HC Deb 27 January 1959 vol 598 cc858-9
5. Mr. Darling

asked the Attorney-General whether he will consider the legal consequences arising when the ground rents of divided leasehold estates of dwelling houses are not equitably apportioned among the buyers of the houses and the whole rent of the estate is, without warning or explanation, charged to an individual house-owner; and if he will take steps to bring to an end a legal custom which is causing hardship to house-owners in some districts.

The Attorney-General

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the apportionment of ground rents without the consent of the ground landlord. I am not aware that hardship is being caused by any custom having the force of law, and I do not, therefore, consider that any action by me is called for.

Mr. Darling

Is the Attorney-General aware that the practice of charging the whole of the ground rent of leasehold houses to one purchaser in a group of houses is becoming more widespread and is causing concern to the building societies? Does he not think it grossly unfair that without any warning or explanation a person buying a house should be suddenly charged the ground rent of a group of houses instead of having the rent fairly apportioned?

The Attorney-General

I am certain that a person buying a house in the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman ought normally to receive a warning and know the liabilities he is incurring. He is dealing with a question where the land the subject of a ground lease is apportioned. Every person to whom land is apportioned is in law responsible for the ground rent, but I understand that in practice in some parts it is not a custom having the force of law. The person who holds the last bit of that land is looked to by the ground lessor for the ground rent for which he is liable in law. If he makes the apportionment with the other occupants of that land without the landlord's consent and agreement, it does not seem to me that he has so much about which to complain. An agreement can be entered into as to the apportionment with the landlord, but if it is done without the landlord's consent I do not think there is much cause for complaint.

Mr. Darling

In view of the importance of the subject matter and not because the Attorney-General's reply is unsatisfactory, I ask leave to raise the matter again.