The Government moves towards legislation
The Government moves towards legislation
On 23 October 2020, officials advised the Minister as to the “importance of establishing the overarching aim for policies on enfranchisement valuation, and the relevance of that aim to defending a potential legal challenge from freeholders”, and recommended agreeing to:
“The overarching aim, which is consistent with previous Government messaging on the purpose of reforming enfranchisement and states that whilst freeholder interests are taken into account, the Government is addressing historic imbalance to ensure fairness for leaseholders.”
This aim was reiterated at para.10 and was said to be consistent with statements made by Government since 2017. It included the reduction of the price payable by a leaseholder to buy a freehold or extend his lease (para.12) and “ensuring that a leaseholder can own and use their property without fearing that it will become unsellable without payment of a large premium” (para.13). The submission noted that the Law Commission’s valuation report “contains options that can be put together in different ways to form a package”. The briefing made it plain that a fair balance had to be struck between the interests of landlords and tenants for the purposes of A1P1 (para. 7) and that Ministers had a spectrum of options for striking that balance between landlords and tenants differently (para.14). The recommended aim reduced premiums where possible while resulting in a premium for landlords representing a market value (para.14). Ministers approved the recommendation.
Also on 23 October 2020, officials provided a further submission to Ministers “to consider options for reforming valuation methodology”:
This document is to be read in the light of the other submission of the same date and the overarching aims already identified by Government;
The submission stated, “As set out in the accompanying submission on the aims of the valuation package, we are taking forward a comprehensive programme of reform to end unfair practices in the leasehold housing market.” It was noted that the decision on which option to choose was “likely to be determined in part by your views on the overall purpose of reforms”;
The recommendation was to “simplify and speed up the enfranchisement process, make it more cost effective and reduce the price payable by leaseholders” by adopting the Law Commission’s Scheme 1 (removing marriage and hope value), capping ground rents at 0.1% and certain other recommendations;
Scheme 1 was recommended: it “brings about the most benefits for leaseholders and results in a valuation that can be considered to reflect market value, because it is the value that the freeholder would receive if the lease ran its course” (Annex 2);
The 0.1% Ground Rent Cap was recommended “to assist existing leaseholders” against a background of a legislative plan to ensure future leases were at peppercorn rents, on the basis “this would not affect most valuations but would significantly help those leaseholders with onerous ground rents”;
Annex 2 recommended that the valuation should assume that the tenant is never in the market as this option “brings about the most benefits for leaseholders and results in a valuation which can be considered to reflect market value”. At the same time it provided for a landlord the market value he would receive if the lease, a time-limited asset, were to run its full course;
Annex 4, which set out recommendations on ground rent, noted that landlords, valuers and some lawyers were opposed to the proposals, while leaseholders supported them. It stated that the proposal which had gained the most support was option 2 (capping ground rent at 0.1% of the freehold value) which would “offer significant support to leaseholders with onerous ground rents who currently find enfranchisement prohibitively expensive”;
The submission recommended against “differential pricing” as a means of achieving a lower valuation for certain types of leaseholder. While recognising that “there are some benefits, particularly in helping ‘ordinary homeowners’ over investors”, in practice there were likely to be difficulties in differentiation, and “unintended consequences”. It is to be noted that this proposal was discussed in the context of a suggestion of enabling “lower valuations”;
Annex 6 on differential pricing noted that “introducing a different approach for owner occupiers could only be justified if the overall policy intention is to benefit ordinary householders”, whereas the accompanying submission advised that a different, and broader, policy objective be adopted. Differential pricing would be difficult to implement and have unintended consequences. The submission, therefore, identified two different types of objection to this suggestion: that it would not be consistent with the recommended object of the legislation and it would be difficult to formulate and implement;
On 28 October 2020 the Secretary of State approved the Law Commission’s Scheme 1, and so the three reform measures came to be included in the Bill which resulted in the LFRA 2024.
While these materials would not have been available to Parliament when the LFRA 2024 was passed, they formed the basis of a press release published by the Government on 7 January 2021, announcing that it would be giving effect to reforms identified by the Law Commission in its Valuation Report, including “abolishing prohibitive costs such as ‘marriage value’” and setting rates used to calculate the enfranchisement premium “to ensure this is fairer, cheaper and more transparent”. The statement said that “millions of leaseholders” would be given the right to extend their leases by 990 years. The statement referred to “fundamentally making home ownership fairer and more secure” and quoted the Secretary of State, the Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP, as saying “these reforms provide fairness for 4.5 million leaseholders and chart a course to a new system” (i.e. the entire pool of leasehold owners, including 1.8 million private landlords in the private rental sector). The statement included passages about leasehold generally (e.g. “under the current law, many people face high ground rents, which combined with a mortgage, can make it feel like they are paying rent on a property they own”). It also referred to leaseholders’ “homes” (e.g. “those who dream of fully owning their own home”) without suggesting that the object of the reforms was limited to owner-occupiers. The Government also announced that it was “establishing a Commonhold Council - a partnership of leasehold groups, industry and Government - that will prepare homeowners and the market for the widespread take-up of commonhold.”
