© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
© 2025 News On The Block. All rights reserved.
News on the Block is a trading name of Premier Property Media Ltd.
Last spring John Peartree, chief executive officer of the Federation of Private Residents’ Associations (FPRA), and his committee members, wrote to Tony Blair about the lack of consideration by government of the impact on leaseholders and residents of new legislation. Please see a copy of his letter below, with responses overleaf.
Dear Prime Minister,
The Federation of Private Residents’ Associations (FPRA) represents long leasehold and tenanted flat owners in England and Wales and estates of largely owner occupied private freehold properties via their residents’ associations. We have hundreds of residents’ associations for long leasehold flat blocks as members, some of whom have independent landlords, some of whom have purchased their own freehold.
A continuing problem for our members, especially leaseholders, is the sheer volume of legislation that is affecting them, much of which is occurring without sufficient consideration or involvement of interested parties due to a systematic failure within government to consider the impact of new legislation on the leasehold sector.
Where there is specific legislation that is aimed at leaseholders, the Department of Communities and Local Government and its predecessors have consulted groups such as ourselves. But the problem arises when there is legislation originating in other departments where the impact, particularly on smaller or resident-owned blocks, is not taken into account or apparently appreciated at all. The most obvious example of this is the legislation on Houses in Multiple Occupation where the original objective of improving the bottom end of the rental market has been lost in a bureaucratic monster that will involve our members in enormous and totally unnecessary effort and expense while disadvantaged and vulnerable tenants will remain prey to those irresponsible landlords who will continue to choose to flout the legislation. Ironically, legislation already exists that gives local authorities the ammunition to fire at rogue landlords, but the burden and expense of enforcement of the Houses in Multiple Occupation and other legislation is so onerous that they are likely to be deterred from exercising their powers effectively.
The object of this letter is to request that there be a change in the government’s systems so that before any legislation affecting property is passed there is an “impact review” plus serious consultation with interested parties such as ourselves. If such a procedure had been adopted in the past, much of the legislation that has been brought in, without thought to the effect on millions of people who live in flats and on estates, would have been so much more effective and suitable for the sector.
In making this request we are not asking for the Government to change its basic policies, only that it applies those policies more carefully so that our members are not inadvertently adversely affected and faced with huge unnecessary expenditure and effort without consultation or benefit.
We hope you will regard this suggestion favourably. We are sending copies of this letter to the leaders of the other parties hoping that they will be in agreement.
“I can assure you that where we develop proposals that may impinge on other areas we do work in a coherent fashion to ensure that comment is sought from those both within government who may have an interest to ensure that their views can be taken into account, whether that interest lies within the Department itself or other departments, and externally.”
Dear Mr Peartree,
Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to the Prime Minister, dated 26th March 2007.
It’s clearly a great shame that, for all the government’s talk about “joined-up government”, ministers have so far failed to make policy on HMOs work well. Liberal Democrats are committed to maintaining high standards for accommodation in the private retail sector, and we would certainly be interested to hear further details of how government departments are failing tenants in this regard.
The Liberal Democrats have long argued for a more rigorous and consultative legislative process. The government presently puts far too much legislation to Parliament and allows too little time for it to undergo proper examination by MPs and Peers, let alone those outside Westminster. The result is rushed, ill-thought out law which impacts already on people who, had they been consulted, would have been able to envisage potential problems before the legislation reached the statute book.
My colleague, Dan Rogerson MP is our Shadow Minister for Housing, and would be best placed therefore to meet with you and discuss the particular matters of concern to you. Perhaps if you could get in touch with him directly, with some further briefing, at 428 Norman Shaw North, House of Commons, London SW1A, his office could arrange a meeting at your mutual convenience.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Yours sincerely
Menzies Campbell
Re: The Process of Legislating
Thank you for writing to David Cameron about the way in which the government legislates. As Shadow Minister for Housing, I have been asked to reply.
Like you, I believe that the government persistently refuses to listen to the public and other important stakeholders when introducing new proposals. Take Home Information Packs (HIPs), for instance, where professionals warned the Government for months about the way in which HIPs would seriously disrupt the housing market.
You may be aware that the Housing Act 2004 made significant changes to housing law and the provisions of Houses in Multiple Occupation were a key aspect. As the legislation was passing through Parliament, Conservatives consistently raised the need to consult key stakeholders to ensure the Act’s smooth implementation. In addition, we made clear the need for the regulatory burden to be as light as possible.
We must make sure that further reform does not discourage new investment in housing as this could be seriously detrimental to housing supply and affordability. The way to achieve this end is something on which I will continue to press the government.
Thanks again for taking the trouble to let us know your views.
Yours sincerely
Michael Gove, MP