Sebastian O’Kelly and Liam Spender gave evidence.

9.50 am

Good morning and welcome to our Committee. Could you briefly introduce yourselves, and then my colleagues will have some questions? You have been listening so you know the form.Q

Sebastian O’Kelly:

I am Sebastian O’Kelly, director of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership. I am not a leaseholder; I am a commonhold owner in another jurisdiction, not in the UK.

Liam Spender:

I am Liam Spender, senior associate at Velitor Law. I am a leaseholder in London. I am also a trustee of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership.

As usual, we will start with the Opposition spokesman.

Q Gentlemen, thank you for coming to give evidence to the Committee. I could ask about a huge range of issues, but I will start with ground rents.

Various provisions in the Bill touch on ground rents. You will know, for example, that schedule 2 imposes a 0.1% cap on their treatment in valuation. Clause 21 and schedule 7 deal with existing ground rents and how we will treat those. What are your views on the fact that those provisions provide leaseholders with the enfranchisement right to buy out their ground rent under a very long residential lease, but we also have the consultation ongoing with five options? How do those provisions interact? Why have the Government specified an option in clause 21 for a particular type of very long residential lease, while we also have this consultation ongoing and, in theory, a commitment to bring forward further measures that apply to all existing ground rents? Does clause 21 in the Bill as drafted make sense to you?

Sebastian O’Kelly:

Not especially. We are eager to hear the result of the consultation on ground rents. We very much support the peppercorn ground rent option and are delighted that the chairs of the all-party parliamentary group also support that. It would be a game-changing measure if that did come about—frankly, stripping out the one legitimate income stream in this ghastly system—but I can see that, as a precautionary measure, you might have that 0.1% provision in the Bill for dealing with enfranchisement. It will assist with some of the enfranchisements where you have very onerous ground rents.

Liam Spender:

I agree; it is not clear why the 150-year threshold has been chosen. As far as I understand it, the Law Commission did not consider that in its work. That might be something that could be fruitfully explored in this Committee’s more detailed work.

Q I have two other brief questions. The Bill does not include provision to ban new leasehold houses. If the Government’s intention, as I think has been made clear, is to bring those provisions forward through Government amendments in Committee or on Report—at a later stage—what should they look like? In your view, should we look for those Government amendments to do or not to do particular things?

On the right to manage, only eight of the 101 Law Commission recommendations on right to manage have found their way into the Bill. We face the issue that Mr Boyd referred to—we could add in many more provisions to the Bill. Are there any specific RTM recommendations from the Law Commission that it would be really worthwhile to try to incorporate into the Bill?

Sebastian O’Kelly:

In relation to leasehold houses, it is a bit of an embarrassing omission that the proposal is not there. The spreading of leasehold houses around the country simply to extract more cash from the unwitting consumers who had purchased houses from our plc house builders was a national scandal, actually, and it was frankly a try-on too far and caused a huge amount of kerfuffle. There will be times when you would have to build a leasehold house—when the builder does not actually own the land—but they are very isolated cases, and largely this scam has self-corrected through the adverse publicity.

On the right to manage, one of the most egregious issues is where groups of leaseholders have attempted to get a right to manage and have been hit for extortionate legal costs, where their petition for right to manage has been resisted by the landlord. There are certain landlords out there who always, always, unfailingly take this through the legal steps. They rack up legal costs, but of course they can get that back through the service charge. That is an issue that I urge is the worst deterrent to right to manage.

Liam Spender:

The lack of right to manage for fleecehold estates—for estates subject to management schemes—is one of the most obvious omissions in the Bill. The Law Commission did an awful lot of work on how to improve the process for multi-block sites, particularly following the Supreme Court decision two years ago on Settlers Court. I think that is another missed opportunity.

Q Mr O’Kelly, you are one of a large number of leaseholders who has been adversely impacted by your personal situation. If I am correct, what has happened in your case is that your freeholder has used the service charges from you and others in the block to take you to court—it is an appalling situation. You have updated the APPG and others. For the Committee’s benefit, will you say how much you are out of pocket and whether the provisions in the Bill will address the issues that you have faced and will face in the future?

Sebastian O’Kelly:

This is for Liam really, because I am not a leaseholder at all; it is Liam’s court case.

Sorry, I was looking at Mr Spender and I misspoke.

Liam Spender:

I quite understand anyone being distracted by Mr O’Kelly. Thank you for the question. In our case to date, the freeholder has put £54,000 of its legal costs through the service charge. It did so in breach of a section 20C order, which is the current restriction that is supposed to prevent landlords from doing so. We complained and got most of that money back, but they have served something called a section 20B notice: they intend to recover the costs in the future if they prevail on appeal, by which point we could be looking at a substantial six-figure sum. This is all to do with us fighting to get back unreasonable service charges.

