flats. The introduction of a mandatory share of freehold in all new blocks of flats, as proposed by the new clause, alongside the requirement to establish and operate an RMC with each leaseholder given a share, would be a sensible staging post on the path towards a commonhold future by making conversion to commonhold at a later date a far simpler process. We urge the Government to accept the new clause.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his new clause. As he has outlined, in share-of-freehold arrangements leaseholders will own the freehold in larger blocks; they are usually the shareholders of a resident management company from which directors are elected to manage the property. As such, there is no third-party landlord, but instead the leaseholders are themselves joint landlords. We appreciate that there are benefits to share-of-freehold arrangements, and obviously there is the opportunity for people, should they wish, to look at that when making decisions about the properties they live in.

Without seeking to detain the Committee, the reality is that although the new clause is well intentioned and understandable, it would be a significant building out of the Bill; it would be a significant additional framework. Again, it goes back to the point about the size of the Bill and exactly what it is able to do. I realise that we return to that often, and some colleagues in this room will wish us to go as far as we possibly can. That is understandable, but given the scale of the new clause—I realise that the hon. Gentleman probably will push it to a vote as a result of my comments—a pretty large and complicated legal framework would need to be put in place. I am afraid that at the current time it is challenging to have the space to do that, as much as I share the hon. Gentleman’s overall objective of trying to give people greater choice, and as a consequence we will resist the new clause.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I welcome the Minister’s response to the extent that he recognised the benefits of share of freehold. I am not surprised that he resists the new clause; there is no doubt that it would be a significant build-out of the Bill, as he put it. We hope that we will see other significant build-outs of the Bill and finally see a ban on new leasehold houses, as the Government have committed to, at some point. Maybe we will even get a couple of hours to debate that—who knows?

We think that this is an important provision that should be incorporated in the Bill for the reasons I have give, but mainly because—perhaps this is a point of disagreement between us and the Government—we think that we must be serious about paving the way for commonhold with the Bill and cannot leave everything to a future Government to enact. As I said, we should take some practical and specific steps to lay the groundwork for that future, which I think we all want to see. As we felt with mandatory RMCs, we feel that these two specific measures would enable us to go some way on that journey. For that reason, I will push the new clause to a vote—it will probably be the final one.

Rachel Maclean (Conservative, Redditch)

I want to make a brief remark in sympathy with the shadow Minister’s policy objectives. I will not be supporting his new clause, but I have had extensive discussions with the Minister, who knows that I feel strongly that we should have a pathway to commonhold in the future.

Commonhold is a system that works well. Commonhold, or a version of it, works extremely well in almost every other major developed country in the world. We are quite unique in the UK—for some bizarre reason—in having this leasehold system, which is to the great regret of me and the leaseholders who live in such houses and flats. Unfortunately, something like 1.5 million people live in leasehold houses and something like 5 million people overall live in leasehold dwellings. It does not need to be that way.

In 2002, the former Labour Government did try to legislate in this regard, but a number of those measures were not enacted—we are going back into ancient history. Nobody really seems to know why it did not happen, but we now need to seize the opportunity. This Bill has been a long time in gestation; it has benefited from the contributions of many Ministers to get it to this point. I know that the Minister is listening to me, and I think it is important that we do not miss the opportunity, even at this late stage, to introduce some of the commonhold framework measures that the Department has been looking at in great detail. I hope that the Minister has listened, and he and his officials will take that point away.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to go back to the 2002 Act. In fact, I think in a speech on its Second Reading, I said that we would have to return to that Act in six or seven years’ time to amend the deficiencies in it. I am sad to say that here we are, 22 years later, still not having amended those deficiencies, and the Minister’s response, I am afraid, has indicated that we will not amend them again under this Bill. This is urgent, and leaseholders have been waiting for far too long for the remedy that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has proposed. That is why I feel that it is vital that I support his new clause.

New Clause 30 - Review of the percentage of qualifying tenants required to participate in an enfranchisement claim

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

These are the last new clauses that I will speak to on behalf of the Opposition. In our fifth sitting, we considered eligibility for leasehold enfranchisement and extension, including the welcome changes that the Bill makes to the non-residential limit on collective enfranchisement claims. However, increasing access to collective enfranchisement by rendering more leaseholders eligible does not necessarily mean that take-up will significantly increase. That is because there are other barriers to exercising the statutory right to freehold acquisition. Some relate to the complexity of the process, but perhaps the most notable is the requirement under section 13 of the 1993 Act that at least half of qualifying tenants in a building must participate in the claim.

While there is no escaping the need to organise collectively to initiate a claim, in some buildings, particularly large blocks of flats, securing the participation of the minimum numbers of tenants required to take part in the service of the initial notice can be next to impossible, given the number of units that are occupied by tenants renting privately from the leaseholder. We therefore believe that there is a strong case for considering whether the minimum participation rate for collective enfranchisement should be reduced.

Precisely what the revised minimum participation rate might be is a matter for debate. We have not sought to be prescriptive in order to allow the Government the freedom to consider what threshold best strikes the right balance between encouraging enfranchisement and ensuring that there is sufficient participation to sustain the proper ongoing management of the building.

New clause 30 would simply require the Secretary of State to consider, within two years of the Act coming into force, whether the current 50% participation threshold should be lowered. New clause 31 would have the same effect in relation to the right to manage, where, in many ways, the argument for lowering the participation threshold is even stronger, owing to the fact that there is really no need for half of all qualifying tenants to remain involved in an RTM company once it has been established.

Again, determining the revised minimum participation rate is a matter for debate, and we have left that question for another day. If I am right in remembering, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North is proposing, by way of his new clause 33, that that threshold should be a third of qualifying tenants, which strikes us as a reasonable proportion. However, what new clause 31 seeks to secure is the Government’s agreement in principle that the 50% threshold for an RTM acquisition should be reconsidered. These, quite consciously, are probing amendments, but I very much look forward to the Government’s thoughts on the principle of whether that 50% threshold is right, and whether there should be scope in the future to look at it again.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has introduced his new clause 30. We heard from witnesses the difficulty faced by leaseholders on larger developments in attaining that 50% participation threshold for the right to manage. It can be a more permissive regime than collective enfranchisement, wherein someone else’s property interests are being compulsorily purchased. Right to manage is just regulating the management of the building and ensuring democratic resident control of the managing agent and service charges.

