Are the latest press reports accurate? Government urged to provide urgent clarity

Less than four weeks into 2026, leaseholders are already losing faith in the government, with growing reports in the national media that the government may row back on its commitment to cap ground rents following pressure from lobbyists and concerns raised by the Treasury about the impact on pension funds.

The National Leasehold Campaign (NLC) has again warned that such a move would be a betrayal of millions of voters, with professional freeholder interests seemingly poised to hijack meaningful reform. In response, the NLC has mobilised members in back-to-back mass email campaigns, urging MPs and ministers to act before leaseholders’ patience runs out.

The NLC has also written to the Treasury to seek clarity of the government’s position.

The lobbying organisation says that Angela Rayner, the former housing secretary, was right to warn last week that “a titanic battle is raging to prevent the government from capping crippling ground rents”. She went on the claim, “we must fight and win it”.

Rayner added: “This battle is a symbol of so much more. It is about whose side we are on and who we are in Government to fight for”. Justin Madders MP has warned of a “Labour rebellion” if leasehold reforms are watered down. 

A spokesperson for the NLC said: “We have had to galvanise its members to partake in two mass email events aimed at flooding MP’s and Ministers inboxes to express their frustrations on the delay in publishing the overdue Leasehold and Commonhold Draft Bill, and this week to highlight the urgent issue of capping ground rents.  Leaseholders really are losing faith in this government.

“Recent claims suggesting that reforms to ground rents could deter pension fund investment are not supported by available evidence. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) noted that according to government analysis less than 1% of total UK pension fund assets are estimated to be invested in residential ground rents. During discussions regarding the potential impacts of capping existing ground rents, they suggested that any negative impact on pension funds would be “within normal investment and depreciation tolerances”. That freehold investors hide behind the façade that this is damaging to pension funds is typical of their duplicitous approach.

“In contrast the impact ground rents have on leaseholders is significant.  Ground rents are a recurring financial burden that brings stress, anxiety and insecurity into people’s homes.  Ground rent is money for nothing.  Since when can paying money for nothing ever be justified? As this was the strong argument behind introduction of the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 for future leases there can be no justification to maintain ground rents retrospectively in our opinion.”

Since the introduction of the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 for England and Wales, pension funds have continued to operate without demonstrable negative impact from this change further negating the weak arguments from pension investors.

Regulators have also raised questions about the necessity of ground rents. The UK Competition and Markets Authority has stated that ground rent obligations are neither legally nor commercially required, reinforcing the view that the current model offers no meaningful consumer value.  

The NLC spokesperson added: “Pension fund investors lobbying is nothing more than a last ditch attempt to derail the leasehold reform agenda.  There is nothing new to see here. We have been at this point many times over the years which is why this government must stand up and take the steps needed to deliver for leaseholders as promised in their manifesto for change.  

“As the government considers the next stages of leasehold reform, it is essential that decision‑making is guided by evidence rather than narratives that have been repeatedly raised by parts of the property sector despite limited factual basis. Protecting consumers and ensuring fair, transparent residential property arrangements should remain the priority. Pension funds and wealthy investors have had years of exploiting leaseholders via this unethical income stream, they have had ample opportunity to divest from these schemes. 

“Enough really is enough. The 5.3 millions leaseholders will not forgive this government if they are not on the side of leaseholders.”

 

Leasehold reforms risk Labour rebellion, prime minister warned

 

x

Email the story to a friend!



One Comment

  1. Anonymous Coward

    There are interesting ethical and moral judgements to be made over the pension fund side of ground rents because of “due diligence”.

    Firstly, doubling ground rents aren’t always “onerous”. If it doubles every 25 or 33 years then it is slowly falling behind consumer price inflation (CPI). A doubling ground rent of £250 per annum today becomes £1,000 per annum in 50 years, and £4,000 pa in 100 years. Sounds like quite a lot, doesn’t it?

    In comparison, CPI is currently 3.4% and RPI is 4.2%. If we assume that those stay level over the next 100 years then:

    CPI: £250pa turns into £7,079.36 in 100 years which is almost double the doubling rent.

    RPI: £250pa turns into £15,300.72 over the same amount of time which is double again.

    So, a “normal” doubling ground rent is actually OK. One that doubles every 15 years or sooner is not.

    CPI replaced RPI in 2003 as the government’s chosen measure of inflation in the UK. From 2003 to 2025 CPI averages to 3.27% and RPI to 4.12% . If we go from 2003 to the end of 2019 (i.e. pre-Covid) they are and 2.75% and 3.47% respectively.

    Personally, I would suggest that any index linked ground rents is onerous, even though they seem to have the general seal of approval.

    And here we get to the moral and ethical judgement…

    It’s one thing for a privately owned investment company to create an onerous rent, but it is another thing for a pension fund to invest in them.

    Pension funds carry out due diligence before they invest.

    Somebody MUST have sat down and worked it out. Somebody must have worked out that these are toxic.

    The pension funds took a calculated risk that these super performing investments were “gold plated”. However, they must have done so with absolutely zero regard for who might be affected.

    Report
X

You must be logged in to report this comment!

Comments are closed.

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.