Leasehold enfranchisement—residential focus

The term 'leasehold enfranchisement' includes rights to:

•
extend a residential lease, and
•
acquire the freehold

The purpose of those rights is to enable tenants to continue occupation of their residential property at a fair price and on fair terms. It also allows leaseholders to maintain capital value and the ability to mortgage.

Mortgage lenders look unfavourably on leases with less than 70 years left to run.

The exercise of any of the rights below involves detailed procedures. Strict deadlines apply for the service of notices and counter-notices and subsequent steps in the process. Even if a right is admitted, a claim may lapse if time limits are overlooked. Although often referred to generically as 'leasehold enfranchisement', the qualifying criteria, forms of notice and time limits for each right are different, and it is essential before initiating any of the procedures to ensure that each successive step is mapped out and understood.

The valuation process for freehold acquisitions and lease extensions is also complex. Again, the detailed rules for each right are different and specialist advice should be obtained before launching

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Property News

WRA announces mandatory registration for all paid accommodation providers in Wales

The Welsh Revenue Authority (WRA) has announced that all accommodation providers charging for overnight stays in Wales will be legally required to register with the WRA. The new legislation applies to all forms of paid visitor accommodation—including spare rooms, holiday cottages, cabins, campsites, and hotels—regardless of the frequency of letting. Registration will open in autumn 2026 and will include penalties for non-compliance. This measure aims to support councils in implementing the Visitor Levy.

MHCLG publishes draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill and accompanying consultation on banning leasehold flats

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has published a draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill on 27 January 2026 for pre-legislative scrutiny. It sets out proposals to reform the commonhold model, making it easier for existing leaseholders to voluntarily convert their buildings to commonhold and to ban the use of leasehold for most new flats. This follows recommendations from the Law Commission and the Commonhold White Paper published in March 2025.

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

BPF responds to GLA and MHCLG consultations on London housebuilding measures

The British Property Federation (BPF) has published its responses to consultations by the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) on measures to support housebuilding in London. BPF welcomes the proposals as a step in the right direction to improve scheme viability and accelerate housing delivery in the capital. However, it says the measures do not go far enough to address London’s structural viability challenges. BPF highlights concerns including the short, time-limited nature of the proposed relief, the exclusion of some housing models, barriers facing small and medium-sized developers, and the limited scale of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) relief.