As the UK edges closer to adopting Commonhold as the default tenure for flats, industry specialists are warning that the shift could intensify tensions within residential blocks- not because the model is inherently defective, but because it fundamentally reshapes how power, responsibility, and human behaviour interact in shared buildings.
Under the current leasehold system, disputes typically flow upwards toward landlords or managing agents. Commonhold, by contrast, pushes decision‑making sideways. Neighbours become jointly responsible for budgets, maintenance, rule‑setting, and long‑term planning.
Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective says this democratisation is intended to empower residents. Yet it also exposes stark differences in priorities, financial capacity, and appetite for risk. Everyday issues—repairs, noise, pets, short‑term lets- cease to be abstract complaints and instead become matters of collective governance.
A System the Government Is Determined to Deliver
The government has formally committed to ending leasehold as the default tenure and making Commonhold the standard for new flats. A Commonhold White Paper was published in March 2025, followed by the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill in January 2026, setting out how the transition will be implemented.
Although existing leaseholders will not be compelled to convert, ministers have signalled that incentives and pathways will be created over time. These reforms build on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which received Royal Assent in May 2024 and is now being rolled out across England and Wales.
Despite this political momentum, Commonhold remains vanishingly rare. Fewer than 20 Commonhold developments exist in the UK- representing under 200 individual units, according to the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government’s 2024 Commonhold White Paper.
By comparison, England had an estimated 4.83 million leasehold dwellings in 2023–24, accounting for 19% of the entire housing stock. The gulf between policy ambition and real‑world adoption is stark.
The Practical Realities: Money, Time, and Human Behaviour
The core distinction between leasehold and Commonhold is ownership structure. Under Commonhold, each resident becomes the freeholder of their own flat, and the building is jointly managed by all unit‑holders through a Commonhold Association.
This creates several pressure points:
- Financial disagreements
Major works, insurance, and reserve funds require collective agreement. Wealthier residents may push for higher standards and proactive investment, while others may resist costs they cannot comfortably meet. What was once a service‑charge dispute becomes a neighbour‑to‑neighbour vote on each other’s monthly bills. - Uneven participation and competence
Commonhold relies on residents attending meetings, reviewing accounts, and understanding legal obligations. In practice, a small group often shoulders the administrative burden, gaining disproportionate influence. Others disengage, then object when decisions go against them- fertile ground for cliques and personality clashes. - Conflict escalation
Without a landlord or managing agent to absorb blame, disputes become personal. A leaking roof or broken lift is no longer “the landlord’s problem” but a collective failure, with responsibility implicitly assigned to fellow residents. Minor disagreements can quickly become entrenched. - Mismatch with modern living
Many urban residents view their homes as private spaces or financial assets, not as participatory communities. Imposing collective responsibility on people who lack the time, interest, or capacity to engage risks generating friction by default.
Legislative Contradictions and Volunteer Burdens
The draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill introduces a series of complex and, according to some experts, contradictory obligations for volunteer directors of Commonhold Associations. Directors must simultaneously:
- ensure unit‑holders pay their charges
- maintain the financial viability of the association
- protect minority rights
- enable majority decision‑making
- manage unit‑holder disputes
- and uphold “harmony” within the building
These are significant legal responsibilities for unpaid volunteers- far more onerous than those typically placed on leasehold company directors. The concern is that few residents will be willing to take on such liabilities.
Growing Pains or Structural Weakness?
Supporters argue that these challenges represent early‑stage growing pains rather than fundamental flaws. With professional support, clearer legislation, and robust dispute‑resolution mechanisms, Commonhold could evolve into a more transparent and equitable system than leasehold.
But the risk remains: without practical safeguards and common‑sense reform, the shift to Commonhold may simply replace one set of frustrations with another- swapping distant freeholders for very close, very human conflicts next door.
