“Outdated and disproportionate” enforcement related to recharges should be ended, and there should be greater transparency and consistency in how estate management charges are communicated said the Conveyancing Association (CA) in response to the Government’s recently closed consultation on estate management reform
In December of last year the government launched two consultations as part of efforts to move the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 forward. Those consultations closed on 12th March 2025. The first set out to review enhanced protections for homeowners on freehold estates, with proposed new protections for people already paying estate management charges, including removing the risk of losing their home for falling into arrears and introducing stronger rules on accountability and information. The second consultation considered how to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements for unadopted amenities such as roads, drainage and green spaces.
In its response on enhanced protections for homeowners on freehold estates the CA, the membership body representing the top 200 Solicitors and Licensed Conveyancers in England and Wales, backed the removal of outdated and disproportionate enforcement remedies linked to rentcharges, noting these distort lending decisions and create avoidable delay and cost in transactions.
The association has also called for greater transparency and consistency in how estate management charges are communicated, including: clearer annual reporting, with forward-looking budgets and reserve fund details; standardised formats for demands and notices to reduce confusion; full transparency on referral fees and commissions paid to estate managers; and easier access to information through digital systems to cut administrative burden
The CA has also highlighted the need to align new requirements with existing conveyancing processes, warning any restrictions on information requests could risk delaying transactions or causing them to fail. Alongside this, the response raises ongoing concerns around delays in obtaining key information, the cost of management company packs, and the need to enable commonhold as a longer-term solution for estates with shared amenities.
In its response on reducing private estate management arrangements, the CA has emphasised the impact these structures have on transaction speed and certainty. In turn, it has called for: nationally-consistent standards for amenities to support adoption by local authorities; greater use of mandatory adoption where assets serve the wider public; clear timelines, capped fees and better resourcing to speed up adoption processes; and improved transparency of estate charges and long-term liabilities at the point of sale.
The CA has also backed stronger governance and accountability, including giving homeowners greater control over management arrangements and supporting a move towards commonhold where appropriate. It warns that without consistent standards and clear enforcement, private estate arrangements will continue to introduce delay, cost and uncertainty into otherwise straightforward transactions.
In arriving at its responses, the association said it took the views of member firms and “set out a clear, practical view of how reform can work in practice, while avoiding further delay, cost and uncertainty for buyers and sellers.” Commenting on their submission Beth Rudolf, Director of Delivery at The Conveyancing Association, said:
“Both these consultations go to the heart of issues that conveyancers deal with every day. The complexity of freehold estates and private management arrangements can create delay, cost and confusion for buyers, and risk concerns for lenders, often because of poor transparency and a lack of consistent standards.
“Our responses support the direction of travel, particularly where it improves transparency and accountability, but they also make clear reform must work in practice. That means clear, standardised information, realistic timeframes, and proper alignment with the conveyancing process so transactions are not put at risk.
“We also need to address the root causes, including delays in obtaining information, the lack of obligation on third parties to respond, and the need for better digital access to property data. If these are tackled properly, we can remove a significant amount of friction from the home moving process and deliver better outcomes for both consumers and firms.”
