Further Government and Parliamentary activity
Further Government and Parliamentary activity
In October 2018, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (“MHCLG”) published a consultation paper, “Implementing reforms to the leasehold system in England”. The Ministerial foreword contained the familiar references to “homes” and “home ownership”, but also referred to “taking a fundamental look at the way the leasehold market works with fresh eyes to make sure people have a choice of housing tenure that works for them, rather than accepting carte blanche the way things have been done in the past.” The consultation related to proposed controls on the use of leasehold in newbuild houses, including ground rents.
The aim of the HCLGSC Report was to build on the Law Commission’s work, including assessing whether the reforms proposed by the Government at the time went far enough. Evidence was submitted to the Select Committee on behalf of some of the claimants in the present claim. The HCLGSC Report contained a number of references to “leaseholders as consumers” or “occupiers”, but also as “customers”. Leases were referred to as a “wasting asset” ([10]), and the report referred to a desire to replace leasehold with commonhold ([42]-[43]). The report made certain factual findings on which both sides have sought to rely. As they relate to disputed factual matters, we accept the Speaker’s submission that they cannot be relied upon for the purpose of establishing the truth of any of the facts stated (see ALR Annex B at [88]).
In June 2019, the Government published a summary of consultation responses and the Government’s response in relation to the MHCLG consultation on reforms to the leasehold system in England launched in October 2018. Having taken into account responses to a proposal that ground rent be capped as a general rule at a maximum value of £10 a year, the Government stated that it would “legislate to restrict ground rents to a peppercorn (zero financial value) in future leases” ([3.10]). It took the view that generally, ground rent is unconnected to any maintenance obligations, which are instead financed through service charges ([3.11]).
The Government responded to the HCLGSC Report in July 2019, noting that the Law Commission will “recommend reforms to make the enfranchisement process simpler, easier, quicker and cheaper, including setting out the options that are available to reduce the premiums payable by tenants, whilst ensuring that sufficient compensation is paid to landlords” ([96]).
- Heading
- Lord Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Foxton This judgment is set out under the following headings
- The parties
- The issues raised by the parties
- The legislative history
- The LFRA 2024
- Article 1 of the First Protocol – the legal principles The approach of UK courts to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights
- The structure of A1P1
- James v United Kingdom
- Strasbourg jurisprudence after James
- Are the effects of the wasting asset problem priced into the premia for residential leaseholds?
- Proportionality in domestic law – general principles
- Assessing the aims of a measure and its justification
- The width of the margin of appreciation
- General rules or bright lines
- Less intrusive measures
- The ab ante principle
- Indirect discrimination
- The requirement for compensation to be reasonably related to the value of the property taken
- The concept of market value
- The evolution of the measures under challenge
- The Law Commission embarks on a further leasehold reform project
- Contributions from Government and Parliament
- The Law Commission Consultation Paper No.238
- Further Government and Parliamentary activity
- The Law Commission Valuation Report (No.387)
- CMA involvement
- The Law Commission Enfranchisement Report (No.392)
- The Government moves towards legislation
- The Impact Assessment
- The Bill
- The ECHR Memorandum
- Engagement by the claimants in the reform process
- After the LFRA 2024 was enacted
- Estimates of the impact of the measures The material before the court
- The challenge to the IA and Addendum IA
- The aims of the measures The rival cases as to the objects of the LFRA 2024
- The legislation
- Hansard
- The statutory interventions prior to the LFRA 2024
- The material from 2016 to the enactment of the LFRA 2024
- Conclusions as to objects
- Are the measures rationally connected with the identified objects?
- The Ground Rent Cap
- The background
- Whether the objects which the Ground Rent Cap was intended to achieve could have been achieved by a less intrusive measure
- The “fair balance” assessment
- Conclusion
- The Marriage Value Reform
- Marriage value and the problem of the tenant’s lease as a wasting asset
- Consideration of marriage value in documents leading to the LFRA 2024
- Aims
- The claimants’ arguments on the justification for the Marriage Value Reform
- Whether the objects which the Marriage Value Reform was intended to achieve could have been achieved by a less intrusive measure
- The “fair balance” assessment
- The submissions of John Lyon’s Charity on the Marriage Value Reform
- Conclusion
- The Costs Recovery Reform
- Aims and justification
- Fair balance assessment
- Conclusion
- The cumulative effect of the measures
- Whether the non-exclusion of charities from the measures violates A1P1? Introduction
- Consideration of the effect of enfranchisement reform on charities prior to the enactment of the LFRA 2024
- The effect on landlords with charitable status
- The case for the Portal Trust Introduction
- The pre-legislative and legislative process
- The objects of the LFRA 2024
- Conclusions
![[2025] EWHC 2751 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)