We heard from Philip Rainey KC in the oral evidence, who said, almost 10 years ago, that the right to manage should be a no-fault right and it should not be caveated with the need to solicit half of the entire building. He suggested the 50% threshold should be reduced to 35%. We have heard leaseholders say that this is not enough, because the threshold is even harder to meet nowadays with high levels of buy to let and overseas leaseholder populations, as suggested by Harry Scoffin of Free Leaseholders, when he gave oral evidence to the Committee. This proposal could help leaseholders to bring their service charges under resident control and scrutiny.

That is the position for flat owners almost everywhere else in the world, including north of the border in Scotland. I believe that the Government should support the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. If I were to hear any indication that the Government might be so inclined or that they would introduce a measure that would achieve the same effect, I would happily withdraw new clause 33.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

After a number of days of often great agreement across the Committee, it is my job, unfortunately, to point out where we cannot agree, so I apologise for doing that again. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich has indicated that he is probing the Government with new clauses 30 and 31—at least, I hope he is. We understand the point that he is making, but we are seeking to apply the Law Commission’s recommendation that the participation level should remain at 50%. On that basis, we are not proposing to change that at this time. I do not think it is necessary to create the report, because we have taken a view within this legislation that—

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

Will the Minister give way?

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I will, happily.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

This may not be the case in the Minister’s constituency, but I have very large blocks of flats in my constituency that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North has just made clear, consist of hundreds of buy-to-let flats and flats owned by overseas investors. Are the Government really content to say that in those cases—in large urban centres, these blocks are springing up all over the place—the barrier to collective enfranchisement and RTM acquisition is higher? Effectively, many of these leaseholders will be locked out of the rights in this Bill purely by the design and ownership arrangements in their building. Surely the Minister must recognise that there is a subset of buildings that will not enjoy the rights that the Bill provides for, and that the Government should look again at what can be done in those circumstances.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

There is no doubt that there are challenges. There are always challenges with individual buildings, but there is a specific challenge here, which the hon. Gentleman has outlined. My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who is not serving on this Committee, has outlined that to me, and I have had the privilege of talking to a number of her constituents who are impacted by the understandable challenges that the hon. Gentleman raised.

The question is not about the Government being unwilling to look at this in the future or unwilling to discuss this further in relation to the Bill. I know this is a probing amendment, but the narrow sense of the question is: should we be legislating to create reports? I am always reluctant to legislate in that way. I understand why the Opposition would do it and why the other place do it, all too often, in my view, but I am not sure I am keen on this happening, so the Government are keen to resist it on that basis. But on the broad point about whether we would return to this if it was not working, either in this discussion or more broadly, the answer is: of course—that would be a reasonable thing for the Government to do in the future.

I appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Brent North about new clause 33, and I know that the measure is potentially in operation elsewhere. I hope that he will agree that, when a minority can make decisions, a whole heap of additional considerations and questions are opened up. At this stage, we remain of the view that the proportion should be 50%, and for those reasons we will oppose the new clause, should it be pressed to a vote.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I will end on an optimistic note, because I got enough from the Minister to suggest that he is conscious of the issue and is open to looking at it again, either in the context of the Bill or at a later date. Setting aside the precise drafting of the new clauses, which have allowed us to debate the issues, the Minister recognised that we may need to look at the substantive point again. We may well come back to this at a later stage of the Bill.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Barry Gardiner, do you wish to comment?

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Thank you, Sir Edward. It has long been recognised that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich is a much more reasonable gentleman than I am. I would be inclined to press the new clause to a vote, but I do not want to try the patience of the Committee. My hon. Friend and I will discuss these matters further and, if the Government do not act, we will see what we might do on Report. I will therefore not press the new clause.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 32 - Premises to which leasehold right to manage applies

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am very happy to move the new clause, which would amend the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 to adopt recommendation 5 of the Law Commission’s right to manage report. That would allow leaseholders in mixed-use buildings with shared services or an underground car park to exercise the right to manage.

We had some debate on this issue last week. I recall, from the time of the 2002 Act, that flatted developments—especially mixed-use blocks—had not taken off yet in England in the same way as they have over the past 22 years. Given the proliferation of mixed-use buildings, the paradigms of the 2002 Act are therefore now outdated and unfair. Developers have sought to use the Act to secure the exclusion of leaseholders on the basis of shared services. If the Government do not move on the issue of shared services, many of the leaseholders in mixed-used buildings who would otherwise have benefited from the uplift in the non-residential limit from 25% to 50%—which, as I said last week, I welcome—will still not qualify for the right to manage or for enfranchisement.

We heard from the founders of the National Leasehold Campaign and from Free Leaseholders on this point. It was clear from the evidence that the presence of a plant room or underground car park alone can disqualify leaseholders from appointing their own managing agent and controlling the service charges, which they already have to pay but do not have any influence over.

The Law Commission did a great deal of work on the right to manage. It stated:

“We recommend that premises should be eligible for the RTM if they are a building or part which is reasonably capable of being managed independently. This means that if leaseholders cannot demonstrate that their premises are either a self-contained building or self-contained part of a building, the RTM will still be available if the premises are nevertheless a building or part which is reasonably capable of being managed independently. This might be straightforwardly demonstrated where parts of a building are already subject to separate management arrangements.”

That is the Law Commission’s case, and it looked into this with great care. It said:

“We think this will lead to fewer Tribunal cases and where there are still disputes the focus will instead switch to whether the premises can properly be managed autonomously, rather than their physical attributes.”

So I plead the backing of the Law Commission; I plead the common sense of some of the foremost jurors of our age. I am sure that the Minister will take on board their wisdom, if not mine.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent North for moving the new clause. The Government support the aim of the amendment to improve leaseholders’ rights. As he indicates, we are taking forward key recommendations of the Law Commission to do that. The Bill takes forward the most significant measures to increase access to the right to manage and makes it simpler and cheaper for leaseholders to make a claim.

