A landmark independent survey of 2,000 leaseholders has found that the issues dominating Westminster's leasehold debate are not the issues dominating leaseholders' everyday lives. Instead, respondents overwhelmingly pointed to rising service charges, transparency and building management as the issues having the greatest practical impact on their finances.
The findings, published today in The Leaseholder Intelligence Report 2026, represent one of the most comprehensive independent studies of leaseholder opinion undertaken during the current programme of leasehold reform.
The research, commissioned by Justice for Property Rights and conducted independently by Censuswide, reveals that service charges were the cost most frequently identified by leaseholders as having increased unexpectedly, ahead of ground rents, raising important questions about whether the current balance of reform reflects the everyday experiences and priorities of homeowners.
At the same time, Justice for Property Rights is calling on Ministers to publish a comprehensive Economic Impact Assessment before Parliament considers proposals to introduce a 40-year sunset period for existing ground rent income, arguing that reforms affecting long-established contractual property rights should be accompanied by a full assessment of their wider economic, legal and investment consequences.
Survey findings
- 38.5% said service charges were the cost that had increased most unexpectedly, compared with 21% who identified ground rent
- 65% said their ground rent was affordable and only 14% identified abolition of ground rent as the single Government reform that would make the greatest difference.
- Overall, 83% said leaseholds were satisfied or neutral with their experience of leasehold home ownership
16.4% selected making it easier to buy the freehold as the single reform that would make the biggest difference.
Richard Merrin, spokesperson for Justice for Property Rights, said, “Government has rightly engaged with leaseholders and campaign groups throughout its programme of reform. This independent research adds another important perspective by capturing the views of 2,000 leaseholders from across the country.
“The findings suggest that while leaseholders clearly support reform, their priorities are broader than the current public debate often suggests. They are telling us that the issues affecting them every month are service charges, transparency, accountability and confidence in the management of their buildings.
“This is not an argument against reform. It is an argument for ensuring that reform reflects the evidence and addresses the issues leaseholders themselves identify as having the greatest impact on their everyday lives.”
Justice for Property Rights is urging Government to publish a comprehensive Economic Impact Assessment before progressing the proposed 40-year sunset period for existing ground rents.
- The total value of ground rent assets affected.
- The profile of affected owners including individual investors, pensioners, charities, resident owned freeholds, family trusts and pension funds.
- The impact on investment confidence and residential property markets.
- Potential implications for lending and future investment.
- Any compensation implications arising from the retrospective alteration of existing contractual rights.
Richard Merrin added: “The proposed 40-year sunset provision is one of the most significant interventions in existing property rights for decades. Parliament should fully understand the economic consequences before implementing legislation of this scale. We are not arguing against reform. We are arguing for evidence-led reform. Before Parliament legislates to fundamentally curtail those contractual income streams, it should have a comprehensive assessment of the likely economic impact and the opportunity to scrutinise that evidence in full.”
The full Leaseholder Intelligence Report 2026 is available from Justice for Property Rights and has been submitted to parliamentarians and policymakers to inform the next stage of the leasehold reform debate.
