10 months ago | 1 comments
The current leasehold redress system is deterring leaseholders from pursuing and resolving complaints, an organisation has warned.
The Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) has revealed that leaseholders are not escalating complaints because the process appears too time-consuming and stressful.
The news comes as the government have announced plans to cap ground rents to £250 a year in older leases.
Martin Boyd, chair of LEASE, said: “While there are multiple routes to redress, we know that in practice, the system is difficult to navigate. This leaves many leaseholders feeling confused and unsupported at the point they most need clarity.
“Too often, leaseholders disengage because they can’t identify the right avenue quickly or the process feels uncertain and time-consuming.
“By working together across the sector, we can provide increased clarity on the different paths for redress, make the journey easier for leaseholders when they need it.
“We will also continue to engage with government around the need for wider, more structural reform to ensure there is suitable redress in place for all leaseholders and that the relevant bodies have the powers to enforce decisions.”
According to the English Housing Survey, two-thirds (67%) of leaseholders who had complained about management of their property to their managing agent or landlord were not happy with the response they received and 78% of those dissatisfied leaseholders then chose not to escalate their complaint further.
A survey done by LEASE revealed that the top considerations when escalating a property issue are the likelihood of action, the impact on service charges, the guidance available, and the cost.
LEASE say they will work with the sector to develop practical and effective tools, making it easier for leaseholders to access relevant information on their property and routes to redress. This will include guidance on alternative dispute resolution and how to navigate courts and tribunals.
Sean Hooker, head of redress, property redress, said: “We welcome this report, having been part of the process, and look forward to the government taking on board the findings and turning them into action. Whilst there are no quick fixes, this is a vital piece of work in identifying the gaps and tackling the longstanding, deep-seated weaknesses in the route to redress for leaseholders.
“What is needed is a redress landscape that is fair to all. This includes not only long-suffering leaseholders, but also property managers who are trying to deliver a quality service in an increasingly challenging, complex and costly environment, as well as freeholders and landlords who, whilst often seen as holding the power in the relationship, need clear direction in order to invest in and improve the property stock they own.”
Every day, landlords who want to influence policy and share real-world experience add their voice here. Your perspective helps keep the debate balanced.
Not a member yet? Join In Seconds
Login with
Previous Article
Pepper Money among BTL lenders cutting ratesNext Article
Landlords raise rents due to legislative uncertainty
10 months ago | 1 comments
1 year ago | 4 comments
Sorry. You must be logged in to view this form.
Member Since June 2019 - Comments: 781
11:06 AM, 21st February 2026, About 2 months ago
I really feel that the ground rent and service charge issues are being confused by the press
, I had to tell a friend that the proposed £250 max had essentially no impact on her service charge.
Member Since November 2024 - Comments: 2
9:08 AM, 22nd February 2026, About 2 months ago
LEASE only assist leaseholders.
The freehold owners and managing agents get no assistance at all.
Nobody will acknowledge or comment on the criminal leaseholders.
We have had internal walls demolished and failure to pay correctly legally served service charge demands.
Failure to permit access, no responses to communication…
The only option we have is either application to the ombudsman, which is time consuming, lengthy and frustrating as they have no power, or courts whereby solicitors fees are extortionate.
When will the freeholder who has the legal obligation to pay for full compliance, maintenance and insurance…be considered for support against criminals whose property values increase despite paying nothing towards the upkeep of the fabric of the building.
Not all freeholders are wealthy corporations with access to barristers.
Right to manage directors are a waste of space, as they have no idea what they are doing and also refuse to engage when they are challenged.
[For context, an adjoining building to ours is in disrepair and affecting ours, their freeholder does nothing as their is a RTM company].
The outcry for legislation is against the new build property developers.
We are all lumped together.