To implement the wider recommendations, the Government need to proceed carefully and undertake further work to ensure that the regime will operate satisfactorily. The Government will keep the remaining recommendations from the Law Commission’s right to manage report under consideration following the implementation of the Bill’s provisions. I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward the amendment, but I hope that because the most significant measures have already been introduced, he may be convinced enough not to push the new clause to a vote.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

With that very reasonable response, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 34 - Commencement of section 156 of the CLRA 2002

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 34 would bring into force the requirement that service charge contributions be held in designated accounts. The new clause seems like a quick win for the Government: it would boost the security of leaseholder funds and would implement a policy that was in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 which, unusually—22 years later—has still not been brought into force.

We have heard from witnesses such as Martin Boyd at the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and Andrew Bulmer at the Property Institute, who have signalled support for such a policy. I understand that the British Property Federation has been actively lobbying for section 156 of the CLRA 2002 to be enacted since at least October 2012, so I hope that the Minister will see the new clause as eminently reasonable and will be prepared to comply.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Landlords and managing agents hold significant sums of leaseholder money, and it is right that they should be held to account for ensuring that such money must be managed effectively, as the hon. Member for Brent North indicates. Those who hold service charge moneys must hold them in trust, and the moneys must be deposited at a bank, building society or financial institution that is regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. This ensures that those moneys can be used only for their intended purpose and that they are treated separately from the landlord’s other assets. This approach seeks to provide protection.

As the hon. Gentleman indicated, the effect of his new clause would be to commence section 156 of the CLRA 2002. The Government are not convinced that it is necessary. Procedurally, primary legislation is not required. I know that the hon. Gentleman will say, “Well, you’ve had the primary legislation for a significant time, so I’m giving you help to get it through,” but it can be done through secondary legislation, and I am afraid that we would seek to move it back into that domain. There is a perfectly reasonable discussion to be had about whether this provision is enacted, but I do not think that we need this primary challenge in order to continue that debate.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

Once bitten, twice shy. We were promised this measure in 2002. I am not convinced that I should accept the same blandishments once again, so I am afraid that I really do want to push this one to a vote.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

It was close, Barry.

New Clause 35 - Duty to notify purchasers of liability for estate management charges

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 35 seeks further to improve the rights of those who will be liable for estate management charges. We know from written and oral evidence that people do not know what they are getting into right at the start of the purchase of a property. My clause asks the Government to make it clear by regulations that purchasers of properties who will get management charges are notified about them. It would ensure that people have access to the latest set of accounts, enabling them not only to understand what charges may be due, but to see what liabilities there were in the past.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for moving new clause 35. I share his concern that purchasers should know about estate management charges; we talked a little about that issue in our sitting this morning.

There is nothing worse than facing a bill that we know nothing about at a time when we can do nothing about it. That is why the Government have been working with the national trading standards estate and letting agency team to develop guidance for property agents on what constitutes material information. The information must be included in property listings to meet the obligations under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Estate management charges are considered material if they will have an impact on a decision to purchase. That should mean that purchasers get information on the expected level of estate management charges when they see the property particulars before they even view the property, let alone make an offer.

In addition to the measures that we discussed this morning, we are seeking to include in the Bill a requirement that freehold estate management information be provided to potential sellers, meaning that conveyancers acting on behalf of those sellers can quickly get the detailed information that they need to provide to potential purchasers. That could include accounts, if the estate manager is a resident-owned company, as well as any previous or future charges. With that reassurance in mind, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing his new clause.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I think that that reassurance has been provided. The particular issue is that when people buy these homes, the solicitors are usually appointed by the people selling them. It is important that the Minister thinks carefully about that, and it sounds very much as if he is doing so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 36 - Asbestos remediation

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Minister will be relieved to know that this is genuinely a probing new clause, which I am pleased to move on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms). He is not a member of the Committee, but he certainly wishes to raise the issue on Report.

New clause 36 would address the problems relating to enfranchisement when asbestos has been found, or is liable to be found, in the structure of a building. It requires that a survey be done prior to any enfranchisement process, and sets out that the landlord would be responsible for the remediation if asbestos should need to be cleared from the building. I am laying out the new clause before the Committee so that the Minister can set out his thinking about such problems in buildings, in the full knowledge that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham will speak to it on Report.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I thank the hon. Member for Brent North for moving the new clause. I heard the right hon. Member for East Ham make his case clearly on Second Reading, and I asked officials at the Department to go and look at it. I will read this into the record for their benefit and that of the right hon. Gentleman.

The Government recognise the devastating impact that asbestos-related disease has on those who are exposed and on their families, and we are committed to ensuring that the risk of asbestos exposure is properly managed. New clause 36 would either duplicate existing UK law or change the well-established evidence-based policy in this area.

Specifically, proposed new subsection (3) would mostly duplicate the existing duty in regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 for landlords to survey the common areas of their property, where they are responsible for maintenance. It is true that there is no current requirement for the survey to be done by an accredited professional. That is partly because currently only organisations, not individuals, can be accredited to carry out surveys. The Health and Safety Executive is carrying out research to see whether changes to the accreditation of surveyors would be beneficial. That is in response to a recommendation from the recent inquiry into asbestos by the Work and Pensions Committee, chaired by the right hon. Member for East Ham.

Proposed new subsection (3) would be a significant departure from current health and safety policy regarding asbestos. It could increase the risk of exposure to asbestos: it could create a situation in which asbestos was removed, irrespective of whether it was in good condition. Evidence shows that any removal of asbestos is difficult and inevitably involves disturbing asbestos fibres and making them airborne. In some cases, asbestos can be removed only if there is significant and highly invasive work to the fabric of the building. For that reason, the HSE’s long-held view is that asbestos that is unlikely to be disturbed or is in good condition gives rise to less risk if it is left in situ and monitored until a suitable opportunity to remove it arises, such as refurbishment or demolition. That part of the new clause goes against HSE policy. Such a policy shift in this case would have significant implications for the legal framework for the management of asbestos across the built environment. Understandably for such a hazardous substance as asbestos, any proposed changes to how it is managed in the UK must be considered carefully.

