An Open Letter to Government on The Draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill

An Open Letter to Government on The Draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill

Without a re-think we might end up creating a disaster for the very homeowners we are trying to protect

By Joe Mallon MRICS FTPI

My entire career has been spent overwhelmingly in the service of leaseholder-led blocks and estates.

The votes. The arguments. The consultations. The anger. The relief. The gratitude… yes, it does sometimes happen!

I’ve advised hundreds of resident management companies; countless recently-enfranchised buildings; taken buildings through the Right to Manage process – and acted as a diplomat between Recognised Tenants Associations and Freeholders. I’ve sat in the middle of warring factions of resident directors and presided over heated debates over how much reserve funds should be put away to protect people’s shared assets.

I’m broadly a proponent of the view that leaseholder involvement in management decisions is a good thing. I support the idea of Commonhold. But, as stated in my response to the recent government consultation (ended on 24 April 2026), I fear there are major problems with the proposed mass-roll-out of Commonhold that must be addressed.

That consultation, I’m afraid, was geared towards a narrow channel of information gathering. It left little room for thoughtful feedback on the workings of blocks of flats. Hence the need for this letter.

My broad concerns are:

1. The apparent stripping away of decades of existing Landlord & Tenant law protections for dwelling-holders
2. Limited consideration for estates that may become dominated by a tyranny of the majority – or fake majorities
3. Limited consideration given to a possible devaluation of existing leaseholder assets

Existing Protections

Since 1985, managing agents, landlords and leaseholder organisations alike have been reacting to the ever-increasing body of law which has headed in one clear direction - in favour of dwelling-holders.

These protections kick-in regardless of whether the landlord is an investor freeholder or a leaseholder community such as a Right to Manage Company. A non-exhaustive list is below:

• Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s19: service charges must be reasonably incurred.
• Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s20: consultation required for major works.
• Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s20B: 18-month limit on historic recovery.
• Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, ss21–22: right to inspect service charge records.
• Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, s21B: rights summary must accompany demands.
• Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, s24: tribunal may appoint replacement manager.
• Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, Ch 1: no-fault right to manage.
• Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, s151: administration charges must be reasonable.
• Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, Sch 11: administration charges challengeable at tribunal.
• Building Safety Act 2022, s122: remediation costs restricted for leaseholders.
• Building Safety Act 2022, Sch 8: qualifying leases receive cost protections.
• Building Safety Act 2022, s123: tribunal can order remediation works 
• Building Safety Act 2022, s130: building safety costs separately identified.

My straight-forward view is this: Do not whitewash the decades of case-law and legal work which has been built up to protect homeowners. This body of law has great value to those who dwell in flats. Do not allow an idealistic lobsided view of what democracy is to dimmish existing rights. It would be a tragedy.

The Tyranny of the Majority or ‘Fake Majority’

Too much credence is being given in the proposed system to a ‘snap voting’ on large expenditure decisions.

A majority vote alone on the running costs of the building does not consider how blocks of flats work in practice.

I agree with democratic decision-making. But, as in the wider world, democracy only works if the rights of the individual are suitably balanced against a snapshot majority vote.

Without the existing body of landlord & tenant law to protect leaseholders - an individual dwelling-holder may be at huge risk of adverse decisions.

To exacerbate this, highly motivated minorities may end up holding all the levers of power in respect of how the building is run. Working parents and shift workers often struggle to keep up with their neighbours. They may find themselves subject to the whims of a handful of people within the building who may capture the voting system without the restraint of existing leaseholder protections. In many cases, one may doubt whether a real majority decision was reached at all, based on the lack of attendance at meetings.

Consider this against the existing system. In a share of freehold resident management company, all dwelling holders have a vote over who the directors are. Those directors serve their community - but are equally subject to the vast protections put in place for individual leaseholders mentioned above. I’d ask people to compare Section 20 Consultation with a crude snap vote for example.

In my view, Section 20 represents a very effective protection for individuals - on top of the voting power they have over the board of directors. Conversely, a Commonhold Association can simply conduct a snap vote and levy huge bills on leaseholders with no apparent protection for those unable to participate in the process. I’d argue a 3-6 month consultation where dwelling-holders have access to a steady flow of information beats a snap vote in many ways.

We must not be so hasty in setting aside the ecosystem of legal precedent which has evolved around the way communal living works in practice. We must not get sucked in to an idealistic view of votes, representing a snapshot in time, being a silver bullet of fairness.

Two Tiers of Flat Ownership

If the above issues are fixed, there remains a further glaring problem with the draft bill.

As things stand it is a very real possibility that future Commonhold flat owners will enjoy an unfair advantage over existing leaseholders.

I accept Commonhold-conversion will be a possibility for existing leaseholders. But this will not be cheap or easy - despite what the idealists say. Lawyers cost money - and democratic votes are difficult and time-consuming to organise for most working people.

The big concern is that a two-tier system of ownership develops - betraying the very leaseholders that campaigners have fought for these past decades. What a shame it would be if the leaseholders who are alleged to be “trapped” in leasehold find themselves with the added burden of a less valuable tenure.

Think Carefully

I urge the government to think carefully.

My primary concern is the casting aside of existing law which has evolved around the oddities of communal living since the 1980s.

Don’t get this wrong – there will be no forgiveness from homeowners.

Thank you for reading,

Joe Mallon MRICS FTPI

Founder, The Block Coach

Co-Chairman, JFM Block & Estate Management