Why the Government must Consult with Professionals on Leasehold Reform

A year of uncertainty

The 2024 Act was billed as a watershed moment, ‘making it cheaper and easier’ for leaseholders to extend their lease or buy their freehold. Politicians made many promises, including Michael Gove’s famous claim to abolish ground rents which was very quickly watered down.  In practice, it is unfinished. Many of its headline measures - the abolition of marriage value for leases below 80 years, caps on ground rents for valuation purposes where applicable, and greater transparency on service charges - remain dormant, dependent on secondary legislation or stalled by legal challenge.

High Court proceedings brought by John Lyon’s Charity, Cadogan Group, Grosvenor Group and others argue that provisions relating to valuation including the proposed removal of marriage value and capping ground rents for valuation purposes infringe their rights to enjoy property under the Human Rights Act. Even if the first rulings are delivered this year, appeals seem inevitable. Until resolved, the government is unlikely to press ahead decisively.

The irony is that an Act designed to simplify has so far made the system more opaque and confusing creating more questions than answers. Practitioners surveyed by the Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners (ALEP) describe the Act variously as a ‘poisoned chalice’ and a ‘dog’s dinner’, reflecting the fact that transactions have slowed, costs are rising and confidence is ebbing.

The dilemma for clients

For practitioners including lawyers and surveyors, our role seems to be shifting from one of interpretation to one of prediction and guidance. Clients want advice on whether to extend their leases or to acquire freeholds now or wait. If marriage value is abolished, many leaseholders with shorter leases could save thousands. If it is not - or if deferment and capitalisation rates shift unfavourably - waiting could prove costly.

Advisers are forced into uncomfortable territory: offering guidance based not only on the law as it stands, but on political promises, uncertain timetables and hypothetical outcomes. It is an unhealthy way to run a system underpinning millions of homes.

Why consultation matters

The government insists it is acting in the public interest. Leaseholders should not face opaque charges or exploitation, and few would dispute that. But reforms made without engaging with professionals, risk unintended and damaging consequences.

There are very clear reasons why the government must consult widely with professionals: 

• Expertise and practicality: lawyers, surveyors and managing agents know how leasehold works in practice - and how reforms could disrupt it.

• Anticipating consequences: consultation can expose knock-on effects, from valuation distortions to conflicts with mortgage lending criteria.

• Evidence-based policy: practitioners can provide case studies, data and market insight.

• Enforceability: without professional input, legislation may look good on paper but fail in practice.

• Risk reduction: proper scrutiny avoids costly litigation and repeated amendments.

These are not abstract points: as the LAFRA demonstrates, without professional input, legal challenge, delayed implementation and detrimental effects on the market are inevitable.

The dangers of overreach

Leasehold is often framed in emotive terms - ‘feudal’, ‘fleecehold’, ‘unfair’. Such rhetoric, repeated by ministers themselves, risks flattening nuance into slogan. In reality, leasehold is not beyond saving. It is complex, technical and in need of reform, but it remains the legal framework that underpins the majority of flats in England and Wales.

Neither is commonhold a ready-made alternative. In principle, it offers greater fairness: no external landlord, no ground rent, but in practice, it has never gained traction. Lenders remain wary, developers have little incentive to adopt it, and buyers have limited awareness. To mandate commonhold without a phased and consultative approach would be to replace one flawed system with another untested one.

Towards constructive reform

What is needed now is not further political posturing but a pragmatic, evidence-based approach. That means:

1. Clarity before change: publish a clear timetable for consultations, secondary legislation and implementation.

2. Genuine consultation: engage with ALEP, the Law Society and others who deal with leasehold daily.

3. Sequencing reform: fix leasehold’s current defects before imposing commonhold. Competing frameworks would only deepen uncertainty.

4. Incremental improvement: greater transparency, clearer lease drafting, simplified Right to Manage, and better regulation of managing agents can deliver real benefits now.

Leasehold reform should not be about ideology. It should be about creating a system that works for leaseholders, freeholders, lenders and the wider housing market.

Conclusion: clarity, not confusion

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act was well intentioned but unfinished. Without consultation, it has created further concerns where it promised progress. The next stage must not repeat that mistake, even if that means it takes a little more time.

Reform that ignores professional expertise risks unintended consequences, prolonged litigation and erosion of trust. Reform that embraces consultation can deliver fairness, clarity and workability.

Leaseholders deserve better than ambiguity. Practitioners deserve better than guesswork. The government must now listen to those who understand leasehold in practice, not just in theory. Without doing so, it risks creating a new generation of problems while trying to solve the old.

Shabnam Ali-Khan, Partner, Russell-Cooke and a member of ALEP (Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners)