We’re Building More Homes, But Who Is Looking After the Ones We Already Have?
Housing investment, energy support and help for first-time buyers are welcome. But as the Government sets out its latest economic priorities, I believe we need to ask a much bigger question: what about the millions of people already living in buildings that need to be maintained, managed and kept safe?
The Autumn Budget has given us plenty to talk about. With measures intended to ease the cost of living, increase housing supply and help more people onto the property ladder, there are some genuinely welcome announcements. Additional investment in affordable housing, assistance with energy bills and support for first-time buyers are all positive steps, and I don’t think anybody working in the property sector should dismiss the importance of helping people find and afford somewhere to live.
But having spent more than a decade working in residential block and estate management, I find myself asking a familiar question. What about the homes we already have?
Whilst the Government is rightly concerned about building new homes and helping people buy them, I remain concerned about the lack of attention being given to what happens afterwards. The cost of maintaining residential buildings continues to increase, the responsibilities placed upon those managing them are becoming more complex, and leaseholders are struggling with rising service charges. Meanwhile, volunteer directors are being asked to navigate increasingly demanding legal obligations, and managing agents are expected to deliver more than ever before.
All of this is happening against a backdrop of ongoing leasehold reform, proposals for greater regulation of property professionals and a significant shift towards commonhold. These issues cannot be considered in isolation, because the financial pressures affecting residential buildings are directly connected to the wider economic decisions being made by Government.
If we genuinely want better housing, safer buildings, affordable homeownership and a more accountable property management sector, we need policies that recognise how all of these things fit together. And after this Budget, I think there are some important questions that still need answering.
More Homes Are Welcome. But What Happens After They’re Built?
One of the headline announcements is an additional £1.5 billion for social and affordable housing in England, intended to deliver approximately 10,000 more homes. The Government has also confirmed £4.7 billion for its new Your First Home equity-loan scheme, designed to support around 70,000 first-time buyers onto the housing ladder.
I welcome both measures. We need more housing, we need to improve access to homeownership, and we need to make sure that people have somewhere safe and suitable to live. However, I would like to see the conversation go considerably further, because when we talk about housing affordability, we tend to focus almost exclusively on deposits, mortgage payments and purchase prices.
Those are important considerations, but they are not the whole picture. For somebody purchasing a leasehold apartment, the mortgage is only one element of their financial commitment. There are also service charges, reserve fund contributions, building insurance, communal energy costs, planned maintenance and potentially significant expenditure on major works. These costs don’t disappear once the purchase has completed. In fact, depending on the building’s age, condition, construction and maintenance history, they may increase considerably over time.
A newly constructed apartment building might look attractive today, but in ten, twenty or thirty years, its lifts will require significant maintenance, its roof may need attention, its mechanical systems will need replacing and its communal areas will require ongoing investment. Somebody needs to be planning for that expenditure and ensuring that the building is financially prepared for the future. Yet I question whether prospective purchasers are consistently being given enough information to understand the responsibilities they are taking on.
I would like to see housing policy place far greater emphasis on the lifetime cost of homeownership, rather than concentrating so heavily on the initial purchase. Helping somebody buy a property is a positive achievement, but helping them remain in that property without being overwhelmed by unexpected or unaffordable expenditure should be just as important.
Energy Bills: What About the Electricity That Keeps Our Buildings Running?
Energy affordability was a significant feature of the Budget, with the Government announcing a £100 Household Energy Payment for households in Council Tax bands A to D in England, alongside an extension of the temporary VAT reduction on qualifying domestic electricity supplies until July 2027. There are also commitments to reform energy markets and bring down costs over the longer term, including changes to standing charges.
These are welcome measures. Energy bills have placed enormous pressure on households, and any meaningful assistance will be appreciated. However, there is an issue that I believe is regularly overlooked in discussions about domestic energy costs, and it is particularly relevant to those living in apartment buildings.
An apartment building does not operate in the same way as an individual house. A resident may have an electricity account supplying their own home, but that same resident may also contribute through their service charge towards the electricity required to operate the building itself. This can include communal lighting, emergency lighting systems, lifts, mechanical ventilation, pumps, access control systems, fire safety equipment and other shared infrastructure. In some developments, there may also be communal heating or hot water systems.
These services consume energy, and the expenditure must be funded. Typically, those costs are recovered through the service charge in accordance with the relevant lease or other governing arrangements. The important distinction is that communal supplies may be subject to different contracts, tariffs and tax treatment from the electricity supplied directly to individual homes.
A Government announcement about reducing domestic electricity costs does not necessarily mean that every communal electricity account will benefit in the same way. A building with two lifts, mechanical ventilation and extensive communal lighting can have substantial energy requirements, even before considering its other shared equipment. Residents may receive relief on their individual household bills whilst continuing to experience pressure on the communal energy expenditure recovered through their service charges.
This is not necessarily a failure of the managing agent, nor is it evidence of unreasonable expenditure. It is a consequence of the infrastructure required to operate the building, and I believe that distinction deserves much greater recognition.
I would like the Government to provide greater clarity about how energy support and market reform apply to communal residential supplies. We should be examining whether shared electricity accounts are adequately considered when energy policy is developed, whether communal supply contracts could become more competitive, and whether there are opportunities to encourage investment in energy efficiency across existing residential developments.
I am not suggesting that communal energy should simply be subsidised indefinitely. However, if we are serious about reducing the cost of living, we cannot ignore the costs that residents pay collectively. For somebody living in an apartment, those costs can represent a meaningful proportion of their annual household expenditure, regardless of whether they appear on an individual energy bill or within a service charge demand.
Building Safety: Compliance Is Essential, But Affordability Matters Too
Building safety has undergone significant change in recent years, and the responsibilities placed upon those who own, manage and are accountable for residential buildings have become increasingly demanding. In many respects, rightly so. The consequences of poor building safety can be devastating, and there can be no acceptable argument for neglecting essential compliance.
However, there is another side to this conversation that deserves much greater attention. Making buildings safer costs money, and the financial implications of maintaining compliance can be substantial.
Fire risk assessments, inspections, testing, maintenance, remedial works, specialist advice and the management of increasingly complex compliance obligations all contribute to the overall cost of operating a residential building. Some of this expenditure is routine and predictable, whilst other costs arise from defects, changes in legislation or the need to address historic failures.
At Levels Property Management, we have experienced first-hand the complexity of building remediation. We successfully secured more than £6.5 million in funding towards cladding remediation for a single building, an achievement I am particularly proud of because of what that funding means for the people living there. It represents meaningful progress towards resolving serious issues without automatically expecting leaseholders to shoulder the entire financial burden.
But securing remediation funding can be a complex process, and not every building or defect falls neatly within an existing support scheme. There are buildings across the country facing significant expenditure relating to historic defects, deteriorating infrastructure and essential safety improvements. Some of that expenditure may be recoverable through service charges, whilst other costs may be subject to statutory protections, developer responsibilities, remediation funding or other legal arrangements. We must never assume that every safety-related cost can simply be passed on to leaseholders, but equally, we cannot ignore the reality that essential work still needs to be carried out.
What I find particularly interesting is that the Government’s own Budget acknowledges the increasing cost of constructing homes, including pressures arising from materials, labour and regulation. That recognition is significant because those same economic pressures do not stop applying once a building has been constructed. If materials become more expensive, repairing an existing building can become more expensive. If specialist labour costs increase, maintaining and inspecting existing systems can become more expensive. And if regulatory responsibilities expand, the resources required to discharge those responsibilities can also increase.
I would like to see a much more joined-up approach to building safety and affordability, ensuring that remediation funding remains accessible and effective whilst recognising the ongoing financial pressures associated with keeping existing buildings compliant. This also means being realistic about the cost of professional advice, inspections and management.
We cannot demand higher safety standards whilst pretending that delivering those standards has no financial consequences. Nor should we leave residents feeling that the only choices available are an unaffordable bill or an unsafe building. There has to be a better way of bringing together safety, accountability and financial sustainability.
Service Charges: We Need to Stop Confusing the Cost of Management With the Cost of a Building
This is an issue I have raised before, and I will continue raising it because I believe it sits at the heart of much of the misunderstanding surrounding our industry. A service charge is not the same thing as a managing agent’s fee, yet the two are regularly discussed as though they are interchangeable.
The service charge generally funds the costs of operating, maintaining, insuring and managing a development, subject to the lease and applicable legal requirements. The managing agent’s fee is one component of that overall expenditure, representing the charge for providing professional management services. They are two very different things, but when service charges increase, managing agents frequently find themselves being blamed for the entire increase.