While I appreciate the points that the hon. Member for Brent North has made on behalf of the right hon. Member for East Ham, I hope that that explains why the Government are not supporting new clause 36. I look forward to comments from them, should we have missed anything. I hope that the hon. Member for Brent North will consider withdrawing the new clause.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I am grateful to the Minister for reading that into the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 37 - Eligibility for enfranchisement

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 37 would ensure that leaseholders in mixed-use blocks with shared services with commercial occupiers would qualify to buy their freehold. We have covered this ground to a certain extent, and I do not wish to detain the Committee unduly.

I commend the Government for bringing forward the reforms that promised to liberate leaseholders in mixed-use buildings and developments, including the lifting of the 25% non-residential premises limit to 50%. However, with the advent of compulsory leasebacks on commercial space to the departing freeholder, there is now a workable mechanism to split out the commercial units and their management from the ownership and management of residential leasehold homes and the common parts for the other side of the building.

It is imperative to remove any other outdated impediments to freehold purchase faced by leaseholders of flats in mixed-use buildings, if the reforms to enfranchisement are to be successful on the ground. Without moving on shared services and the structural dependency rules that bedevilled the 1993 Act, many leaseholders in mixed-use blocks, who would otherwise stand to benefit from the proposed changes that the Government have put forward, could be instantly disqualified from exercising their enfranchisement rights to gain control of their building and their service charges because of a shared plant room or a car park that connects them to the commercial occupiers and that they had no hand in constructing. That seems unfair, especially given that developers are increasingly building flatted developments in which the flats have shared services with commercial units for matters of efficiency and cost.

Mixed-use schemes are proliferating in our constituencies. The issue of shared services, structural dependency and structural detachment will continue to be a major one for leaseholders seeking self-rule, so long as the Government do not cut the red tape in the 1993 Act and, relatedly, in the 2002 Act in relation to the right to manage. I look forward to the Minister’s considered response.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent North for moving new clause 37. As he says, we have talked about the issue before, including on new clause 33, so I will not detain the Committee for more than a few moments. However, the brevity of my remarks does not in any way seek to diminish the importance of this discussion.

We agree with the overall ambition behind new clause 37; as the hon. Gentleman has graciously accepted, we are seeking to increase the non-residential limit. This is a discussion about whether the improvements that are already in the Bill should go any further. I hope that I have already articulated, in our debates on previous amendments and previous clauses, the reasons why we are not seeking to agree to that at this time. I hope that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his amendment.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

We have indeed been over this ground. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 38 - Right to manage: procedure following an application to the appropriate tribunal

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 38 would provide the appropriate tribunal with the discretion to dispense with certain procedural requirements where it is satisfied that it is reasonable to do so. It is designed to deal with cases in which a landlord attempts to frustrate a right to manage claim by procedural means.

Let me enlighten the Committee. This morning I received the following email: “Your amendment NC38 to the Bill—right to manage—is the single best thing to happen to the right to manage since it was introduced in 2002. It will put an end to the litigation over detailed procedural objections which has frustrated this important statutory right.” The gentleman went on to say that he believes this “despite me (1) earning a good living from right to management disputes and (2) being chair of the local Tory association.”

The Law Commission report from four years ago highlighted “the tactical, game-playing approach” of some freeholders and how the current law is acting to incentivise unnecessary litigation between the parties. Mark Loveday’s proposal, which I have adopted, seems eminently sensible to provide the tribunal with the discretion to waive a right to manage application of leaseholders where the breaches are deemed to be non-material. That is a necessary guard against vexatious litigation by freeholders to thwart legitimate right to manage bids. Sadly, as a barrister, Mr Loveday has seen all too many cases in which landlords have used irrelevant technicalities in the existing legislation to try to scupper leaseholders trying to exercise their right to manage. I want to put on the record my thanks for Mr Loveday’s defence of leaseholders’ rights in the Settlers Court case and the Canary Gateway case.

I hope the Committee will understand that Mr Loveday gave evidence in writing to this Committee. The new clause draws on his proposals, which are contained within his written submission. Mr Loveday is not just a barrister, but the editor of the standard work, the fifth edition of “Service Charges and Management”. He is not just somebody who has a passing knowledge; he is recognised as an authority in these matters.

For the sake of full disclosure, I should add that the gentleman who wrote to me so effusively about my new clause was in fact Mr Loveday, so it was really about his own amendment.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

It is the greatest amendment since 2002, apparently.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brent North for tabling new clause 38. I understand that he seeks to reduce landlords’ ability to frustrate right to manage claims. We all share his view, and we also do not want leaseholders to fail on minor technicalities, but at the risk of disappointing his Conservative friend, we believe that there are good reasons for the procedural requirements in a right to manage claim. For example, standard requirements provide legal certainty for all parties. I recognise that there is a valid discussion to be had around the issue, but that is the position that the Government come down on. We are concerned about giving a broad, sweeping power in respect of disapplication.

There are also potential unintended consequences. All qualifying leaseholders are entitled to become members of the right to manage company, and no one person can be excluded for any reason. The legislation opens membership to all qualifying leaseholders. The procedural requirement to serve the notice inviting participation informs leaseholders of their rights to join the claim and become directors of the right to manage company. Providing discretion to the tribunal to disapply this could result in some leaseholders failing to receive adequate information about the claim and being denied such an opportunity. I am not saying that that is likely to happen; I am simply taking it to its logical extent. There are other potential areas where it would go. I am not saying that it is likely, but it is possible.

It is accepted that some landlords have sought to defend right to manage claims on the basis of minor, technical flaws in compliance with the procedural requirements. The tribunal, however, generally takes a common-sense, pragmatic approach to errors that are not critical or of primary importance. That should limit the scenarios in which there is a problem. Landlords will also have an added disincentive to raise vexatious disputes, as they will now pay their own litigation costs.

On the basis of both those points, I hope that the hon. Member for Brent North might be willing to withdraw his new clause and convince his new Conservative friend that it is not necessary at this time.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I will press the new clause to a vote and leave it to the Minister to persuade his Conservative friends.

