The Onward March of Leasehold Enfranchisement

DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1994.tb01973.x
Date01 September 1994
Published date01 September 1994
LEGISLATION
The Onward March of Leasehold Enfranchisement
Martin
Davey"
The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act
1993,
which was
introduced into the House of Commons on
22
October
1992
as the Housing and
Urban Development Bill, finally reached the statute book on
20
July
1993.'
Part I
of the Act, which is the subject of this note, came into force on
1
November
1993.'
Although popularly characterised as a radical measure, it is actually the
latest stage in a process of reform which began in
1967
when the controversial
Leasehold Reform Act3 first gave many occupiers of houses who hold under a
long lease granted for a 'low (ground) rent,' a right to acquire compulsorily the
freehold reversion to their property. This process is referred to as leasehold
enfranchisement.
As
an alternative to enfranchisement, the
1967
Act also made
provision for a qualifying tenant to extend his or her lease by claiming a new
50
year term at a ground rent for the site without the buildings.
Part
I
of the
1993
Act extends the scope of the
1967
Act to the more expensive
properties which until now had been excluded from its ambit. It also extends the
principle of leasehold enfranchisement to flats which, for unconvincing reasons,
had not been dealt with in
1967.
The extension is by way of a new right of
collective enfranchisement exercisable by tenants of flats over the freehold of the
block of flats in which they live. The Act also confers on some tenants, who for
some reason cannot or do not want to enfranchise collectively, the individual right
to acquire a new long lease
of
the flat in substitution for the existing lease. Just as
the
1967
Act proved to be controversial, not least in
so
far as it dealt with the price
to be paid on enfranchisement, the most recent measure was also not without its
vociferous critics. Foremost amongst the Act's opponents was the Duke of
Westminster who, in a much publicised gesture, resigned from the Conservative
Party. The criticisms of the Duke and other landlord opponents of the measure
were voiced in both Houses of Parliament by Conservative Members who between
them forced the Government to concede over three hundred amendments to the Bill
during its, often stormy, parliamentary passage. The result was a considerably
weaker measure than that originally envisaged and certainly one which, as far as
collective enfranchisement is concerned, will undoubtedly benefit significantly
fewer people than the large number for whose benefit the Bill was originally
introduced. In these circumstances, the Government is anxious to promote
vigorously the new rights created by the Act; an anxiety underlined by the launch,
*Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Manchester.
1
A number of guides
to
the detailed provisions
of
the Act have already appeared. See eg Clarke,
Leasehold Enfranchisement
-
The New Law
(London: Jordans, 1994); Driscoll,
Leasehold Reform
-
The New Law
(Croydon: Tolley, 1993); Matthews and Millichip,
A
Guide
to
rhe Leasehold Reform,
Housing and Urban Development
Act
1993
(London: Butterworths, 1993); and Kenny, Leasehold
Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993,
Current Law Srarures Annorared
(London: Sweet
&
Maxwell, 1993). See also Bright, 'Enfranchisement
-
A Fair Deal
for
All
or
for
None?'
[I9941
Conv
2
1
1
;
Clarke
[
19941
Conv
223.
See Wilkinson, (1968) 31 MLR 193; Macintyre, [I9681 CLI 38; Hague,
Leasehold Enfranchisemcnr
(London: Sweet
&
Maxwell, 2nd ed, 1987).
2
s
188(4).
3
0
The Modern Law Review Limited
1994
(MLR
575,
September). Published by Blackwell Publishers,
108
Cowley Road, Oxford
OX4 IJF
and
238
Main Street, Cambridge, MA
02142,
USA.
773

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT