Leasehold Reform Act (Hansard, 18 February 1969)

§ 14. Mrs. Joyce Butler
asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he has completed consideration of the decision of the Lands Tribunal that the leaseholder should pay £500 for the freehold of his home in Arcadian Gardens, Wood Green, under the terms of the Leasehold Reform Act; and what steps he proposes to take.

§ 17. Mr. Barnes
asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what conclusions the Government have come to following their study of the recent decision of the Lands Tribunal regarding the operation of the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967.

§ 21. Mr. Moyle
asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now seek to amend the Leasehold Reform Act to ensure that a leaseholder purchasing the freehold on the land on which his dwelling house stands will be regarded as a sitting tenant and not as someone competing for the freehold in the open market.

§ 44. Mr. Wallace
asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in the light of the decisions in recent cases, he will consider seeking to amend Section 9 of the Leasehold Reform Act to prevent excessive demands being made on leaseholders.

§ Mr. Skeffington
As my right hon. Friend said in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) on 21st January—[Vol. 776, c. 72]—there is a right of appeal from the Tribunal's decision to the High Court on points of law, and it would, therefore, at this stage, be inappropriate to comment on the decision.

§ Mrs. Butler
Does the Minister realise what a bitter blow this decision has been to many leaseholders who cannot afford to pay the high sums that are being asked for leaseholds, who cannot afford to appeal and for whom the whole purpose of the Act has been frustrated? Has the Ministry in mind some amending legislation so that a more simple and more appropriate formula may be introduced?

§ Mr. Skeffington
I must be careful not to go back on what I said about commenting on the decision. There are two points to be borne in mind here. The first is that in the first case we are concerned with a decision based on the facts of a particular case; and other cases will have to be considered on the facts appropriate to them. The second point is that I personally believe that in some instances far too pessimistic a view has been drawn from this one decision. Beyond that, it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

§ Mr. Barnes
Is the Minister aware that it has taken an extraordinarily long time for this first test case to come before the Lands Tribunal? What action can he take to speed things up, as well as to ensure that the principle of the Act—that the house already belongs to the leaseholder—is properly reflected in the Tribunal's judgments?

§ Mr. Skeffington
My right hon. Friend had negotiations at one stage to see what was causing the delay. What I believe caused a good deal of the consumption of time was the need to get a case which argued some of the points on a comprehensive scale, so to speak, and this was bound to take some time. Now that the cases have started, we hope that there will be no further delay.

§ Mr. Moyle
Would my hon. Friend accept that we never intended that landlords should get the benefit of tenants overbid because of the merging of two interests? Is he further aware that leaseholders had to wait three years for the Act and another year for this decision, and that if they must go on waiting while the rest of the machinery is proceeded with it will be some time before leaseholders will know where they stand? Will he give favourable consideration to amending the Act now?

§ Mr. Skeffington
It would be wrong for me to prejudice any decision by saying what might happen after the appeal period expires on 24th February.

§ Mr. Wallace
It is all very well for people to refer to leaseholders being able to go to the Lands Tribunal. Is my hon. Friend aware that a small group of people in my constituency, mainly elderly folk, have been told that it is likely to cost them at least £900 and that this does not give justice to the leaseholder?

§ Mr. Skeffington
What my hon. Friend says is out of line with anything that has come within my experience. I think that his information must be wrong, but if he will send me the details of the case, I will look into the matter.

§ Mr. Clegg
Would the hon. Gentleman agree that we would have had a result far faster if he had granted legal aid for appealing, as he was originally asked to do?

§ Mr. Skeffington
This procedure has been regarded as fair. It was inevitable that some time would elapse before the first case would come forward. I do not think that there should be any delay now. Anything that my right hon. Friend and the Lord Chancellor can do will be done.

§ Mr. E. Rowlands
Would my hon. Friend accept the statement of the Chairman of the Lands Tribunal, Sir Michael Rowe, that the Government under-estimated the ingenuity of the lawyers and surveyors in finding loopholes in the interpretation of Section 9 of the Act with the result that all this uncertainty and confusion has meant that, in a few cases, landlords are getting away with murder?

§ Mr. Skeffington
It did not need that statement of the distinguished Chairman of the Tribunal to impart that bit of information.

§ 19. Mr. Lane
asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he proposes to amend the Leasehold Reform Act; and in what respects.

§ 23. Mr. Graham Page
asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he now plans to introduce the Bill 191 to deal with the anomaly relating to service charges arising from Section 39(1) of the Leashold Reform Act, 1967.

§ Mr. Skeffington
The necessary provision has now been introduced in Clause 78 of the Housing Bill, which received its Second Reading last week.

§ Mr. Lane
I appreciate that that provision in the Bill may help to overcome one difficulty, but is not the Minister aware that lack of clarity in the Leasehold Reform Act in many respects has led to serious delays in negotiation and a feeling of frustration by many tenants who hoped to take advantage of it? Will he consider issuing instructions to professional bodies and others concerned in the hope of speeding things up?

§ Mr. Skeffington
I am aware that there has been some delay and some uncertainty, but now that the Clause has appeared and the Government have made their announcement I hope it will remove any doubts which have deterred people from buying leases or accepting them as security.

§ Mr. Page
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend has put this correcting Clause into a large Bill which will probably not receive Royal Assent until July, or possibly November? Will the Parliamentary Secretary urge his right hon. Friend to accept the offer made from this side of the House to de-freeze the market in leasehold flats by putting this Clause into a small Bill which we of the Opposition would assist through the Chamber?

§ Mr. Skeffington
I realise that the hon. Member and others have made that proposal. It is being looked at. There are certain difficulties in proceeding that way. I hope that the publication of the Clause together with the Government's intention to do this now, which has been made clear—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—will allow the transactions to proceed normally. There is some evidence that this is already happening. However, the proposition put forward by the Opposition will be considered. We want to be helpful.

§ Sir B. Janner
Would my hon. Friend consider that there is tremendous hardship experienced at present by tenants in respect of several Sections of the Act? 192 Because there is an appeal, will he consider remedying the situation? People are finding it tremendously difficult to proceed under the Leasehold Reform Act in certain respects.

§ Mr. Skeffington
I think my hon. Friend is referring to a previous Question. This is dealing with a rather different issue.

§ Sir B. Janner
On a point of order. May I point out that this Question refers to reform of the Leasehold Reform Act and that I was perfectly in order in putting my question, which I hope my hon. Friend will answer?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I cannot compel a Minister to answer.

§ Mr. Atkinson
Is my hon Friend aware that his right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), when he was Minister, answered a series of Questions in which he indicated that the cost of a freehold would be something about 17 or 20 times the annual rent and that the recent case in Wood Green is about 80 times the annual rent? Are we to take it that the earlier statement is now to be consigned to the laugh-and-tear-up box or are some serious amendments on the way?

§ Mr. Skeffington
I will take note of what my hon. Friend said, but he also is referring back to a Question on the price of freeholds which I have already answered. This deals with another point.

§ Mr. Atkinson
On a point of order. This Question certainly deals with reform of the Leasehold Reform Act.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is a matter between the hon. Member and the Minister.

§ Mr. Nott
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of assurances which the Minister gave at the time when the original Bill was going through Parliament, there are certain leaseholds in West Cornwall at Port Leven which are not eligible for enfranchisement because the freehold was established under Act of Parliament? Will he correct this anomaly in the Committee stage of the Bill now before Parliament?

§ Mr. Skeffington
That is a matter which goes very much wider of the original Question and it is being looked into by the Law Commissioners.

§ Mr. Lane
On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.