New Clause 39 - Service charges: consultation requirements

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause would set matters for the tribunal to consider when deciding whether to dispense with all or any of the requirements for landlords to consult tenants in relation to any major works. That is something that I am particularly concerned about, because in 2002 I sought to bolster transparency over the nature and costs of major works that leaseholders were paying for, and the troubles that they were experiencing in their blocks. I am also concerned because the freeholder that successfully neutered key provisions on major works is the same Daejan—then Daejan Holdings, part of the Freshwater Group—which over the years has caused absolute misery for many leaseholders in my constituency and in many other right hon. and hon. Members’ constituencies. It was one of the landlords whose behaviour saw me begin my campaign against the iniquities of leasehold back in the 1990s.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am being tempted again to comment on the Supreme Court and the veracity of its decisions, but I will stick to the new clause. As the hon. Gentleman indicated, it seeks to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. We agree that there should be protections for leaseholders when their landlord is seeking to dispense with the requirements to consult on major works. Where a landlord has failed to comply with the statutory requirements, they must apply to the appropriate tribunal to dispense with the requirements to consult. Should they fail to consult and fail in any application for dispensation, the costs that they may pass on to the tenant are limited to a £250 threshold.

We believe that the appropriate tribunal is best placed to consider the circumstances of each application for dispensation. We would not wish to fetter the tribunal’s ability to consider a wide range of matters when deciding whether it is reasonable to dispense with the consultation requirements.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

What has happened here is that the whole weight of proof has been shifted by the Court’s decision. It has been shifted precisely against what was the legislative intent, which is why I think it is appropriate that the Minister seeks to reinstate what Parliament originally said it had decided and wanted to be the case, and ensure that the tribunal has the ability to exercise its judgment in that way.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Let me ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is willing to allow me to go away and look at this issue without any promises or guarantees. I am not across the level of detail that he obviously is, and I need to be in order to discharge the very legitimate questions that he has asked. If he is prepared to withdraw the new clause, I am happy to write to him, and if there is something that we need to take forward, I would be happy to look at it in future phases of the Bill.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 40 - Meaning of “accountable person” for the purposes of the Building Safety Act 2022

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.

New clause 40 would provide for a manager appointed under section 24 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 to be the accountable person for a higher-risk building. A number of stakeholders raised in the evidence sessions that there is a major problem with the way in which the Building Safety Act 2022 is interacting with the 1987 Act, with the practical effect of depriving leaseholders of redress and the ability to replace a failed or failing freeholder from controlling their homes and service charges.

The accountable person regime of the 2022 Act has critically undermined the section 24 court-appointed manager scheme, which has been a lifeline for leaseholders who cannot afford to buy the freehold or mobilise 50% of their neighbours to participate in an enfranchisement claim but who face a predatory—or very often absentee—freeholder, have high and opaque service charges or suffer block deterioration and badly require independent and professional management. That was the whole point of having the accountable person in the court-appointed manager scheme.

The section 24 regime also gives leaseholders who do not qualify for the right to management the ability to replace freeholder management of their building and moneys by applying to tribunal to consider whether it is just and convenient to install an officer of the court—a section 24 manager—to steward the development with tribunal backing and a special management order that provides them with a bespoke scheme of management and effectively replaces the leases. The section 24 manager essentially steps into the shoes of the landlord. But the Building Safety Act has expressly disallowed a section 24 manager from double-hatting as the accountable person and the principal accountable person through its definition of accountable persons and its amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

That must be an oversight by Government or an unintended consequence of the Building Safety Act, because fettering a section 24 manager in this way will encourage tribunals not to grant new section 24 orders on the basis that while such an order may be just because of freeholder failure, it would not be convenient, since there would now be two squabbling managers for functions under the BSA versus a court appointee installed under the 1987 Act. Even with the reforms to enfranchisement and right to manage in this Bill, many leaseholders will still be unable to meet the qualifying criteria to remove freeholder management. We need to keep that pathway for a court-appointed manager open and accessible to leaseholders seeking relief. With the BSA, Parliament quite rightly sought to give leaseholders new statutory protections. Surely the intention of the BSA was not to take away leaseholders’ existing rights.

At Christmas, a tribunal heard about this issue as part of the long-running litigation at Canary Riverside, an estate in east London where leaseholders have enjoyed court protection via the section 24 scheme since 2016. Regrettably, it determined that section 72 of the Building Safety Act and the amendments made to section 24 by section 110 of the 2022 Act prohibit a section 24 manager from being an appointed person, and a tribunal cannot order a section 24 manager to carry out building safety responsibilities that Parliament has decided should fall outside the section 24 regime and which should be the responsibility of an AP.

The tribunal said,

“We accept that this conclusion is likely to have significant practical consequences”

for the manager. It also said,

“We accept too that there is a risk of disagreement between him and the PAP as to how the cladding-removal works should be progressed.”

The 22 December 2023 tribunal decision in the Canary Riverside case has effectively given the freeholder licence to take back control of leaseholders’ homes and moneys, despite being stripped of management rights by the court in 2016 because of its poor financial transparency and non-existent accountability to leaseholders. It now runs the risk of allowing the freeholder to take up to £20 million in public money from the building safety fund. The same freeholder’s related company, Westminster Management Services, wrongly demanded £1.6 million in insurance commission and fee—a kick-back from the leaseholders, as determined by a tribunal in December 2022.

The emotional and financial cost of the arbitrary law change to leaseholders here is enormous. As the Canary Riverside leaseholders cannot easily afford legal counsel, they are using the services of a barrister under the direct access scheme, which has cost them £25,000. The leaseholders are also having to pay the section 24 manager’s costs for their solicitor and barrister, which could easily be double theirs—£50,000. For the two-day hearing and the preparation required beforehand, all the participating leaseholders and the section 24 manager will have racked up a legal bill of more than £100,000 to have a tribunal decide a very narrow legal point. Meanwhile, the leaseholders on a nearby estate, West India Quay, who have raised an impressive six-figure sum for a section 24 bid because of sky-high and escalating service charges and a rundown building, now face the invidious position of not going ahead with the application unless the law is changed in the Bill to allow a manager appointed under section 24 to be the accountable person and principal accountable person where a tribunal makes such a determination.

