The nightmare landlord is fast set to become an endangered species, if the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, launched last month, makes its way through Parliament.

It is designed to give leaseholders new powers and prevent any modern-day Peter Rachmans from having their way.The Bill, produced by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions and widely trumpeted in the mainstream press, is divided into two main sections: the introduction of commonhold, a new fo rm of tenure enabling tenants to buy their homes outright; and a number of leasehold reforms aimed at tenants who do not want to buy their homes outright, yet still feel entitled to a say in the management of their homes.Commonhold is proposed as an alternative to, and eventually a replacement for, leasehold.

The system, which exists already in some form in Australia, the US and much of Europe, means that flat owners will own their property in perpetuity (equivalent to freehold) and become members of their block's commonhold association.

This company, made up solely of commonholders, would be limited by guarantee and essentially act as the landlord, being responsible for the maintenance and repair of the building's common areas.This proposal has been welcomed with open arms by most of the property world, many of whom have been campaigning for it for years.

Developer Wilcon Homes has announced it will be the first to build a commonhold development, in Northampton.Peter Hayler is chief executive of the Leasehold Advisory Service, a private company funded by DETR grant which employs solicitors and barristers to give legal advice to the public.

He describes Britain as 'a complete anachronism for not having commonhold in the first place.

We've been working for its introduction as an alternative to leasehold for some time now.'However, Law Society Council member Jennifer Israel, also a member of the Society's leasehold reform working party, points out that commonhold associations, although a good idea in principle, may turn out to be a further irritation for residents.

'Setting up a company that's limited by guarantee is an incredibly complicated affair, and the organisation involved is an enormous amount of work for the participants.'Anthony Shalet, a solicitor with London firm Rooks Rider -- which is the law firm member of the Leasehold Advisory Group -- agrees.

'It seems strange to have a company limited by guarantee, and it's not really appropriate -- it's another complex hurdle to have to get over.

I think it would be better to be limited by shares.'Another criticism of the commonhold proposals is that the government has taken a half-hearted approach to its introduction by not making the tenure compulsory for all new developments.

Joan South of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association calls the Bill a 'disgrace' for failing to make commonhold compulsory.

'The government isn't seriously trying to do anything to help leaseholders -- if they were really committed, they'd introduce commonhold on all new properties.'Richard Lambert, director (commercial and residential) of the British Property Federation, disagrees.

'It's very difficult to introduce a totally new form of property ownership outright.

For the vast majority of people, leasehold works -- there is a small, unfortunate minority who have terrible problems, but we believe these problems are caused by bad management rather than the actual tenure of leasehold.' Mr Lambert wants to see a choice of tenure: 'If the market wants commonhold, it will go towards it without it being made compulsory.' This is the line the government takes.It will be possible to convert from leasehold to commonhold, but only if all the tenants and the landlord agree.

Mr Shalet does not see this happening often: 'I can't see many landlords wanting to experiment with a new system when the old one is so tried and tested.'The second part of the Bill, dealing with reforms that make it easier for leaseholders to buy their freehold and -- for those who cannot afford to, or simply choose not to -- b etter options for managing their properties and protection against landlord abuse, is the more potentially contentious.The Bill proposes a new 'right to manage' -- this will give a group of leaseholders the right to take over the management of their building from the landlord, who will retain his freehold ownership and rents, but will give over responsibilities for repairs and servicing of the building to the leaseholders.

The leaseholders, who will not have to prove any fault on the landlord's part, will also have the responsibility for setting and collecting of service charges.This seems to provide an answer for flat owners -- who must comprise at least half of the flats in the building -- who are unwilling or able to fund a freehold purchase.

Peter Hayler is pleased with this proposition.

'Most of the 16-17,000 enquiries we get a year from the public are to do with management problems.

This proposal will transfer power to the people who matter, who hold most of the value of the flats.' However, Joan South sees this proposition as 'ludicrous'.

She explains: 'By the time people apply to the landlord for the right to manage, the relationship has already broken down, and he won't agree.'Mr Shalet also sees potential problems.

'It can be difficult in mixed-use buildings to balance the interest of the residents and the landlord,' he says.

The landlord will still have shares and voting rights in the resident management company formed by the leaseholders.Despite broadly welcoming the right to manage proposals, Peter Hayler says the government has missed an opportunity to introduce a formal regulation of management structure for all flats in the right to manage scheme.

'A code of practice should be mandatory to ensure that the residents are capable of managing their own buildings, and are supervised.'Leaseholders who do want to force the landlord to sell the freehold (a process known as collective enfranchisement) will find measures in the Bill to make their task easier.

The rules for eligibility have been relaxed: for example, the residence test which stated that tenants must have been resident in the flat for at least three years in the last ten would be abolished.

This was given an unqualified welcome by the Leasehold Advisory Group.

Jennifer Israel adds: 'There's no logic in saying that just because you don't live in a building, you have no interest in it.'Mr Lambert, however, takes issue with the abolition of the residence test.

'Collective enfranchisement is a right given to residents -- people who actually live in the flats should have control over their properties.

There's a potential here for speculative purchasers to snap up properties.'Other measures to simplify the collective enfranchisement process include allowing buildings with up to 25% non-residential parts to be included in it, instead of the current 10%, increasing the number of eligible flats above shops or offices.

Similarly, the agreement of the owners of half the leasehold flats in a building, instead of the present two-thirds, would be needed for collective enfranchisement.The final proposed leasehold reform regards the regulation of leaseholders' service charges.

The Bill proposes extending the definitions of these charges (for example, to include improvements, sales and administration costs) so that they come under the jurisdiction of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal, where leaseholders will be able to challenge them.

The aim, as with the entire raft of leasehold reform propositions, is to eliminate the potential for fraud and unscrupulous behaviour on the part of the landlord.One of the most controversial aspects of this draft Bill is the retention of the 'marriage value', the term for the compensation made to the freeholder if he is forced to sell to the leaseholder.

Disputes over the marriage value of properties have slowed down attempts at collective enfranchisement in the past, and many residents' groups have argued for its abolition.

The marriage value is the amount the freehold and leasehold would be worth if sold together on the open market: the Bill proposes that it should be split 50/50 between the freeholder and the tenant, a reflection on the financial input the leaseholder will have put into the property.Housing minister Nick Raynsford admits that this will disappoint many who wanted to see the back of it altogether, but he claims that this would be 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

There would be an incredible amount of resistance from landlords were we to abolish it altogether, and so for the legislation to get through, we have to keep it in some form'.

Peter Hayler agrees that the marriage value has to stay, but thinks that the government should prescribe the future value on a chart or graph.

'This would make life much simpler for leaseholders and avoid arguments, as they can see immediately what the place will be worth in the future.'Valid and worthy as these reforms are, with the prospect of commonhold, an altogether newer and fairer form of tenure in the offing, why bother reforming leasehold at all? Why not save time and abolish it altogether? 'Commonhold will take a long time to come into its own,' says Mr Raynsford.

'It's bound to have a few teething problems, but over time I predict that it will become the norm for new property developments.' Power to the people, then -- only not quite yet.