Of course, there may be legitimate questions about management performance, procurement, expenditure or value for money, and those questions absolutely deserve answers. But an increase in the cost of insurance, electricity, lift maintenance or essential repairs cannot automatically be attributed to the managing agent. Nor can the cost of complying with statutory obligations simply be wished away.
The Budget provides an interesting example of the wider economic pressures affecting our sector. The Government has announced an increase in the National Living Wage to £13.21 from April 2027, and I support the principle of fair pay. People working in cleaning, caretaking, grounds maintenance, security and other essential services deserve to be paid properly, but we also need to recognise that increased employment costs can affect the price of those services.
Contractors may face higher wage bills, employer costs, insurance premiums, materials expenditure and operational overheads, all of which can influence the prices they charge. When those contractors are maintaining a residential development, their charges can ultimately form part of the service charge. This is not an argument against improving wages; it is an argument for recognising the consequences of economic policy across the entire supply chain.
There is also a much wider issue that I believe we need to confront. For too long, some buildings have operated with inadequate budgets, insufficient reserve funds and a reluctance to undertake necessary maintenance. The immediate result may have been lower service charges, but lower charges do not necessarily mean better management. Sometimes they mean that essential expenditure has simply been deferred.
Eventually, the roof still needs repairing, the lift still needs replacing and the building still needs maintaining. When that happens, residents can find themselves facing much larger bills than might have been necessary with proper long-term planning.
I believe we need to move away from treating the lowest possible service charge as the primary measure of success. Instead, we should be asking whether expenditure is justified, transparent, properly planned and delivering value. A well-managed building is not necessarily a cheap building; it is one where money is being spent appropriately, legal obligations are being met and the long-term interests of residents are being protected.
The Problem With Promising Cheaper Homeownership Without Addressing Its Real Costs
There is a difficult conversation to be had about affordability, and I fully understand why people become frustrated when service charges increase. For many households, even a relatively modest increase can create genuine financial difficulty. For others, the situation can be far more serious, with leaseholders facing charges that place enormous pressure on their finances and potentially affect their ability to remain in their homes or sell them.
That is not something I am prepared to dismiss, but we need to understand why those charges are increasing before deciding what should be done about them.
There is a significant difference between a building experiencing legitimate increases in insurance or utilities, a development requiring major works because maintenance was neglected for years, and a situation where expenditure is unreasonable or procurement is delivering poor value. Historic defects, inadequate reserve funds and poor financial oversight can create further complications, and each of these circumstances requires a different response.
Simply promising that service charges will become cheaper does not address any of those underlying issues. If a building requires £100,000 of essential expenditure, that requirement does not disappear because somebody believes the service charge should be lower. Equally, the existence of that expenditure does not automatically make every demand reasonable or legally recoverable. There must be proper scrutiny, transparency and accountability.
I would like to see the Government take a more serious interest in the long-term financial sustainability of existing residential buildings. That could include improving the information available to purchasers before they commit to a leasehold property, encouraging more effective long-term maintenance planning, and considering appropriate support for residents facing genuine hardship where essential building expenditure creates exceptional financial pressure.
We should also be examining how to prevent buildings from deteriorating because difficult financial decisions are repeatedly postponed. There is a tendency to focus on the immediate affordability of service charges without giving sufficient consideration to the consequences of underfunding a building over many years. In my experience, those consequences can be far more expensive than dealing with the underlying problems at the appropriate time.
These conversations may be less politically attractive than announcing help for first-time buyers, but they are every bit as important. Affordable homeownership cannot be measured solely by the ability to complete a purchase. It must also take account of the financial responsibilities that follow.
Regulating Managing Agents: Higher Standards Need More Than Good Intentions
The Government has already signalled its intention to strengthen regulation within the property management sector, and I support that ambition. Having spent my career working in this industry, I have seen both the value of good professional management and the consequences when standards fall short. There is no place for dishonest, incompetent or irresponsible managing agents, and leaseholders, residents and management companies deserve competent professionals who understand their responsibilities and act with integrity.
But meaningful regulation must be properly designed, and it must recognise the realities of operating a property management business.
Our responsibilities have grown significantly. Managing agents are expected to understand increasingly complex legislation, coordinate specialist contractors, oversee compliance, manage substantial budgets, communicate effectively with residents and provide sound advice to directors and clients. These responsibilities require knowledge, experience, systems, training and professional judgement, all of which come at a cost.
At the same time, there remains considerable pressure to keep management fees as low as possible. I worry about the contradiction between demanding better-qualified professionals, stronger regulation, improved technology, greater transparency and increased accountability, whilst sometimes appearing unwilling to acknowledge the investment required to deliver those things.
Regulation without a realistic implementation plan risks creating additional pressure on responsible businesses whilst failing to address the underlying causes of poor practice. I would like to see a clear framework for professional qualifications, continuing development, enforcement and transitional support, developed through meaningful engagement with the industry.
That engagement must include smaller independent managing agents. The sector should not become a place where only the largest organisations can afford to operate, because competition, innovation and choice all matter. Clients should have access to a healthy range of professional management businesses, and smaller organisations should not be disadvantaged simply because they lack the resources of a national corporate operator.
At Levels, we have invested heavily in developing our own technology, including MyLevels and LeaseClear, because I believe better systems, better information and better communication can genuinely improve the management experience. That investment reflects our commitment to doing things differently, but technology is not free, and neither is the professional expertise required to use it effectively.
If the Government wants higher standards, it needs to consider how those standards can be delivered sustainably. Regulation should raise the quality of the profession, not inadvertently reduce competition or make it harder for responsible businesses to provide the very services that residents and directors increasingly need.
Commonhold: A Different Ownership Structure Doesn’t Remove the Bills
Commonhold is another subject I believe deserves much more careful consideration. I understand the attraction of greater control for homeowners, a different approach to ownership and the potential to move away from some of the structural problems associated with leasehold. Those are legitimate objectives, and reform should absolutely seek to address unfairness and improve accountability.
However, I remain concerned that the practical responsibilities involved in managing residential buildings are being overshadowed by the promise of reform.
Commonhold does not make a lift cheaper to replace, eliminate the cost of insurance or remove the need for fire safety compliance, maintenance, cleaning, repairs and long-term financial planning. Nor does it guarantee that every decision made by homeowners will necessarily be the right one. The financial and operational responsibilities associated with a residential building remain, regardless of the legal structure through which it is owned.
Consider a building containing forty apartments. It may currently have a management company with a relatively small board of directors who, supported by professional advisers and managing agents, are responsible for making decisions in the interests of the company and the development. Some of those decisions can be difficult, particularly when they involve approving significant expenditure, increasing contributions to reserve funds or undertaking essential work that is unpopular in the short term.
Responsible management sometimes requires making decisions that are necessary rather than popular. Changing the ownership structure does not remove that responsibility, although it may change how decisions are made and who exercises particular powers.
Commonhold will have its own governance arrangements, and it would be wrong to suggest that every operational decision must be taken by every individual homeowner. Nevertheless, homeowner participation, collective decision-making and the responsibilities of those governing the building will remain critically important.
This is why I believe education must be central to reform. People need to understand what it means to be responsible for a shared building, including budgets, maintenance cycles, reserve funds, insurance, statutory obligations and the consequences of delaying essential expenditure. They also need to appreciate the value of professional advice, even when that advice is not necessarily what they want to hear.
If we change the legal structure of homeownership without improving understanding of the responsibilities involved, we risk creating new problems rather than solving existing ones. Commonhold may address important ownership and governance concerns, but it cannot repeal inflation, remove maintenance liabilities or eliminate the need for competent management. That reality deserves far more attention in the reform debate.
Education: The Missing Ingredient in Housing Reform
If there is one theme connecting everything I have discussed, it is education. I have written previously about the need for better understanding across the leasehold sector, and the Budget reinforces that belief.
We need purchasers to understand what they are buying, leaseholders to understand how service charges work and why expenditure changes, and directors to appreciate their legal responsibilities and the importance of taking appropriate professional advice. We also need managing agents to maintain high standards of competence and accountability, whilst policymakers must understand the operational and financial realities of the buildings their policies affect.
Without that shared understanding, the same problems will continue. A managing agent may be criticised for recommending essential works, a board may be pressured into reducing a budget below a sustainable level, or residents may believe that changing managing agents will automatically remove expenditure that is fundamentally unavoidable. Equally, politicians may promise improvements in affordability without sufficiently explaining how the costs of maintaining buildings will actually be reduced.
