News
Earl Kendrick Appoints Chris Shattock as Director and Head of Commercial Surveying
Earl Kendrick are delighted to announce that Chris Shattock has been promoted to Director and Head of Commercial Surveying, a year after he joined the business.
The appointment supports EK’s development of its commercial building surveying services, building on its established work in the residential block management sector. Chris will lead the growth of work across offices, retail and light industrial property, with a particular focus on central London.
His experience spans building defects and remediation, property management, refurbishment and contract administration. He has worked across individual commercial units, shopping centres and entire office buildings, giving him an understanding of the different priorities facing property managers, asset managers, owners and occupiers.
Chris began his career in loss adjusting, dealing with subsidence, fire damage and water ingress. He subsequently worked in property management and consultancy, with projects ranging from retail refits and office refurbishment to improvements in building services and energy performance.
At EK, his focus will include helping clients plan and deliver refurbishment and capital expenditure works, address maintenance issues and manage dilapidations. A particular priority is connecting advice at the end of a lease with decisions about a property’s future, from preparing an individual suite for reletting to improving an entire building.
Chris Shattock said: “What interests me most is seeing the potential in a building and working out how to realise it. That might mean refurbishing an office suite, improving communal areas or rethinking how the building’s services work.
“For an owner, the aim may be to improve rental value or make a property more attractive to prospective tenants. For the people using it, it is about having somewhere they enjoy spending time. Understanding both helps us make better decisions about where to invest.”
Julian Davies, Director and founder of EK, said: “Chris brings valuable breadth to our team. His experience across commercial sectors, and his understanding of both day-to-day property issues and larger refurbishment projects, strengthen the support we can offer clients.
“His appointment is an important step in further developing our commercial surveying work, alongside our established residential expertise.”
Chris added: “Every client and building needs a different approach. I want to build close working relationships so that we understand what clients are trying to achieve and can support them from the first inspection through to completed works.”
With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility
Written by Lucy Riley, Legal Director, Nockolds and a member of ALEP (Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners)
There has been a huge amount in the press about the “feudal” system of leasehold and how the government’s revitalised commonhold will fix all of the problems associated with long leasehold ownership. But will those buying into or converting to commonhold find that the old adage “be careful what you wish for” applies to them?
The perception is that commonhold will mean transferring power and control over the building and maintenance costs in the hands of flat owners (who will be called “unit holders” under the new regime) and no external third party landlord spending the unit holders’ money on works that the unit holders feel that are not needed or are too expensive. But what does that power and control mean?
According to the HCLG pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill it is intended that unit holders will have rights to vote on decisions affecting the building such as:
- changes to the Commonhold Community Statement (CCS) which governs the management of the commonhold;
- to appoint a managing agent; and
- to approve the commonhold’s annual budget to maintain the common parts (which unit holders will pay as ‘commonhold contributions’)
However, the detail of these rights is not contained in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill (CLRB) and will be implemented via regulations.
The HCLG report promotes the view that the interests of the unit holders and the commonhold association (the body that has responsibility for running the building in accordance with the CCS) will always be aligned. In my view, this is not the case. The mere fact that someone lives in a commonhold building doesn’t mean that they have access to unlimited funds to pay for repairs and maintenance to the building and that they will act in a magnanimous way when it comes to repairs which they believe do not directly benefit them or are too expensive.
Nor are all unit holders likely to be happy to agree to allow another unit holder to keep a dog or knock down a structural wall. It is of course obvious that there will be times when the interests of the individual unit holders and the commonhold association do not align. With this in mind, the CLRB provides for a new dispute resolution process and for a commonhold association to apply to the court for an order requiring the sale of a commonhold unit or leasehold interest in a commonhold unit, due to default in payment of commonhold contributions by the unit holder.
Unfortunately, according to the guide to the Bill the dispute resolution provisions will also be implemented via regulations.
And what of the cost of taking enforcement action against unit holders who refuse to pay or breach the terms of the commonhold community statement or of defending a complaint against the commonhold association? The guide to the Bill confirms that the CLRB will introduce a provision where, if a unit holder, tenant, or the commonhold association is found to have broken the rules, the tribunal can order them to pay other owners for any costs caused by their actions. The commonhold association may also require an indemnify from a unit-holder or a tenant of a commonhold unit in respect of costs arising from the breach of a legal obligation (whether statutory or not) but again, the devil will be in the detail.
As the above demonstrates, whilst commonhold presents an opportunity for greater control, this control comes with financial and legal responsibilities and a risk that ensuring that the building is well managed and maintained will result in unit holders having to pay the costs of enforcement upfront in the hope that they will eventually be able to recover the costs from the offending unit holders.
Commonhold and RTM: The Investor Risk Is Changing
Leasehold reform will alter income, control and liquidity, but it will not remove the need for careful due diligence.
