Report comment

Commonhold has controversial points, not least a lack of flexibility in mixed use developments and a clash of philosophy with shared ownership properties. It also presupposes one single percentage contribution by all unit holders. This does not sit easily with the various service needs and costs centres which are an incident of mixed use developments. However, perhaps the biggest drawback is that the commonhold association can never forfeit a unit where the owner is in breach of the provisions of the commonhold community statement. This makes it very hard to recover service charges.

In addition, shared ownership is premised on the granting of a long lease, ownership of which is “staircased” up to 100%. The existence of a lease is anathema to commonhold. Security Banks and building societies are reluctant to lend against commonhold, not least because the commonhold comes to an end if the commonhold association is liquidated. With that liquidation their security vanishes.

Finally, there is the profitability issue. A lease is a wasting asset. In the leasehold world, a developer can sell both lease and ground rent investment. The ground rent investor will bide its time, awaiting the expiry of the lease – or a claim for an extension. Either way, the lease is monetised – twice. This is not the case in commonhold. As a developer, once it is sold, it’s gone.