End Our Cladding Scandal has also made clear its opposition to this Building Safety Act policy. Leading landlord and tenant barrister Philip Rainey KC, whom we heard from in oral evidence, even provided suggestions for amendments in his testimony to the Committee. I am grateful for that and have echoed them in my new clause. It is nonsensical that a freeholder who needs to have no qualification in fire safety or management and is not vetted by a tribunal can be the accountable person while a professional property manager, who has had his or her credentials heavily scrutinised by tribunal and who has been appointed by a judge and tribunal panel because they are deemed to be a fit and proper person with suitable experience, is literally barred from taking on the accountable person and principal accountable person role.

On the point that the section 24 manager does not own the freehold or have a possession in land and so cannot be an AP or a PAP, a non-freehold-owning resident management company or right to management company can be an AP or a PAP, so the policy is contradictory. I believe that comes from a misunderstanding of section 24 and the importance of this backstop scheme for leaseholders with recalcitrant freeholders who need court protection.

Before the Minister points to the special measures manager provision in the BSA as a mitigator, that still damages the section 24 scheme because a special measures manager can be appointed by tribunal only if the Building Safety Regulator—an unknown entity—makes its own application to tribunal. Before the Building Safety Act, the whole management of a block and stewardship of leaseholders’ moneys would be decided by a tribunal in one application made by leaseholders and, if successful, all handed over to the section 24 manager. Now, the leaseholders would have to petition a separate body for a special measures manager, and there is no guarantee that the Building Safety Regulator would make such a tribunal application, especially where the tribunal has not found fault against the freeholder, because no section 24 order is in existence for the leaseholders to point to.

Naturally, cautious tribunals will refuse to grant section 24 managers going forward because the split management will be so messy and so fraught with risk. That is a travesty of the section 24 scheme, which successive Governments have sought to protect. The Government, in background notes to the King’s Speech, pledged to use this Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill to revisit the Building Safety Act, building on the legislation that was brought forward by the 2022 Act, to ensure that freeholders and developers are unable to escape their liabilities to fund building remediation work and protecting leaseholders by extending the measures in the 2022 Act to ensure that it operates as intended.

That is what the Government said, and the Government are already moving amendments to reform the section 24 scheme, so we cannot say that section 24 is out of scope or that section 24 reform will not be pursued by the Government at this juncture. The Government’s own estimate, as of February 2021, is that there are more than 11,000 higher-risk buildings—blocks from 18 metres or 7 storeys high containing 1.31 million residents. That means that there are over 11,000 buildings where hundreds or thousands of leaseholders, at least, have had their lifeline right of applying for a section 24 court-appointed manager stripped of them by the Government by obscure clauses in the Building Safety Act.

I urge the Minister to consider the desperate situation of leaseholders who already have a section 24 manager or are, at this moment, preparing their applications to have one installed. I urge the Government to expeditiously remedy the situation brought about by major policy change that flew under the radar of Parliament, was never put out to public consultation and has affected the lifeline right for leaseholders who have predatory freeholders or are in a situation whereby management is dire and service charges excessive.

One witness told us that the Secretary of State is taking

“a personal interest in this”––[Official Report, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Public Bill Committee, 16 January 2024; c. 57, Q146.]

area and that he sent a letter to the leaseholders at Canary Riverside ahead of the December hearing. I believe that that is another of the lease extension nightmares that saw qualifying leaseholders lose their statutory remediation costs protection under the Building Safety Act because they extended their lease, and that saw the BSA amended by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.

In the same way, Parliament could not have intended to deprive leaseholders of cost protection rights when extending their lease under the BSA. I believe that Parliament could not have intended to deprive them of the long-cherished right to secure a section 24 manager, where there is an extensive fault against their freeholder proven in a court of law. It is absolutely imperative that the Minister acts on this.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for outlining that in such detail. I will be brief and to the point. We are reviewing this, and I think that an important point has been raised. In the meantime, we have asked the Building Safety Regulator to review all higher-risk buildings that currently have a section 24 manager in place, with a view to considering whether an application for a special measures order should be made for any of the buildings impacted. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member may withdraw the new clause until we have concluded the review.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I want to press the new clause to a vote.

New Clause 47 - Collective enfranchisement: removal of prohibition on participation

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause would implement recommendation 41 of the Law Commission’s report on enfranchisement, that the prohibition on leaseholders of three or more flats in a building being qualifying tenants for the purposes of a collective enfranchisement claim should be abolished. The Law Commission could not be clearer on this issue. It said:

“We remain firmly of the view that this rule–that a leaseholder of three or more flats in a building is not a qualifying tenant in respect of any–is ineffective in excluding investors from collective enfranchisement rights. It is easily avoided by sophisticated investors, and thus only penalises less well-informed leaseholders of multiple units. We do not think that there is any good justification for retaining the exclusion in its current form… Crucially, we think that removing the restriction will provide the opportunity to enfranchise to a number of leaseholders who should benefit from enfranchisement rights, but who currently do not do so. Take the building which we gave as an example in the Consultation Paper: one containing seven flats let on long leases, of which three are owned by the same person. This building is ineligible for collective enfranchisement, as there are only four qualifying tenants (and therefore the two-thirds requirement is not fulfilled). However, it may well be in the interests of the four qualifying tenants to carry out a collective freehold acquisition: indeed, the investor who owns the three other leasehold flats may also wish to participate. It may be asked why, from the point of view of the five owners in the building, it is desirable that they be prevented from acquiring the freehold jointly. In this case, the four owners of their individual flats would still have the largest say in the control of the building following the claim (assuming every owner participated).”

Removing the bar on leaseholders with three or more properties from qualifying for a collective enfranchisement is a Law Commission recommendation. It could be done easily and have the practical effect of ensuring that more leaseholders can acquire the freehold and gain control of their homes and service charges, meeting a key Government goal for this Bill.

