Rushed reform & delayed implementation: Louise Uphill on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024
The days of the previous government, which culminated in the ‘wash-up’ of Bills including the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (LAFRA 2024), sometimes feels like a distant era. But for the many leaseholders for whom that milestone was meant to herald long-awaited change, the wait continues.
LAFRA 2024 promised fairness, simplicity and reduced costs in what was portrayed as an overly complex and archaic system.
But a year on, the reality is far from transformative. Despite headline-grabbing proposals—from abolishing the payment of marriage value to introducing caps on ground rent and extending leases to 990 years—too few of the Act’s key provisions have been implemented. The market remains stalled, practitioners are in limbo, and leaseholders are left grappling with legal uncertainty, valuation dilemmas and a fundamental question: should they act now or wait?
A ‘dog’s dinner’?
LAFRA 2024 was passed in the closing days of the last Parliament. Many professionals working in leasehold enfranchisement warned at the time that the Bill had been rushed. One year on, that view has hardened.
The Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners (ALEP), of which I am a member, surveyed professionals across the sector. Their assessment of the past 12 months was damning. One respondent called the Act a ‘dog’s dinner’; another a ‘poisoned chalice’ for the new government. Over 80% believed the Act had already resulted in unintended consequences such as stalled transactions, higher costs and reduced client confidence.
Some of the delay is technical—the legislation requires extensive secondary legislation to bring it into force. But much of it is legal. At the time of writing, Human Rights Act 1998 challenges are being brought by freeholders, especially around the proposed removal of the payment of marriage value—a move seen by many as an unlawful deprivation of property. These challenges are likely to continue into next year and, even then, may be referred upwards on appeal.
In short, nothing is moving quickly.
Client paralysis & stalled transactions
Among my own clients, the most common refrain is uncertainty, closely followed by fatigue. Many had pinned hopes on LAFRA 2024 making leasehold simpler and more affordable. But one year on, costs haven’t fallen. If anything, the costs of indecision—in time, stress and depreciating assets—have mounted.
ALEP’s survey found that 67% of members had not seen lease extensions become any easier, with a further 33% saying they saw no change. The legal framework remains largely unchanged, and in the absence of clarity on premium calculation, particularly marriage value, many leaseholders have chosen to postpone enfranchisement altogether.
One client I advised recently has just over 50 years unexpired on a substantial central London lease. If they extend now, they pay marriage value. If they wait, and the payment of marriage value is abolished, they may save a substantial sum. But if they wait and nothing changes, they risk no benefits and further depreciation. With such uncertainty surrounding leasehold (and potentially commonhold), it’s not so much a case of seeking informed advice as taking a punt.
Another client, similarly uncertain, had intended to begin leasehold enfranchisement on a valuable property. Now, they’ve stepped back, unsure whether to proceed. This kind of paralysis is increasingly common. Most practitioners (solicitors, valuers and project managers) report similar drop-offs in activity.
Legal complexity & grey areas
The greatest challenge for solicitors is not the technical detail, but the impossibility of crystal-ball gazing. We are used to interpreting legislation, not advising clients on what a reform might do.
Our job is to present the options and help clients make decisions aligned with their risk profile, personal circumstances and financial aims. But that has become far harder. In practice, we are now asked to help leaseholders make a decision about whether to extend, sell or re-mortgage based on the uncertain future shape of primary and secondary legislation.
Several respondents to the ALEP survey admitted their advice now relies on ‘guesswork’. Some respondents reported that leaseholders are proceeding only when driven by necessity—for instance, the need to re-mortgage or deal with probate. Others said clients are increasingly opting for right to manage as a stopgap, waiting for leasehold reforms to crystallise before committing to full enfranchisement.
The problem with marriage value
At the heart of the issue lies marriage value—the increase in a property’s value that occurs when a leasehold interest and a freehold interest are combined, typically through a lease extension or freehold purchase. The government’s intention was to abolish payment of it altogether. But this is where legal complexity intersects with political ambition.
Removing the payment of marriage value may appeal on a superficial level, but delivering it through robust legislation is far from straightforward. The proposed change is now being challenged in the High Court by freeholders as a breach of property rights. Even if the current cases are resolved quickly, appeals could take many years to conclude.
Meanwhile, leaseholders are left wondering whether to act now, before further value is lost, or wait for changes that may not arrive or may arrive in a form that doesn’t benefit them. One thing is certain: in the absence of reform, the longer this continues, the more leaseholders lose out.
Valuation & practical difficulties
Another concern is the impact of potential changes to deferment and capitalisation rates—the percentages used to calculate the present value of future ground rent income and the value of a lease.
If these rates change, premiums could actually increase—the opposite of what leaseholders expect. There is also confusion around intermediate interests (such as headleases), which may not have been adequately considered in the rush to legislate.
One ALEP member surveyed warned that simplifications proposed by the Act ‘will likely result in a higher premium’, while another highlighted the risk that well-meaning reforms could unintentionally distort the market.
The limits of commonhold
Overlaying all of this is the prospect of commonhold. The government has announced plans to introduce a new Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill later this Parliament, with the aim of encouraging—and perhaps even mandating—the use of commonhold for new developments.
In theory, this would solve many of leasehold’s fundamental issues. In practice, it introduces a new layer of uncertainty.
Most clients are not yet engaging seriously with commonhold. Many don’t understand it. Some who explore it are put off by the lack of mortgage lender support. Even barristers, I’ve found, often struggle to explain how it would work in real-world scenarios.
Until lenders, developers and property professionals are aligned on commonhold, it will remain a concept rather than a solution. In the meantime, leaseholders must continue making decisions in a leasehold world—albeit one that feels increasingly illogical.
Reform fatigue
While most practitioners still support the principles behind LAFRA 2024—not least greater fairness, reduced cost, and improved access to enfranchisement—enthusiasm has dimmed.
We’ve been here before. Leasehold reform has been a political football for more than a decade. Each government promises change. Each iteration gets bogged down in legal complexity and unintended consequences.
There is a risk now that momentum will stall—not just in Parliament but among the public. Leaseholders who actively campaigned for sweeping reform could quickly become confused, disengaged or disillusioned.
Next steps
First, we need clarity. The government must confirm its position on the major provisions of the Act, particularly marriage value, and publish a clear timetable for consultation, secondary legislation and implementation.
Second, if further primary legislation is required to correct flaws in the Act—and all evidence suggests it is—that legislation must be properly scrutinised and professionally consulted on. That means engaging with practitioners, valuers and leaseholders themselves.
Third, any future reforms, including commonhold, must be sequenced in a way that avoids creating competing legal frameworks. Until the current leasehold system is fixed, we cannot expect commonhold to thrive.
Clarity before change
In many ways, LAFRA 2024 was a well-intentioned piece of legislation. But it was also an unfinished one—passed at speed, left incomplete and now at risk of stalling entirely. Leasehold reform remains necessary, but the past year has shown that the process must not be rushed.
This is not just a legal issue; it is a human one. For leaseholders, delay means uncertainty, financial loss and the erosion of confidence. For practitioners, it means advising in the dark.
To restore trust in the system, the government must act decisively. We need clarity in place of ambiguity, and reform that is properly implemented in place of vague and unquantifiable promises.
First published – New Law Journal – Leasehold Reform: Unfinished Business – 10 October 2025
