This is what the Government is saying to the one million people who are reckoned to being fleeced by free holders.
It is good but it is not good enough. Harry Scoffin and the Free Leaseholders will bank what they have won so far but push for fulfillment of the promise paid to us one million leaseholders being held in bounds by freeholders who claim to be helping to pay our pensions.
Tomorrow, @Keir_Starmer will be on the wrong side of the “own nothing and be happy” debate.
Money-for-nothing ground rents should be cut to peppercorn: zero money value.
As @UKLabour urged in opposition.
But now, with a huge majority, they bow to the offshore property mafia. https://t.co/7S7fUiAwsa
— Harry Scoffin (@HarryScoffin) January 26, 2026
To a barrister and a campaigner I add the voice of those who work for pensioners. I see no investment by pension schemes in freeholds nor do I expect to. Our ESG codes do not allow trustees to rip off leaseholders – many of whom are members of the pension schemes we run. We do not consider jacking up ground rents without any justification as “value for money” and like everyone else who looks into this, I want to know what the £250 cap on ground rents is going to be in place for. I want to know why I will pay close to £1,000 a year till 2028 and I won’t see the capped ground rent disappearing to “peppercorn” for 40 years.
If this is being done for the sake of pensioners than there are some delusions in Government about what investment is now about. We operate in an ESB environment where ripping people off is not acceptable.
I hope that this will be brought up March 10th – March 12th in Edinburgh at the Pensions UK investment Conference because I know of no instances of pension funds or schemes being dependent on investments in residential freedoms to pay pensions. If there are people in the hall who stand up and argue for holding freeholds and for the ground rents currently charged, let them do so there. If there is silence when the question is asked, let that be the pension industry’s cue to protest that we have been abused as well.
It is a great thing that the Free Leaseholder movement has done and a great thing that Harry Scoffin has done to lead it. I am delighted that he is not stopping here and he will have the space on this blog and on our Pension PlayPen webinars to ask questions of the pensions industry.
These are my questions. I hope that Harry can help.
How were pensioners and pension trustees used by the Freeholder lobby in their conversations with Rachel Reeves?
What is our Pension UK organisation going to do to distance us from the statements about us using Ground Rents to pay pensions?
When will this Government reduce ground rents to peppercorn as it promised the electors in 2024?
Appendix – the following article appears in Pension Age – thanks Anthony Donaldson
Proposed leasehold reforms could have ‘major implications’ for pension funds
By Callum Conway
The government’s proposed cap on ground rents for leaseholders could have significant implications for pension funds and investors, industry experts have warned, amid concerns about the impact of retrospective changes to existing property rights.
Responding to the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which would cap ground rents at £250 a year for 40 years before reducing them to a peppercorn, some commentators argued that the measures risked undermining asset values that underpinned pension scheme investments.
Eversheds Sutherland real estate partner and head of living investment, Balraj Birdi, described the proposals as a “major shift” in how long-term property ownership was structured in England.
He acknowledged that while the reforms would be welcome news for leaseholders facing escalating costs, they would go “far beyond” previous changes.
Birdi warned that the cap would “effectively remove long-standing contractual rights that pension funds and ground rent investors have relied on”, reducing asset values overnight and raising questions about future investment in housing.
Similar concerns were raised by the Association of British Insurers (ABI), which said pension funds required “predictable and stable rule of law” to invest with confidence.
An ABI spokesperson stated the organisation was “deeply concerned” that retrospective changes to existing property rights could undermine confidence in contract certainty, increase the risk premium attached to UK investments and weaken the country’s appeal to global and domestic capital.
The British Property Federation also warned of the potential economic impact, with its director of policy, Danny Pinder, highlighting the billions of pounds invested in large-scale residential and mixed-use developments.
Pinder argued that legislative changes that cut across existing commercial agreements would raise the risk premium for investors at a time when the government was seeking to attract private capital to support growth, adding that the federation wanted to work with policymakers as the bill progressed to “minimise unnecessary economic harm.”
Echoing these concerns, M&G stressed that ground rents had been a “core component” of the English and Welsh real estate market for centuries, providing dependable, long-term cash flows relied upon by freeholders to manage properties and cover costs, including fire safety.
The firm warned that ground rents had also become an important asset class for individual savers, charities, pension funds and insurers, and argued that while it supported stronger leaseholder protections, the proposed solution was disproportionate and risked damaging the UK’s reputation as a stable investment location.
M&G group chief executive officer, Andrea Rossi, revealed that the company had not been able to agree on a proportionate solution that worked for all parties, but confirmed that its strong financial position meant it was well placed to absorb the negative impacts, reiterating its profit growth, capital generation and dividend targets.
Meanwhile, Thomas Legal director, Chris Barry, said the reforms were “bad news for pension funds heavily exposed to freeholds”.
Barry acknowledged the changes would reduce costs for leaseholders, potentially making some properties more attractive to buyers and speeding up conveyancing, but warned that pension funds could face “an enormous income hit in some cases”, with knock-on effects for working people indirectly invested through their pensions.
