Consultation on strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services

L&Q resident response

September 2025

In the context of rising cost of living pressures in the past few years, rising service charges have become a concern for many leaseholders.

At L&Q, we want to make sure the information residents are provided regarding their homes and service charges is clear, transparent, and meets their needs. This is why, in addition to providing our corporate response, we engaged a group of L&Q residents to share their views on the government proposals for strengthening leaseholder protections over charges and services.

General feedback

Overall, respondents agreed with most of the government's proposals and are in favour of landlords providing the most detail possible.

However, most respondents disagreed with changing thresholds for major works and Qualifying Long Term Agreements (QLTAs).

In the case of transparency measures and new forms and reports, some respondents thought some detail was missing. The information they would like to see is further elaborated on below.

Comments on the government’s proposed new annual report form (Annex A)

A vast majority (76%) of respondents agreed with the minimum information proposed by the government for the annual report. However, some respondents emphasised the need for additional detail and clarity, and provided the following feedback:

Contact details:

Information should go beyond just the landlord’s call centre number and include a named individual, such as the Neighbourhood Housing Lead, whom residents can directly approach with their queries.

One respondent also requested that the contact details of each contractor be included, as well as the service they provide, the terms of their contract, and the amount of pay they received per year.

The following was requested to be included in “Part 2: Key information”:

The current balance of the reserve fund
Details of maintenance on ventilation system, for example, is it’s functioning properly, when the last maintenance check was carried out and who is responsible for maintenance
Details on roof maintenance, for example, when the last maintenance check was carried out
Details on drainage maintenance. for example, when the last maintenance check was carried out and when it was last serviced
Details on the water quality, for example, lead levels, details of leaking pipes and mould repairs instigated by residence

The following was requested to have a section in “Part 4: Ongoing maintenance”:

Ventilation system
Drainage system
Vermin infestations

Part 5: How to dispute your service charge or raise a complaint:

Information on penalties housing associations can face for not completing repairs or addressing complaints adequately or on time should be included.

A dedicated section should be provided where the landlord or estate management can clearly explain, in plain and accessible language, any significant increases in service charges.

More detailed financial figures should be included for associated costs, as the proposed figures provided would be too vague. Respondents emphasised the need for a clear breakdown of costs, supported by invoices, and who was awarded the tender.

Comments on the government’s proposed new standardised service charge demand form (Annex B and B2)

A majority (68%) of respondents agreed with the minimum information proposed by the government for the standardised service charge demand form. However, some respondents emphasised the need for additional detail and clarity, and provided the following feedback:

There should be a vendor, including why they were chosen and their contact details, for each expense. There were calls for reassurance that third parties are value for money. For each job there should also be a breakdown of what was charged and each task carried out
Forms should be by block, not an average for several buildings
Professional fees appear to risk being double counted by forming part of both the management fees and professional fees sections

When asked if they preferred Annex B or B2, a majority (60%) that responded to the question preferred Annex B2, with the following reasons mentioned:

Respondents preferred a higher level of granularity and transparency, so that any unexpected increases or errors can be identified
Having a detailed breakdown also serves as a reminder to residents that the services provided come at a cost. Even small actions, like leaving bulk refuse collection to the landlord, can result in charges being passed back to them through their service charge bill. This may encourage residents to take a more active role in maintaining and caring for their buildings, ultimately helping to keep service charge costs down

Comments on extended rights to obtain information on request

A vast majority (81%) of respondents agreed with prescribed list of financial and non-financial information that leaseholders can request proposed by the government.

Some respondents gave suggestions for additional information that should be added, including:

legal aid contact details to make legal representation easily accessible for leaseholders
a list of all communal repairs requested by residents which includes when it was requested, what its status is, the timeframe, whether a contractor was called, and the cost of the repair

Comments on the government’s proposed new service charge accounts template (Annex F):

100% of respondents agreed that accounts should include an income and expenditure finals and explanatory notes, a sinking fund or reserve funds statements (where applicable), and a statement of service charge collection deficits.

When asked to elaborate, respondents said the template provided the level of details needed and it would greatly aid service charge transparency.

Comments on changing the threshold for major works and s20 consultations:

A majority of respondents (71%) did not agree with changing thresholds from £600 for major works and £300 for QLTAs.

When asked to elaborate, they stated that doing so would reduce the opportunities to scrutinise and challenge smaller works and would limit leaseholders’ visibility of certain expenditures.

They emphasised that although individually the costs may not be significant, without consultation on each project, leaseholders risk receiving unexpected bills without prior involvement or input.

Some agreed with the logic that the government provided, supportive that if that thresholds have not been reviewed for 20 years and should go up with inflation and that changing thresholds will reduce unnecessary administration costs.

One respondent noted that these documents are rarely read in their entirety so it’s wasteful in terms of postage and administrative costs, but the information should be made available online.

Several respondents did not seem to understand the rationale behind raising the thresholds.

Some respondents supported the idea that thresholds should be raised but thought they should be raised less than the government suggested.

Comments on mandating reserve funds:

Most (60%) of respondents agreed that reserve funds should be mandated for existing leases, and the same for new leases (65%).

Most saw it as common sense, and that they result in less unexpected costs due to major works.

Some respondents stated that it depends on the age of the building, as older buildings are more susceptible to large major works projects.

Some agreed with it dependent on safeguards and accountability for those managing the reserve funds.

Comments on Asset Management Plans (AMPs):

When asked about what details should be included in AMPs, respondents emphasised the following:

AMPs should be communicated in plain, accessible language with summaries outlining property condition, planned major works, estimated costs and timescales, rationale and priority of works, and financial impacts, including reserve fund requirements
Updates should be provided annually (some suggested more frequently, for example, quarterly or half yearly), and should be available via email or online portals, with opt-in options for paper notifications
Leaseholders should be able to ask questions, provide feedback, influence priorities (for example, choosing between cosmetic vs. safety-related works) and understand who authorises AMP spending and how decisions are made
AMPs should include immediate (current year), medium-term (next five years), and long-term (next 10 years) plans. This helps residents anticipate works and avoids surprises, especially for critical infrastructure like lifts

Comments on providing information and services digitally

A vast majority (85%) of respondents agreed that more documents or communications between landlords and leaseholders should be done electronically, stating that it saves time on postage, is environmentally friendly, increases convenience of tracking, and that it can be easier to translate communications for those who don’t have English as their first language.

However, some respondents emphasised the need for a physical copy to be available, and raised concerns that it may hurt those who aren’t digitally savvy or don’t own a computer. They also mentioned that digital documents can get lost in inboxes.

One respondent emphasised that the government should consider making some communications, such as annual reports, sent by mail but all other communications should be digital.

Methodology

We collected data using a survey that was put onto Qualtrics, a survey platform that collects respondents’ answers. We collected responses using two different methods:

Inviting approximately 200 homeowners form sent to our database of involved residents. A role profile describing the responsibilities and expected outcomes of the opportunity was advertised and 24 residents signed up

Those who signed up were sent a presentation explaining what the proposals were, how they may impact L&Q, and why we want to hear from residents, accompanied by a questionnaire form. Not all of those who signed up responded to the survey.

Directly sending out the survey (and presentation) to 558 shared owner or leaseholder members of the L&Q and You! online community

Sending out an email asking them to get in contact with us if they wish to get involved to 323 shared owner or leaseholder members of the L&Q and You! online community.

In total we received feedback from 26 residents which have been summarised in the above response.

Resident involvement at L&Q

To create a culture of accountability and transparency and ensure there’s a pathway for residents to influence L&Q and government decisions, we aim to make resident involvement embedded into every part of our organisation.

Resident involvement opportunities provide a variety of flexible volunteering opportunities for residents to get involved, shape services, and work in partnership.

Being an involved resident offers the opportunity to scrutinise performance, help create new policies and provide feedback on new and existing services.

Involved Residents also have access to training courses through our Peer Learning project.

To become a involved resident, residents can either complete our online form or email our Resident Involvement team to highlight their interest.

They will receive monthly emails highlighting the range of involvement opportunities that are available, focusing on business areas across L&Q.

To gain an understanding of residents’ views we also use the L&Q and you! online community, which is made up of around 3,000 L&Q residents who regularly take part in online research activities.

The residents on the community are representative of our overall customer base in terms of demographics.