Written by Shabnam Ali-Khan – Partner, Russell-Cooke and a member of ALEP (Association of Leasehold Enfranchisement Practitioners)
Property investors have good reason to watch leasehold reform closely. Much of the public debate is framed around homeowners, but leasehold is also an investment market. It affects buy-to-let landlords, freehold investors, mixed-use owners, developers, managing agents and lenders. The challenge is to distinguish between what reform changes and what it does not.
MHCLG estimated that in 2024-25 England had 4.90 million leasehold dwellings. Around 1.91 million were privately owned and let in the private rented sector. London had the highest proportion of leasehold dwellings at 39%, followed by the North West at 30%. This is a considerable section of the property market, in which investment decisions, lending decisions and sales values are already being affected by uncertainty around leasehold.
The immediate temptation is to ask whether commonhold will be better or worse for investors, but I think that is the wrong starting point. Commonhold and Right to Manage (RTM) are different mechanisms, with different consequences. RTM changes who manages the building, whereas commonhold changes the ownership model.
RTM and the existing market
RTM is likely to remain highly relevant to existing leasehold blocks in the short to medium term. The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 (LAFRA) has already made RTM easier in some circumstances. Since 3 March 2025, the non-residential limit has increased from 25% to 50%, which brings more mixed-use schemes within scope. Leaseholders are also generally no longer be required to pay the landlord’s professional costs associated with an RTM claim.
For leaseholders, that may be attractive. For investors, it changes the risk profile. Freeholders of mixed-use buildings may find that residents have a clearer route to take over management of the residential parts. Buy-to-let landlords who own flats may find tenants and leaseholder groups more engaged on service charges, insurance, repairs and building condition. Managing agents may face closer scrutiny from resident-led companies.
But this should not be seen as a threat. A well-run RTM company can improve maintenance standards, increase transparency and protect value. Poor management is not good for investors either. Service charge disputes, neglected repairs, weak records and insurance uncertainty can all damage saleability and mortgageability.
It is important that flat owners understand that RTM is not simple. The leasehold structure remains – ground will still be present as well as the lease length being relevant. The freeholder is in the background with certain rights and responsibilities. The RTM company must manage budgets, arrears, contractors, approvals, covenants, major works and sometimes building safety. Investors should therefore look not only at whether a building has RTM, but at whether the RTM company is competent, well advised and financially disciplined.
Commonhold and income
Commonhold has a different investment impact. It is designed to remove the external landlord from most flat ownership. That means some traditional income streams associated with leasehold, including ground rent and certain freehold interests will be reduced or disappear in new commonhold schemes. Investors whose business model depends on those income streams need to take that into account.
At the same time, it would be too narrow to view commonhold only as the loss of a freehold investment model. If commonhold improves buyer confidence in flats over time, it may help liquidity in parts of the market where leasehold has become a drag on demand. The flat market has been under pressure from several directions: mortgage affordability, service charge anxiety, building safety concerns and scepticism about leasehold. A better understood ownership model could, in time, make some flats more attractive.
The words ‘in time’ are significant. Commonhold has existed since 2002, but the current market is tiny. The HCLG Committee has referred to just 18 commonhold blocks across England and Wales. The Government’s aim is to make commonhold the default tenure for new flats, but that requires new documents, lender confidence, conveyancer knowledge, valuation practice, managing agent competence and consumer education.
The limitations of commonhold
For investors buying flats, commonhold will not remove the need for due diligence. It will shift the questions. Instead of asking only about lease term, ground rent, service charge provisions and landlord covenants, investors will need to understand the commonhold association, the commonhold community statement, reserve fund requirements, insurance arrangements, voting rights, restrictions on use and the process for dealing with non-payment or disputes.
The service charge issue is particularly important. Commonhold may improve accountability because owners control the body that runs the building, but it does not make building costs disappear. Repairs, cleaning, lifts, roofs, fire safety, insurance and professional management still have to be paid for. A low annual contribution is not necessarily a virtue if it means the building is being underfunded.
Resident decision-making can also be difficult. Investors know that joint ownership structures can be fractious. Some owners are engaged and realistic but others are absent, under pressure or reluctant to fund work until it becomes unavoidable. Commonhold will need strong governance and professional support, especially in larger and mixed-use schemes.
Due diligence
For investors, the practical question is not whether leasehold, RTM or commonhold is intrinsically good or bad but whether the building is investable on its own facts. Is the lease long enough? Are service charges predictable? Is there a reserve fund? Are there arrears? Are major works planned? Are there building safety liabilities? Is the management structure stable? Is there a risk of RTM or enfranchisement? If commonhold, is the association functioning properly?
I support necessary reform, but reform must be handled with caution. Leasehold will not disappear overnight and commonhold will not instantly become familiar. In the meantime, RTM will remain an important route for existing leaseholders and investors should expect a period in which all three are part of the market.
The best investment decisions will be made by those who look past the label and examine the governance, costs, liabilities and saleability of the building. Tenure matters, but the quality of management will still determine value.