None of that helps create better homes.
At Levels, information is one of our core values, alongside integrity and innovation. I believe information is fundamental to good property management because it allows people to understand decisions, challenge expenditure appropriately and participate more effectively in the management of their buildings.
That is one of the reasons I developed MyLevels. I wanted residents and directors to have better access to the information they need, rather than feeling disconnected from the management of their development. Technology can make a significant difference to transparency and engagement, but it needs to be supported by a genuine commitment to communication and education.
Individual managing agents cannot solve the education problem alone. There is a much wider role for Government, professional bodies, conveyancers, developers and the property industry collectively. If we want better outcomes, we must improve understanding before problems arise, rather than simply reacting when they become disputes.
What I Would Like to See Next
I don’t expect a single Budget to resolve every issue affecting residential property management, nor do I believe that Government should be expected to subsidise every cost associated with owning or maintaining a property. However, there are practical steps that could make a meaningful difference, and I would like to see them become part of a more comprehensive approach to housing policy.
The first is a proper examination of communal energy costs. Energy policy should recognise that residents in apartment buildings often pay for electricity both individually and collectively, and the Government should examine whether existing support mechanisms and future market reforms adequately address that distinction. It should also consider how to encourage greater energy efficiency in existing buildings, where the costs of improvements and the benefits they deliver may be shared across multiple property owners.
We also need a more comprehensive approach to building remediation and affordability. Safety must remain the priority, but funding arrangements and legal responsibilities need to be clear, accessible and effective. Residents should not be left facing unnecessary uncertainty about historic defects, whilst those responsible for buildings must have the resources and professional support required to address genuine safety concerns.
Long-term financial planning deserves far greater attention. Better information for purchasers, stronger understanding of reserve funds and greater recognition of the consequences of deferred maintenance could help prevent some of the financial difficulties we see today. The objective should not be to make every service charge as low as possible, but to ensure that expenditure is justified, transparent and sustainable.
Professional regulation must also be proportionate, properly supported and genuinely effective. Qualifications, training and enforcement should improve standards without unnecessarily undermining smaller responsible businesses. Alongside that, we need to prepare homeowners for the responsibilities associated with commonhold and resident-led management, ensuring that governance, financial accountability and professional advice are central to reform rather than secondary considerations.
Perhaps most importantly, we need a more balanced national conversation about service charges and managing agents. Poor practice should be challenged, unreasonable expenditure should be questioned, and managing agents must be accountable for the services they provide. But legitimate professionals should not be blamed for every increase in the cost of maintaining a building, particularly when those increases arise from economic pressures, essential compliance or historic underinvestment.
The Government has an opportunity to improve that understanding, and I would like to see it taken.
We Need to Think Beyond the Front Door
I welcome investment in new homes, support for first-time buyers and measures intended to reduce household energy costs and improve living standards. These are worthwhile objectives, and I recognise that the Government faces difficult decisions about how to allocate limited resources.
But I believe our approach to housing remains incomplete. We spend an enormous amount of time discussing how people can afford to purchase homes, whilst giving considerably less attention to how those homes will be maintained, funded and managed over the decades that follow.
Buildings are not static assets. They age, their components deteriorate, regulations change, insurance markets fluctuate and essential systems require servicing and replacement. Those realities exist regardless of whether a building is leasehold, commonhold or subject to another ownership arrangement.
Good management can help control costs, improve planning, challenge poor value and protect the long-term interests of residents. But good management cannot eliminate the underlying cost of operating a building, and it is unrealistic to expect that changing an ownership structure or replacing a managing agent will somehow make those responsibilities disappear.
I want to see housing policy that understands this distinction. Policy that recognises the importance of maintaining the homes we already have alongside building the homes we need for the future. Policy that supports responsible property management, encourages transparency and education, and acknowledges the importance of realistic financial planning.
Above all, I want to see a Government that recognises affordability is not simply about the price of buying a home, but the cost of keeping it safe, maintained and fit for purpose.
Because the real challenge isn’t just helping people get onto the property ladder. It’s making sure the ladder doesn’t become financially impossible to stay on.
And until we start treating the long-term management of residential buildings as a central part of housing policy, I fear we will continue addressing the symptoms without tackling the underlying problem.
