Lower Fees for Fido?

Landlords of leasehold property have long been able to charge administration fees for considering or permitting leaseholders to do things which are restricted under their leases. The government have announced a new consultation to allow the secretary of state to cap the administrative fees chargeable for “simple requests like keeping a pet”, amongst other items, including providing documents, notifying changes in mortgage providers and for homeowners on privately managed estates paying fees for approvals of cosmetic changes could also be regulated. This is part of the introduction of a regulatory and licencing regime for property agents. 

Leases often do have firm or absolute restrictions on pets and paintjobs though, and restricting a fee to ask for permission doesn’t necessarily mean the landlord must allow it. The Renter’s Rights Act came into force on 1st May 2026 also announced making it easier for tenants to have pets, but this has caveats where a superior lease restricts them at a building which will often apply to leasehold flats. 

The announcement doesn’t say anything about timescales. If a permission costs half as much but still takes three months to come through and the pet they adore has already been rehomed elsewhere, a leaseholder will feel far from empowered by the changes. Much of the existing law around landlord consents is not specific about when a landlord must consider and respond to a request, couching it in terms of being a “reasonable” time, or not being “unreasonable”, leaving the details of what that means up to the surrounding circumstances, for a court or tribunal to decide. Without setting timelines for permissions, leaseholders can still face other losses and costs like lost deposits for workers who cannot start on time, being unable to carry out works before materials or labour costs rise.

Regulation of property agents is something many leaseholders feel has been a long time coming, and which has been pointed to as contributing to the desire of many owners for leasehold reform. Without that step, other reforming legislation may in fact come into force but lack ‘teeth’ if it is not understood or implemented properly by the people operating a building, or costs of enforcement through courts or tribunals are too high compared to the value of a breach. Many property managers who do take their roles seriously have leaned into voluntary accreditation schemes in the past and will relish the opportunity to distinguish themselves from competitors who might offer lower prices but ineffective service. 

The consultation will also no doubt be watched with interest by leaseholders who collectively own or manage their properties. Many have volunteer directors making decisions and would be frustrated if the regulations in this area prevented them from raising fees to cover their expenses, or restricted them from self-management in any way.