header-logo header-logo

12 December 2018
Issue: 7821 / Categories: Legal News , Property
printer mail-detail

Commonhold could provide a once in a generation opportunity

The burdens of leasehold ownership could be overcome, under radical property reforms proposed by the Law Commission.

Commonhold was introduced in 2002 but fewer than 20 commonhold developments have been built. It is also difficult to convert leasehold premises to commonhold as the consent of everyone with a significant interest in the property is required.

In a paper published this week, Reinvigorating Commonhold, however, the Law Commission suggests ways to make commonhold a more popular way to own property.

Under commonhold, a person can own a freehold flat and at the same time be a member of the company which owns and manages the shared areas and the structure of the building. Leaseholders, on the other hand, pay a service charge set by the landlord and must renew their lease after a certain number of years.

Commonhold’s benefits are that owners own their property outright whereas leases expire and can be costly to renew; there is no landlord and, instead, owners can make decisions about the shared areas together; there is no ground rent; there is no risk of forfeiture; and standard rules would apply, making conveyancing simpler.

The Law Commission proposes: allowing a commonhold development to include commercial as well as residential properties; making it easier to convert from leasehold to commonhold; increasing public confidence in commonhold; and replacing service charges set by a landlord with commonhold contributions approved by a majority of owners.

Professor Nick Hopkins, Law Commissioner, said: ‘Commonhold provides a once in a generation opportunity to rethink how we own property… and offers homeowners an alternative system to leasehold.

The deadline for responses to the consultation is 10 March 2019.

Issue: 7821 / Categories: Legal News , Property
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll