Legislating to abolish leasehold within the first 100 days of a Labour government is misguided – focus should be on meaningful change.

After the UK Government recently clarified that it does not intend to abolish the leasehold system, rightly acknowledging an unrealistic and unworkable proposal, commonhold campaigners have now turned to the Opposition to try and usher Keir Starmer towards the “wholesale” removal of freedom of choice for 4.9 million leaseholders, something Lisa Nandy has said Labour will look to do in their first 100 days of government.

With commonhold campaigners calling for the abolition of leasehold as a response to a minority of issues perpetrated by a handful of rogue actors in the sector, Labour’s adoption of this position threatens trashing a well-established form of tenure for millions across England and Wales and removing freedom of choice for consumers in lieu of responsible and proportionate reform.

The most recent article from commonhold campaigners on Labour List makes a direct appeal to the Opposition Leader on the grounds that they believe leaseholders are unable to control costs, have no right to information, and no right to object to payments. 

Yet the piece does nothing to recognise the longstanding rights that leaseholders have to request a breakdown of service charges and challenge them through a claim to the First Tier Tribunal. Instead of any suggestion that these rights can be further built upon, or that rogue actors who deny these rights should be more swiftly punished by the law, commonhold campaigners continue to purport that removing leaseholder rights and placing obligations on hundreds of tenants within a complex apartment building would restore autonomy. 

The article also fails to convey to the Opposition that the removal of leasehold will have no impact on the cost of building safety, management and maintenance for residents, and as seen in countries where commonhold is implemented, will lead to a lower quality of these services delivered to residents. Such arguments are underlined by commonhold campaigners’ continued failure to acknowledge that the building safety crisis is not attributable to form of tenure – as thoroughly evidenced by the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry. 

If Labour continues to use this false notion to justify the abolition of leasehold, it is at severe risk of further aligning itself with a policy that is simply unworkable. It also misses the fundamental point that leasehold does not need to be abolished in order for commonhold to succeed. Any campaign encouraging a prospective government to “rip up” a 400-year-old, continually evolving property ecosystem, with no time for “endlessly debated reforms” that could enshrine best-practice and hold rogue actors to account should only serve as a reminder to those in government on the need for wide-reaching consultation before pressing ahead with fundamental change.