Leasehold Enfranchisement Made Easier

At a mere 41 words, it is one of the shortest acts to come before Parliament for almost 100 years - the shortest being The Parliament (Qualification of Women Act) 1918 at 27 words - and consists of only one section:

In section 99(5)(a) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (requirement for notice under section 13 or 42 of that Act to be signed by tenants or tenant personally) after “42” insert “in respect of premises in Wales”.

So why the change? This is aimed principally at vulnerable tenants who are physically or mentally unable to sign notices - the previous provisions at section 99 precluded a signature on their behalf, even by a Power of Attorney.

How often this situation arose in practice is not well documented, but the requirement for a personal signature from the tenant could have been capable of challenge under the Human Rights Act, which is always bound to ring alarm bells in Parliament.

The real problem for tenants and their advisers is where there is a claim for collective enfranchisement and a single notice served under Section 13 of the Act has to be signed personally by each and every participating tenant.

This can prove difficult when there is a large number of tenants participating in a claim for the freehold of a substantial block of flats. In addition, after the residence test was replaced in 2002, some of the participating tenants may own their flats as second, or even third homes, so that signatures have to be obtained from people who live abroad, leading to inevitable delays.

The amendment will no doubt have the effect, after 13 May 2014, of accelerating the service of notices relating to properties in England - fixing the valuation date far earlier than might otherwise be the case. While this will benefit tenants in the current property climate, this is another amendment to the 1993 Act which further undermines the ability of landlords to protect valuable property assets.