I am aware that some freeholders buy up leases in a block using separate special purpose vehicle companies in order to make it harder for leaseholders to hit the 50% participation threshold and thwart enfranchisement bids. Meanwhile, innocent leaseholders who have three flats in their name as part of their retirement plan are instantly disqualified from participating in the freehold purchase. That is unfair, but it could be easily remedied by this amendment or another amendment were it to come from the Government.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

The Government recognise that the Law Commission did not think that there was a justification for keeping the exclusion in its current form and recommended its removal, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated. However, there might be unexpected consequences if the exclusion is removed, and the Government need to proceed carefully. For example, removal of the restriction may spur investors and speculators to buy up blocks, which may not be in the interests of the remaining leaseholders and take properties out of the market that could otherwise be acquired by owner- occupiers. Investors would be able to buy multiple flats in a building in order to take control of the building following a collective acquisition claim.

Furthermore, the exclusion as it applies currently has the effect of limiting the circumstances that could result in one leasehold owner monopolising the freehold once it has been acquired. Leaseholders of a single flat may find that they escape the control of one freeholder to find that they are now subject to the control of a single owner of multiple flats, creating the same issues.

I recognise that the restriction has the effect of denying some leaseholders the right to collective enfranchisement, and there is no equivalent requirement when claiming the right to manage. However, the nature of the interest being acquired is different and the difference in approach is appropriate. I hope I can assure the hon. Member that the Government understand his concern. I hope he agrees, although I hear he might not, that the current restriction provides a level of protection for leaseholders. I ask him to consider withdrawing his new clause.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the problem here. I urge him to consider coming back on Report with his own amendment to try to circumvent the other issues that he has rightly raised, which might counterbalance on the other side. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 48 - Right to participate in enfranchisement

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to make regulations allowing those residential leaseholders whose unit qualified for a collective enfranchisement, but whose leaseholders were unable or perhaps unwilling to do so at the time, to exercise the right to participate in the enfranchisement subsequently upon payment of a proportionate sum.

Through its work the Law Commission emphasised the inequity of leaseholders who did not have the money to participate in the freehold purchase or were not even holding a lease on the qualifying flat at the time of the enfranchisement, having no right under the current law to buy a share in the freehold to make their home more saleable and to be part of the decision-making process of those enfranchisement leaseholders with management control.

The Law Commission stated that

“in the Consultation Paper, we proposed that a leaseholder who did not participate in a collective freehold acquisition should, at a later date, be able to purchase a share of the freehold interest held by those who did participate. We maintain our view that the policy has merit. Indeed, a clear majority of consultees were supportive of our provisional proposal.”

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

We will suspend for Divisions in the House.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

We were discussing the right to participate, and I was quoting the Law Commission, which stated that

“in the Consultation Paper, we proposed that a leaseholder who did not participate in a collective freehold acquisition should, at a later date, be able to purchase a share of the freehold interest held by those who did participate. We maintain our view that the policy has merit. Indeed, a clear majority of consultees were supportive of our provisional proposal.”

Additionally, the Law Commission believes that

“the existence of the right to participate”—

attaching to an individual leasehold unit—

“might even encourage leaseholders making a collective freehold acquisition claim to invite others to join in the first place, and might also be a partial solution to the ping-pong problem”,

as the Law Commission describes it; I will not go into detail about that. The Law Commission states that, unlike with the right to manage and the notice inviting participation, leaseholders

“proposing to make a collective enfranchisement claim are not obliged to invite all other leaseholders in the building to participate in the proposed claim, nor even to inform them of their intentions. This means that leaseholders can be excluded from the opportunity to exercise their enfranchisement rights, either inadvertently or deliberately.”

The Law Commission received various suggestions as to how leaseholders could be made aware that a collective freehold acquisition has taken place and therefore that the right to participate is available to them. The new clause seeks to give the Government the flexibility to bring forward—through either regulations or, preferably, their own amendments—some provision to remedy the situation. I look to the Minister for his advice.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

The principle of a right to participate is sound, and I think we all agree on that across both sides of the Committee. However, as with many of the new clauses, there are practical issues with such a right, and we struggle to see a way that it is addressed through the Bill.

I will not detain the Committee for too long, but currently leaseholders who did not participate in a previous collective acquisition claim have no means to require the previous participants to allow them to join, as the hon. Gentleman outlined. There is an existing route around that for the non-participant leaseholders if they can agree with the participating enfranchised leaseholders to allow them to obtain a share in the ownership of the building through negotiation; however, enabling that through a statutory right is complicated. The Law Commission gave considerable thought to the issues and how they may be resolved, and, although it too agreed with the principle of such a right, it was not able to make a recommendation for the creation of the right to participate without separate and detailed work on the measure. Its report analysing the difficulties that arise is publicly available.

As set out by the Law Commission, a number of highly complex questions need to be resolved, including when and to whom the right should apply; whether to include former landlords in possession of a leaseback; the terms of participation; the premium payable; the cost of the claim; and any remedies available if damages are appropriate. Bluntly, they go to the core of an individual’s rights, so the whole framework for the regime needs to be in place in order to ensure certainty on who has those rights and how they can best be exercised in practice. As a result, while I understand and appreciate the sentiment behind the new clause, it is a broad power to set out a regime that is extremely complicated, and the Government are unable to accept it at this time, while accepting the principle and hoping that in the future we can make progress on it.

Barry Gardiner (Labour, Brent North)

I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the need to do something in this area and accepting that there is a problem here that it would be best to resolve. I simply point out that leasehold reform Bills tend to come infrequently before Parliament, and I urge him to come back at a later stage with his best endeavours to resolve the problem. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 50 - Control of boards of estate managers

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am receiving some interesting guidance from the Government Whip that I should seek to speak at length on the new clause, which is contrary to all his earlier exhortations, which were rather of the flavour that I should shut up entirely. I am not getting any further guidance from the Whip, so I will go at my own pace.

New clause 50 is a suggestion to the Minister. We have discussed the general hope that people subject to estate management charges should have much greater control over their estate management companies. They potentially should have the right to self-manage and it should be much easier for them to change from one estate manager to another. At the moment it can take a considerable time for estate management companies essentially to be set up and/or for them to go through what is essentially a transfer to resident control. I think all members of the Committee know this, but I will just inform them that we have had a number of representations from people who have talked about how long they have had to wait, including someone who said that a family had to wait up to 13 years for the right to manage their own estate management company and endured poor service over that entire period.

