We believe this is the correct way of doing it. I would be very happy to meet my noble friend to discuss this further but, with the evidence we have, we agree this is the correct way forward. But I really am very happy to meet with the noble Lord.
9.30 pm
This Bill will also make it cheaper and simpler for leaseholders to acquire their freehold or extend their lease. This will include local authority leaseholders. I recognise the intent behind the amendment and I have noted what my noble friend has said. At this point I ask him not to press his amendment, but I would be really happy to meet him. He gave us a lot of information in the time he was speaking and I would like to read Hansard as well to understand his arguments further.
I thank my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington for Amendment 65A, which would allow leaseholders in buildings or parts of buildings that are capable of being managed independently to claim the right to manage, even though buildings do not meet the criteria of being a self-contained building or a self-contained part of a building. I understand the intent of the amendment, which would reduce the incentive for landlords to challenge right to manage claims on technical arguments as to whether the existing “self-contained” tests are satisfied. The amendment would mean that the right to manage company would be eligible to acquire the right to manage on the grounds that such buildings are reasonably capable of being managed independently.
The Government support the aim of the amendment to improve leaseholders’ rights and we are taking forward key recommendations of the Law Commission that do this. The Bill delivers the most significant measures to increase access to right to manage and makes it simpler and cheaper for leaseholders to make a claim. To implement the wider recommendations, the Government need to proceed carefully and undertake
further work to ensure that the regime will operate satisfactorily. The Government will keep the remaining recommendations from the Law Commission’s right to manage report under consideration following the implementation of the Bill’s provisions. I hope my noble friend agrees with me that the Bill does take forward the most significant measures on the right to manage, and the Government will need to carefully consider further right to manage recommendations.
I now turn to Amendment 65B, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington, which would reduce the requirement for participating leaseholders claiming the right to manage from one-half to 35%. This has been brought up a number of times and we recognise that the participation requirement can cause difficulties if leaseholders cannot reach the threshold, but we believe a participation requirement of one-half of the residential units is proportionate, ensuring that the minority of leaseholders are prevented from exercising the right to manage, which may be against the wishes of the majority of leaseholders in a building. Reducing the participation requirement to 35% is disproportionate and would lead to undesirable outcomes, such as an increase in disputes. It would risk a situation where competing groups of minority leaseholders could make repeated claims against each other.
The Government accept the Law Commission’s recommendation to hold the participation requirement for the right to manage at one-half, following comprehensive consultation. I hope, hearing that, that my noble friend agrees that it means that a minority of leaseholders cannot unfairly take control of a building, potentially to the detriment of other leaseholders in the building.