The Leaseholder Reform Act 2024 has been heralded as a turning point in English property law—a bold step to finally free homeowners from the shackles of an exploitative leasehold system. If you’ve ever felt frustrated by the spiraling ground rents, hidden fees, and opaque service charges that have long plagued leaseholders, then this Act seemed like a breath of fresh air. But as the dust settles, it’s clear that while the reform tackles many longstanding issues, it also leaves a host of new and lingering problems that continue to cause frustration.
For a bit of context, the leasehold system in England has always been a tricky beast. Traditionally, when you bought a property on a leasehold basis, you were essentially renting the land for a set number of years—often with fees that could double without warning. Previous reforms, like those in 1967 and 1993, tried to address these issues, but they never really hit the mark. By the time the “leasehold scandal” erupted over the last decade, it was apparent that more radical action was needed. Enter the 2024 Act—a law that, among other things, promises a 990-year lease extension with a token peppercorn ground rent and abolishes the notorious “marriage value” penalty that used to slice into your home’s worth.
At first glance, these changes are nothing short of revolutionary. For leaseholders, the idea of a nearly perpetual lease with minimal ground rent sounds like a dream come true. And removing the two-year waiting period to extend your lease or buy your freehold? That’s a relief to anyone who’s ever felt like they were stuck waiting for the clock to run out on their home’s value.
However, the devil, as they say, is in the details. One of the more promising aspects of the Act is the introduction of the Right to Manage (RTM), which is designed to give leaseholders a say in how their building is run. Yet, even here the reality is less than ideal. The Act’s definition of a “block” is vague at best, leaving many leaseholders wondering who exactly gets to join the RTM process. Even when an RTM is successfully established, residents only gain control over the day-to-day management of the block. The freeholder retains the ultimate authority to appoint the managing agent, which means you might end up with several different managers operating on the same site. This fragmented control can lead to confusion, with overlapping responsibilities and conflicting fee structures that do little to solve the very problems RTM was meant to address.
The challenges don’t stop there. In large developments, the process of mobilizing an RTM vote becomes a logistical nightmare. Data protection laws prevent managing agents from sharing residents’ contact details, making it nearly impossible to gather the necessary support for a vote. Without a reliable way to communicate with hundreds of neighbors, many leaseholders are left powerless to challenge the status quo—even if they’re all on the same page about the need for change.
Meanwhile, freehold houses in developments with shared estate services face their own set of issues. Despite owning their properties outright, these homeowners have no effective means of controlling the charges imposed for communal services. Unlike leaseholders in blocks who can eventually use RTM to assert some level of control, freehold owners in such settings are often excluded from these provisions entirely. They have to live with the fact that estate charges are determined without their input, a situation that only adds to the sense of disempowerment that has long characterized parts of the housing market.
And then there’s the lingering problem of leasehold houses. Even though the sale of new leasehold houses has been banned, the existing ones are far from being rescued by the 2024 reforms. In many cases, these older leasehold properties are left vulnerable to issues like the doubling of ground rents—a financial pitfall that can only be avoided by going through the expensive and complex process of extending the lease. This not only leaves current owners in a precarious position but also makes these properties less attractive to mortgage lenders, further devaluing what could otherwise be a sound investment.
While the Act undoubtedly marks progress, it is not a panacea. There are still too many grey areas and unresolved issues that threaten to leave many homeowners in a state of perpetual frustration. The promise of a fairer, more transparent leasehold system is there, but the execution is hampered by legal ambiguities and practical obstacles. The very mechanisms meant to empower leaseholders—like RTM—can sometimes result in patchy control and additional layers of bureaucracy that fail to deliver real change.
The Leaseholder Reform Act 2024 is, therefore, a mixed bag. It offers significant improvements over the old system, especially for those who have long suffered under the weight of escalating fees and opaque management practices. Yet, it also leaves a legacy of problems that will need further refinement and additional legislative action to fully resolve. For many homeowners, the new law is a step in the right direction, but it is not the end of the journey. Real freedom from the complexities of leasehold ownership remains a work in progress—a long road with many bumps along the way.
In the end, while the 2024 Act signals a new era in property law, it’s clear that the battle for truly fair homeownership is far from over. The reform provides hope and some practical benefits, but it also lays bare the challenges that still need to be tackled. As the industry and lawmakers work to iron out these wrinkles, leaseholders must remain vigilant, advocating for further improvements to ensure that the promise of lasting reform is fully realized.