On 11 January 2021, the Secretary of State introduced the Government’s proposed reforms in a Written Statement. This referred to “reforms to how we hold property … and the beginning of an even more fundamental change to English property law, through the widespread introduction of the Commonhold tenure.” The Secretary of State said:
“The Law Commission have now completed this work and their findings are clear. Under the current system, too many leaseholders find the process for extending their lease or buying their freehold prohibitively expensive, too complex and lacking transparency. I am addressing this, addressing historic imbalance to ensure fairness for leaseholders, whilst taking account of the legitimate rights of freeholders. I will continue to ensure we meet this objective as we bring forward reforms.”
The Government committed to a number of reforms, including the removal of marriage value, capping the treatment of ground rents at 0.1% of the freehold value and prescribing rates. The programme of reform was intended to “fundamentally enhance the fairness of English property rights.”
Work on the IA began in October 2021. In her witness statement at paras. 104 –122, Ms Crowther describes the lengthy and detailed work undertaken to collect and analyse data and to build and develop an evidence base and model for carrying out the IA and sensitivity analysis. The preparation and carrying out of the assessment was a long and iterative process.
In January 2022, the Government published a consultation paper “Reforming the Leasehold and Commonhold Systems in England and Wales” (“DLUHC Consultation January 2022”), which consulted on the Law Commission’s reports published in July 2020 concerning the non-residential limit for collective enfranchisement, right to manage claims and individual freehold acquisitions, the introduction of mandatory leasebacks, commonhold voting rights and the provision of information during the sale of a commonhold property. The Ministerial foreword referred to “homes” and “home ownership”, to the fact that “we do not have a leasehold system fit for the future, that works for leaseholders as well as freeholders”, and to “the historic imbalance” on which that system was built. Both themes are also evident in section 2 (“Introduction and background”). On the aims of the reform the statement said at [15] that:
“Government’s aims in this area are to address the historic imbalance as between the rights of freeholders and of leaseholders, ensuring fairness for leaseholders, whilst taking into account the legitimate rights of freeholders ... ”
The Law Commission’s recommendations and rationale in respect of non-litigation costs were put to the then Housing Minister in a ministerial submission dated 13 December 2022 (which would not have been before Parliament when the LFRA 2024 was enacted). The submission recommended making it “cheaper and easier for leaseholders to enfranchise” or to exercise “their RTM” (right to manage) by a general rule that leaseholders exercising those rights would not pay their landlord’s non-litigation costs, subject to the three exceptions which were included in the LFRA 2024. The basis for the recommendation was that (i) landlords were unfairly compensated in enfranchisement transactions when compared with “other” open market transactions (it being the Government’s position that the reformed enfranchisement process would be a form of “open market” transaction) and (ii) making tenants pay the landlords’ costs was a significant barrier to enfranchisement, with such costs being difficult to predict. The Annex contained a table of the Law Commission’s recommendations, the advice and the “rationale” for each recommendation. The rationale for the proposed reform to non-litigation costs was “the LC’s recommendation would meet our objectives for the leasehold reform regime by reducing the cost of enfranchisement for leaseholders and removing one of the barriers currently deterring leaseholders from bringing ENF claims.” The Minister agreed to the recommendation on 19 December 2022.
The Leasehold and Freehold Bill was announced in the King’s Speech on 7 November 2023, in which His Majesty confirmed that “My Ministers will bring forward a bill to reform the housing market by making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders to purchase their freehold and tackling the exploitation of millions of homeowners through punitive service charges.”
The notes published together with the speech explained further that “The Bill will make the long-term and necessary changes to improve home ownership for millions of leaseholders in England and Wales, by making it cheaper and easier for more leaseholders to extend their lease, buy their freehold, and take over management of their building”. Under the heading “What does the Bill do?” the notes stated “Empowering leaseholders: Making it cheaper and easier for existing leaseholders in houses and flats to extend their lease or buy their freehold - so that leaseholders pay less to gain security over the future of their home”.
On 10 October 2023, a pre-submission meeting took place with officials from the Regulatory Policy Committee (“RPC”). On 23 October 2023, Ministerial approval was given for the IA to be formally submitted to the RPC. Further approval was obtained a week later following a change to the headline figures in the previous version of the IA.
- 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)