A campaign group representing freeholders has declined to reveal the identities of its financial backers, raising questions about transparency as leasehold reform debates intensify.
Justice for Property Rights, which claims to represent over 250 members including small-scale property investors, retirees and shared freeholders, has refused to disclose who is funding its operations. Richard Merrin, CEO at Spreckley PR, which represents the group, confirmed: “While we now have well over 250 members of the group, we are not releasing the funders names.”
Legal challenge planned
The group states it represents “small-scale property investors, retirees, shared freeholders and other individuals with lawful existing interests in residential freeholds”. It says it supports “proportionate leasehold reform and the development of commonhold as a long-term alternative”.
Justice for Property Rights is taking legal advice on bringing a collective action against the Government before the European Court of Human Rights, according to its representatives.
Reform pressure intensifies
The group’s emergence comes as parliamentary pressure on leasehold reform continues to mount. Last week, a cross-party Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee report criticised delays, weak protections and the continued failure to tackle rising costs and poor management in the sector.
The committee described Labour’s draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill as a “significant step” forward but warned ministers must go “further and faster”. The committee has called for final legislation to be introduced in Autumn 2026.
The lack of transparency around the group’s funding sources may attract scrutiny from reform advocates and industry observers. Questions about who benefits from the current leasehold system have become increasingly prominent as trust in property sector practices faces closer examination.
The group’s position on “proportionate” reform contrasts with calls from leaseholder campaigners for more comprehensive changes to the leasehold system. As property firms continue to adjust their operations ahead of anticipated regulatory changes, the debate over reform scope remains contentious.
