Andy Burnham has promised to introduce a leasehold reform Bill before Christmas.

Speaking at the Labour Party Conference on 29 September, he said:

“We will introduce a Bill before Christmas for long overdue Leasehold Reform... you have my word.”

That is welcome.

For leaseholders considering a lease extension or the purchase of their freehold, however, the practical question remains: when will the changes take effect, and what difference will they make to the cost?

How long might it take?

The commitment is to introduce a Bill before Christmas 2026. The Bill must then pass through both Houses of Parliament before receiving Royal Assent.

It may take six to twelve months from introduction for a substantial Bill of this kind to complete that process, potentially longer if its provisions attract significant opposition or amendment. That is an estimate, rather than a timetable announced by the Government. If introduced towards the end of 2026, that would suggest Royal Assent during 2027.

The 2024 reform legislation took approximately six months from introduction to Royal Assent, but its final stages were accelerated ahead of the general election. We should therefore be cautious about assuming that the new Bill will follow the same timetable.

Royal Assent will not necessarily mean that all the reforms take effect immediately. Further regulations, commencement dates and transitional arrangements may still be required.

For example, the Government has previously indicated that the proposed ground rent cap could take effect in late 2028, subject to parliamentary timings. Burnham’s speech did not announce an earlier commencement date.

What is the Bill proposed to contain?

A draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill was published in January 2026. Its principal proposals include:

• Reforming commonhold, so that flat owners can own their individual properties on a freehold basis and collectively control the shared building, with a more workable framework for management and funding.
• Making conversion to commonhold easier for existing leaseholders who wish to pursue it.
• Banning leasehold for most new flats, with commonhold intended to become the default tenure.
• Capping ground rents in existing residential leases at £250 a year, reducing to a peppercorn after 40 years, subject to the eventual scope and exemptions.
• Replacing forfeiture with a more proportionate enforcement scheme.
• Removing disproportionate enforcement powers for estate rentcharges, which can affect homeowners on privately managed freehold estates.

The Government also announced on 29 September that it intends to introduce powers to cap certain permission and administration fees, and independent regulation of property agents, including licensing and qualification requirements. The fees to be covered and the amounts of the caps are to be consulted upon.

These are additional measures announced; we will need to see how they are incorporated into the legislation.

How does this fit with the 2024 Act?

The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 already provides for significant changes to lease extensions and freehold acquisitions. These include removing marriage value, extending the standard statutory lease extension to 990 years, and generally removing the requirement for leaseholders to pay their landlord’s costs, subject to limited exceptions.

But those provisions need further work before they can operate. The Government has identified technical defects in the 2024 Act which it intends to correct through the new Bill. Separately, regulations are needed to set the valuation rates used to calculate premiums and to deal with certain process-cost exceptions.

The new Bill is therefore relevant both to the wider reforms and to unlocking important parts of the 2024 Act. It would be misleading to assume that introducing it will itself bring all the outstanding reforms into force.

The wider 2024 programme also includes service charge transparency and other management protections. Those have their own implementation work; there is no single confirmed date on which the entire remaining package will take effect.

Should leaseholders wait?

Leaseholders might want to wait if reform could reduce the cost. Nobody wants to incur a substantial expense only to find that the same transaction would have cost less a few months later.

But the decision needs to take account of the particular lease and the leaseholder’s plans. A proposed sale or remortgage, the remaining lease term, the likely premium and any existing claim or deadline may all affect the advice.

The speech alone is not a sufficient reason to put every lease extension or freehold acquisition on hold. Different leaseholders face different decisions.

Take, for example, flat owners with around 82 years remaining on their leases. If they wait and allow their remaining terms to fall to 80 years or less, marriage value becomes payable as an additional component of the premium under the current statutory valuation rules. They would understandably be disappointed if they had waited in anticipation of its abolition, only for the Government not to implement that change, leaving them with more to pay. They should take advice in good time about serving a statutory notice while more than 80 years remain. It is the remaining lease term at the date of service of that notice which matters, rather than at completion.

For those whose leases are already short enough for marriage value to be payable, the decision is more difficult. Its removal could produce a substantial saving, so there may be a good reason to wait if their circumstances allow. Although abolition is already provided for in the 2024 Act, it has not yet taken effect. If the Government were to change course, or the overall reforms were watered down during the passage of the new Bill, those who waited might find that they had saved little or nothing. Depending on the eventual valuation rates and changes in property value, they could even find that the cost of extending had increased during the period they waited, as their leases continued to shorten.

For those with longer remaining lease terms so 82 years and beyond, the potential benefits of waiting may be more modest. Marriage value is not currently payable, and the premium may not change significantly under the eventual reforms. That will depend on the particular lease, including its ground rent, and the valuation rates ultimately adopted. They may prefer to get on with their lives and extend now, whether to assist a sale or remortgage or simply as part of their longer-term planning.

Saving the landlord’s legal and valuation costs would be helpful, but it will not necessarily drive their decision about when to extend. The same applies to the proposed 990-year extension rather than the additional 90 years available for flats under the current statutory procedure. An additional 90 years may already meet their practical needs, and extending now does not prevent them from seeking a further extension in future, subject to the rules then in force. A further extension would, of course, involve its own costs.

The decision should therefore be made by reference to the particular lease, the likely financial benefit of waiting and the owner’s plans, rather than the announcement alone.

The promise is encouraging. What leaseholders now need is enough certainty to make an informed decision about their own property.