It Looks Like A Duck...

Commonhold, Fleecehold, and the Emotional Politics of Property Ownership

By Nick Faulkner

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a duck? In life I believe the answer is usually yes !

As Commonhold tenure continues to rightly generate interest, particularly among policy-makers, some in the industry – including me – are asking what, if anything, really sets it apart from a considerable proportion of the systems we already have in place.

The concept is simple: a system where flat owners collectively own the building and manage the communal areas. It sounds radical. It sounds empowering. But look more closely, and you’ll realise that, for the many thousands of leaseholders in many thousands of blocks, it’s already here.

A familiar model in new clothing

There are currently around 148,000 Resident Management Companies (RMCs) registered at the Companies House. These are legal entities where residents collectively manage the freehold and communal areas of their development. They set budgets, appoint managing agents (or choose to manage things themselves), and pay for services through a service charge. Sound familiar?

It should – because isn’t that what everyone is talking about with Commonhold ?

For many years, developers have been using tripartite leases to install RMCs as part of the build-to-sell process. But when the Ground Rent Act 2022 abolished future ground rents, the business model of selling on to freeholders stopped being viable for developers. With no income from ground rent, there’s no incentive for landlords to buy them from developers. Instead, they now tend to pass buildings to the RMCs .

So while the phrase Commonhold has emotional resonance – ownership forever! no more ‘landlords’! – the real-world difference is minimal. The duties, the structures, the legislation around building safety, statutory consultations and service charge trust accounts — they all should still apply. Afterall just because the tenure has changed should not the people paying the costs of maintaining the buildings ( the flat owners) have just as much right in such matters as if they were leaseholders?

So it walks like a duck. It quacks like a duck. It’s a duck.

The ‘Fleecehold’ frustration

In recent years, there’s been growing discussion about fleecehold: a term used to describe freehold homes where residents pay an estate charge to maintain communal areas like roads, verges, or play spaces, in perpetuity.

It’s easy to understand why people feel frustrated. Homeowners often ask: “Why am I paying council tax and still being charged to cut the grass?” Especially when the spaces in question are publicly accessible.

From a moral standpoint, many in the industry, including me, sympathise. But from a practical perspective, this model has become the norm across the country. Local Authorities increasingly avoid adopting estate land because of the long-term cost and liability. Instead, the responsibility falls to Resident Management Companies – typically owned by the homeowners themselves – with a service or estate charge to fund maintenance.

In these scenarios, the home owners do hold the power. While the first managing agent is typically appointed by the developer, the owners ( usually the residents) have the collective choice to appoint a replacement, or find another way to maintain the communal areas.

But in almost all cases, RMCs choose to appoint a managing agent, because while it’s of course possible to self-manage, most people prefer not to. Do you really want to save yourself about a pound a week in admin costs by taking on all that aggravation? That’s less than a quarter of a Starbucks coffee !

In the real world, with councils ensuring the responsibility remains with residents, it’s the only option that makes sense.

So if Commonhold were to be used in the housing scenario, does it not feel the same solution as the current position? Maybe it is a duck!

Why managing agents still matter

Despite the emotional appeal of owning everything outright, many homeowners, given the chance, delegate the day-to-day running of communal areas to professional managing agents. It’s not laziness. It’s pragmatism.

From fire safety compliance to Building Safety Act administration, from debt collection to annual budgeting and insurance, the work involved in running even a small estate is considerable. Even within small freehold communities, how many people really wants to knock on their neighbour’s door and ask for £150. Or worse still be the director who has to instruct solicitors to chase the debt from their neighbour!

And that’s without considering the hundreds of larger developments across the UK where communal space is extensive, residents are busy, and the stakes, legally and financially, can be high.

Emotion vs reality

Ultimately, the appeal of Commonhold is an emotional one. And I understand that. An Englishman’s home is still his castle, and the idea of true ownership without leases or landlords is understandably seductive.

But whether a property is held Leasehold, Commonhold, or as part of a Freehold estate with an RMC, the reality of communal living is the same: someone has to manage the shared space. Someone has to comply with the legislation. Someone has to collect the money and make sure the communal facilities are working.

So, is it a duck? Call it what you like, but someone still has to clean the pond!