By Nathan Humphreys, operations director, Horizon Management
Ground rent has long been seen as a symbol of an unfair system. It is visible, emotive, and politically simple to cap.
So Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s announcement of a £250 ground rent cap, effective from 2028, seems likely to land well. It delivers a clear headline and partially fulfils a manifesto promise. For some leaseholders, it will feel like progress, but scroll through the comments beneath the Prime Minister’s TikTok announcement and a different frustration dominates: soaring service charges, opaque decision-making, and a lack of control or voice over how their own homes are run.
This is because in practice, the difference between an affordable home and an unaffordable one rarely comes down to ground rent. It comes down to how a building is managed: how contracts are procured, how works are specified, how budgets are set, and whether residents can reasonably challenge poor value and receive good communicative responses. A ground rent cap does not, by itself, change who controls those decisions.
While some service charges have naturally risen due to inflation, it’s the lack of justification or explanation that aggravates leaseholders most. Service charges can increase far beyond inflation with minimal tangible explanation, major works are commissioned with consultation, but little in the way of reasonable forewarning, and managing agents are seen to operate with impunity. Leaseholders see the system as structurally weighted against the people who pay the bills.
Whilst the introduction of Commonhold for new build developments will put control back into the hands of unitholders, it is still unclear as to how the government proposes to transfer existing Leasehold buildings to Commonhold, which we suspect is still some years away from coming into effect. That’s why the Right to Manage (RTM) process still currently remains the most direct way to fix accountability in the immediate future. RTM puts leaseholders back in the driving seat. It changes not just who makes decisions, but how those decisions are made – with transparency, resident input, and allowing for real scrutiny.
Thousands of buildings already have a practical route to regain control through RTM. It is a no-fault statutory process that allows qualifying leaseholders to take over the management functions of their building via an RTM company, without having to prove fault.
Since March 2025, changes under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 have made RTM significantly more accessible. Two changes matter most. First, more mixed-use buildings now qualify, because the non-residential limit increased from 25% to 50%. Second, leaseholders no longer have to cover the freeholder’s legal fees for an RTM claim in most cases, removing a cost risk that previously deterred many groups from starting the process. These reforms create a clear opportunity for leaseholders who want a democratic say over budgets, service standards, and contractor performance.
RTM does not solve every issue. It does not eliminate service charges or remove the need for major works. But it changes accountability. The people paying the bills make the decisions. They choose the managing agent, approve the budget, and scrutinise spending. When problems arise, they can act. That shift in control is what makes unaffordable buildings manageable again.
Horizon Management has seen a sustained rise in RTM-related enquiries, reflecting growing awareness that leaseholders can take control rather than accept unaccountable decision-making. In qualifying circumstances, we can forward fund the RTM claim, with costs recovered through a management contract awarded on successful completion. This approach reduces the upfront burden for leaseholders who want change, but struggle to coordinate initial contributions.
In this context, a ground rent cap is a welcome reprieve, but limited. It offers certainty at the margins, while leaving the highest and most volatile costs untouched. The real savings come from structural change: transparency over budgets, accountability for managing agents, and the ability for residents to intervene when value for money is not being delivered.
If leaseholders want to potentially put meaningful money back in their pockets and regain control over how their buildings are run, the most effective step available now is to exercise their Right to Manage. It is not a silver bullet, but it remains the clearest route to aligning decision-making power with the people who ultimately pay the bills for the time being.