As the Minister thinks about his options to bring forward on Report or in further deliberations improvements to the rights of people, the new clause suggests that, by law, within two years of the sale or lease of the first building a majority of the directors of the estate management companies should be residents of their community.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

This is an interesting new clause that bears a few moments’ consideration, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling it. Obviously, the first challenge is the matter of Henry VIII powers. I will put that aside for the moment, but we have genuine concerns about whether the new clause would get past the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the basis of whether it is proportionate.

As with a number of other very well-intentioned amendments, we come back to the question of unintended consequences. For example—without being overly difficult—if homeowners are reluctant or unavailable to become directors, problems could potentially arise with respect to compliance with company law requirements. For instance, if a company does not meet the requirement cited in the Companies Act 2006 for the minimum number of directors, it could face a sanction. An estate management company might be unable to function because of the reluctance of homeowners to be represented on the board. I accept my hon. Friend’s point and recognise the challenge that he puts forward—of course, we want as many householders and homeowners to participate in these companies as possible—but this is a narrow new clause that we cannot accept, although I am happy to continue the broader conversation with him.

It is also the case that the Competition and Markets Authority study of housebuilding, which will include the private management of public amenities on housing estates, is due to report by 27 February. I do not know what is in the report, but it may be that we return to this matter in later stages once we know the CMA’s thoughts about estate management. I hope that I have convinced my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

That was a very helpful and thoughtful response from the Minister, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 51 - Ability to change estate management company

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Again, this new clause originates from some of the inbound traffic that we have received as we have considered the Bill. I seek clarification from the Minister about the extent of these changes. The Committee was advised by a number of citizens about the status of estate management companies that are written into the deeds or other legal documents that are signed upon purchase. One such citizen wrote:

“Our management company…is named in the TP1, so we have no rights to do this”—

that is, to essentially appoint their own managers.

This is a probing new clause: I just want the Minister to be clear about the impact of the Bill on individuals such as the person whom I just quoted. As a consequence of the Bill’s provisions, will they be able to change their estate management company, or is there some legal trick about the original documents that were signed on purchase that would mean they are not brought into the ambit of those new rights?

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

As my hon. Friend outlined, the new clause would introduce a requirement for the Government to assess the situation of homeowners with estate management companies explicitly named on their deeds within a three-month timeframe.

I am sympathetic to the concerns that my hon. Friend raised. I know that he recognises that this is a complex area and that there are detailed issues to be worked through. As well as being clear about the nature of the problem, there could be issues about defining the scope of estate management functions and what criteria need to be met. The Law Commission carried out a review of the right to manage for flats, but that is not always directly transferable to freehold estates. It will take some time to carry out a review, and we need to engage with people across the sector. Then, the CMA report is coming. None the less, I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns that the comprehensive measures in the Bill do not go far enough, and I acknowledge his desire for the Government to go further. I am listening carefully to his concerns on this matter. On that basis, I hope that he might withdraw his new clause.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

It is not actually clear that the Minister was addressing new clause 51 as I was expecting; that may be the fault of my hearing. I was seeking clarification about the TP1—transfer of part of registered title—form, which is used by developers when selling a house to explicitly name an estate management company that will be in situ. That may be the norm; I do not know. However, can the Minister clarify, if the way that it is originally set up is not the norm and it is a legal device, whether it has greater legal standing, and whether the rights of people for whom the estate management company is defined in form TP1 will be included in the rights that we are trying to establish with the rest of the Bill? If we introduce changes that increase the right to manage and so on, will they be covered? I may well have missed it, because the Minister is much more knowledgeable about the Bill than I am, even after all our deliberations. However, just to the specific point about the legal forms, will he consider bringing that in as part of this?

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I want to double-check the valid points made by my hon. Friend. I will commit to writing to him on that specific point to make sure that we are covering in the way that he expects.

Richard Fuller (Conservative, North East Bedfordshire)

That is very kind of the Minister. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Schedule 1 - Redress schemes: financial penalties

Title

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

I beg to move amendment 28, in title, line 5, leave out “charges and costs payable by residential”

and insert

“the relationship between residential landlords and”.

This amendment is consequential on amendments to Part 3.

This is a consequential amendment to remove the reference to part 3 in the long title of the Bill. It ensures that it provides an accurate description of the Bill’s contents to reflect the impact of the measures the Committee has brought forward. That includes the amendments to enable the first-tier tribunal to vary or discharge an order to appoint a manager of a premises without an application.

Matthew Pennycook (Labour, Greenwich and Woolwich)

On a point of order, Sir Edward, may I take the opportunity to put on record our sincere thanks to you and your colleagues in the Chair for overseeing our proceedings over recent weeks; our hard-working Clerks for their assistance; the Doorkeepers and Hansard reporters for facilitating the Committee’s work; and officials in the Department and our own staff for their support? I also briefly thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the Committee’s deliberations and debates. It is not entirely unexpected, given the uncontentious nature of the Bill; nevertheless, we very much appreciate the generally constructive and good-humoured nature of our proceedings.

Finally, I thank the Minister for his thoughtful engagement with the arguments the Opposition have made in an attempt to improve this limited Bill. He has dutifully held the line in attempting to justify the decision to resist a large number of sensible and reasonable amendments. Nevertheless, I suspect we can look forward to seeing a number of them return with the Government’s seal of approval in the Bill’s remaining stages.

Lee Rowley (Conservative, North East Derbyshire)

Further to that point of order, Sir Edward, I wish to put on record my thanks. I echo the thanks of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich to everybody who has been involved in the Bill, and I thank him and all colleagues here who have helped us get through this. I am grateful for colleagues’ time and also—even though I may not be in order in making this acknowledgment—I thank those in the Gallery who have taken the time to come here and listen. I am grateful to everyone for getting the Bill through this stage and I look forward to seeing everyone on Report.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I thank both of you for those gracious words. The Opposition spokesperson warned me at the beginning that the Bill was as dry as dust. It is certainly very complicated and you have all done extremely well in a very complex part of the law. We should all be proud of ourselves. Order.

Written evidence reported to the House