We are currently owed about £450,000—to give a round number—pending appeal. There is an appeal in April and I am carrying the burden of doing all that work myself. I quite understand why leaseholders without legal training give up and things will fall by the wayside. The system is very much stacked in landlords’ favour.

The cost provisions in the Bill are welcome. As you probably know, they changed the default so that the landlord has to ask for their costs. The issue is what has been created as a just and equitable jurisdiction; the tribunal can do what it thinks is fair in the circumstances. I believe—I think many people who have much more knowledge of this than I do would agree—that what that will mean in practice is probably that the tribunal will be inclined to give landlords their costs if they have won the case, so it will not change anything.

The other problem is that the first-tier tribunal considers itself a no-cost jurisdiction, and that is a generational way of thinking, so that has to be overcome and it has to get into the mindset of awarding costs to leaseholders and against landlords. Provisions could be included in the Bill that would make that that process easier—for example, prescribing a regime of fixed costs as applied to other low-value civil litigation. It is not a magic bullet, but I think that would be better than the current provisions in the Bill.

Q Is there anything else you would like in the Bill that is missing at the moment?

Sebastian O’Kelly:

We would like to see a commitment to mandatory commonhold for new builds, frankly. How many more times are we going to try to reform the leasehold system? How many goes have we had at this since the 1960s? If you keep having to reform leasehold, is the answer not that it does not work? Why do you want this third-party investor—now, invariably, somebody offshore—hitching a ride on the value of somebody else’s home? It is a nonsense. One Duke of Westminster we can accept—the political continuity of our country maybe allows a freehold such as that—but we will create 1,000 of them with this. It is a nonsense. Bring it to an end and bring us in touch with the rest of the world—that is my statement.

Right, that is very clear.

Can I just pick up your comment to Rachel Maclean a moment ago on the legal aspect that you are fighting? Can you outline to the Committee what unreasonable service costs you are fighting to recover in court?Q

Liam Spender:

Yes, happily. The main items in dispute are our intercom, car park gates and barriers. Our satellite TV dishes are rented in perpetuity; they were costing £240,000 a year, which is somewhere between 10 and 20 times what they should cost. The reason for that is that the developer chose to enter into a long-term rental and maintenance contract. That contract has never actually been—the technical term is “novated”—transferred to the current landlord, so there is no legal obligation on the current landlord to pay those costs at all. However, the landlord has dug in, so we are more than two and a half years into a service charge dispute. We prevailed in the first instance—that was the largest single item we won—and we must fight an appeal in April, and potentially another one after that, depending on what the landlord chooses to do.

Q Just so I am clear, at the point that you purchased the flat, did you know that those sorts of service charges would recur on an annual basis?

Liam Spender:

I knew the general amount of service charges. I was not aware that there was a perpetual maintenance contract, because it was not disclosed in the searches.

Q Mr Spender, I want to ask you about what I find to be one of the more complicated aspects of the Bill: the leaseback arrangements. Nominee purchasers can require a landlord to take a leaseback on certain units. Those are the units that, in an enfranchisement process, are not participating in the enfranchisement. You might have a block of 100 units, and 30 of them do not go in with the leaseholders who want to enfranchise. At the moment, they are then, in perpetuity, leaseholders, are they not? They cannot ever enfranchise because the others have already enfranchised. Should there not be a provision in the Bill to enable those locked-in leaseholders—if they have the money in future, because many times it will be because they did not have the money available at the time to participate—to buy their share of the enfranchisement?

Liam Spender:

I agree; you have summarised it very well. To borrow a loose analogy from company law, there is something called a tag-along right. If someone comes along and buys a certain proportion of shares in a company, the other shareholders can exercise the right to tag along to join the purchase. That could be adapted to those who do not participate in an initial enfranchisement to address exactly the issue that you raise.

Q Grand. If I can pursue that area, at the moment, the lease is granted to the demoted freeholder—so they become the head leaseholder, perhaps, and the other leaseholders are now subject to the head leaseholder. Their contract was always with the previous freeholder, who is now the head leaseholder. Should there not be some provision in the Bill that requires those minority leaseholders, who are still in a relationship with the former freeholder, to actually pay their service charge to the new freeholder? But there is not, is there?

Liam Spender:

I think the provisions introduce a degree of complexity into buildings because, exactly as you say, you are creating a new class of landlord. That could be solved by—

Q But the specific question I want to probe with you is whether there is any provision in the Bill to require the minority leaseholders who did not enfranchise to pay their service charge to the new freeholder, namely the majority who enfranchised. I cannot see where that contractual obligation lies in the Bill. All I can see is that they will continue to have a relationship with the previous freeholder.

Liam Spender:

That is right: there is no statutory mechanism to transfer to the newly enfranchised freeholders.

Q So you think the Committee should look at that very carefully.

Liam Spender:

The Bill creates a lot of new areas of complexity, and that is certainly one that would merit detailed attention.

Well, gentlemen, I think that is it. Thank you very much.