The ECHR Memorandum
The ECHR Memorandum
The ECHR Memorandum on the Bill, as amended at the House of Commons Committee stage, was published on 16 February 2024 (“the ECHR Memorandum”). This addressed the leasehold residential sector as a whole. It referred to the limited control of many leaseholders, their exposure to “the risk of abuse and bad practice”, “lack of transparency”, escalating ground rents and unfair lease terms, and barriers to enfranchisement ([2]-[4]). The ECHR Memorandum contained the now-familiar statement at [6]:
“Government intervention is needed to help rebalance power in the market and empower leaseholds to take greater control of the homes they have paid for, whilst maintaining the legitimate rights of landlords/freeholders.”
At [18], the document referred to “the Government’s aim of improving access to enfranchisement for all leaseholders and simplifying the enfranchisement process.”
At [10], the ECHR Memorandum explained that, in the Government’s view, the measures in the Bill were compliant with the ECHR and, in particular, A1P1. Mandatory leasebacks furthered the Government’s policy aims of “making collective enfranchisement more accessible and affordable for leaseholders” [33] and the right to a 990-year lease pursued “a legitimate policy aim of addressing the historic imbalance between freeholders/landlords” [35]. The ECHR Memorandum explained that “all premium valuation and calculation reforms will engage A1P1 as they are measures determining the level of compensation that a freeholder/landlord will be paid for the loss or change of their proprietary rights.” “They are nevertheless compliant as they balance fairness to leaseholders against the legitimate rights of landlords/freeholders, and pursue legitimate aims ….” [38]. As to the individual measures in issue here:
The abolition of marriage and hope value was said to be A1P1-compatible because the price payable is still “reasonably related” to the value of the property, with the reduced premiums “justified and proportionate in light of the legitimate aims of reducing the premium payable by leaseholders to enfranchise, addressing historic imbalance between leaseholders and freeholders, and simplifying the enfranchisement process”[40];
The Ground Rent Cap engaged A1P1 but was proportionate and justified because it “will increase access to enfranchisement, make leasehold properties easier to sell (or to obtain a mortgage over), and remove the current inequality between leaseholders with high or escalating ground rents and those without” [45];
Removing the tenant’s obligation to pay the landlord’s non-litigation costs of enfranchisement engaged A1P1 but any interference has the legitimate aims of “addressing historic imbalance between freeholders and leaseholders, ensuring fairness for leaseholders and making the enfranchisement process less complex and expensive. The measures are rationally connected to those aims” [66].
On 27 February 2024, the Bill went through the Report stage, followed by Third Reading in the House of Commons.
The Bill was then considered by the House of Lords. The First and Second Readings in the House of Lords took place on 28 February 2024 and 27 March 2024 respectively. The committee stage in the House of Lords followed over four days between 22 April 2024 and 1 May 2024. During the debate on 24 April 2024, the Bishop of Manchester introduced an amendment to exempt charities from the removal of marriage value (Amendment 28), which was ultimately withdrawn. During the debate on 24 May 2024, Lord Howard introduced amendments providing for “grandfathering” in relation to marriage value (Amendments 21 and 22), which were ultimately withdrawn or not moved. The Lords Committee stage completed on 1 May 2024.
On 22 May 2024, it was announced that a general election would be held on 4 July 2024. This triggered a short “wash up” period of two days before the prorogation of Parliament on 24 May 2024. The Bill completed its final stages (the Report stage and Third Reading in the House of Lords and Commons’ consideration of the Lords’ amendments) on 24 May 2024 and received Royal Assent on the same day.
- 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)