A new lease of life: - CentreForum

A New Lease of Lifeto assume that 20C notices were served, leaving the onus onthe freeholder to prove that they should be able to recoup legalcosts through service charges. This is a more balanced approachand would also reduce problems associated with freeholderbrinkmanship. The tribunal could also, in particularly one-sidedcases, offer a supporting testimony to leaseholders wishing to takea case to the county courts to seek to recover costs.Second, rules of disclosure should be corrected to ensure thateverybody has all relevant information about the claims of bothparties in advance of a trial. Alongside this, any freeholder objectingto a claim for RTM or enfranchisement should have to formally statetheir reasons up front. This would prevent unscrupulous freeholdersfrom abusing their power without harming those freeholders actingfairly.Third, as we have recommended with the ombudsman, a conditionof presenting a case to a LVT should be that both parties have beenthrough a process of mediation. This could be a swift process whichwould benefit both freeholders and leaseholders where it worked– not only by increasing the speed of reaching an agreement, butalso by reducing costs for both parties. A meeting of the ResidentialProperty Service showed that mediation before LVTs has a successrate of over 70 per cent. 106 So although mediation would add a costfor freeholders, overall it should save money by avoiding costly LVTcases. It would also reduce the burden on tribunals, which wouldmake it a more efficient service for leaseholders and freeholdersalike.Leaseholder property amendmentMost leasehold agreements contain strict conditions about howlessees can alter their properties and in what cases they requirefreeholder consent to do so. These conditions can be used byfreeholders to gain unwarranted profit by demanding significantpayments for considering an application and granting permission.The majority of development will enhance, rather than reduce,the value of a property and there is no reason why leaseholdersimproving their homes should have to pay a triple premium fordoing so: to gain permission from the freeholder for development,for the development itself and additional cost when extendingor enfranchising. Similarly, the freeholder will benefit from any106 The London Assembly, ‘Highly charged: Residential leasehold service charges inLondon’, March 2012, p. 42.60