Brighton and Hove has more leaseholders than almost anywhere else in England and Wales. Thousands feel they are at the mercy of freeholders.

An estimated 25,000 people in the two towns own only the leasehold of their flats, not the freehold.

And many of them have freeholders who are able to exploit property laws decried as the last hangover of the feudal system by leaseholding's many critics.

Freeholders, who own the land, still enjoy powers to charge for maintenance and running costs of blocks where the flat owners only own the bricks and mortar, not the land the building stands on.

England and Wales are now the only two countries in the world where the leaseholding system survives.

Angela Penny says she has put up with problem after problem since she moved into her flat in Holland Road, Hove, in 1986.

The 62-year-old retired nursing lecturer said: "I have been in dispute one way or another since I moved in.

"It is nightmarish. You have got no autonomy at all and you feel absolutely powerless - in fact you are powerless."

The Government, holding true to one of its general election promises, hopes that is about to change as it begins the process of pushing its Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill through Parliament.

Brighton Pavilion MP David Lepper, whose weekly postbag bulges with complaints about leaseholding, said: "This is a major step forward. It is going to benefit many, many leaseholders, particularly in Brighton and Hove, whatever criticism there is going to be about it from some leaseholders' organisations."

Among the advances he singled out are proposals for a new form of land tenure, known as commonhold, a new right to manage and a right to challenge maintenance and service charges.

Switching from leasehold to commonhold is one of the Bill's key proposals but, although leaseholders' organisations are bitterly critical, it will not be compulsory and will not apply to all new developments.

Ministers, however, insist commonhold should be proven to work before there is any attempt to end leaseholding completely.

On commonhold, the Bill proposes that flat owners should be able to set up commonhold associations to manage new developments.

Existing leaseholders would also be able to set up commonhold associations, but only if every flat owner in a block agreed to change.

Among the main proposals for reform of leaseholding itself are:

A new right to manage, with the 'residency test' abolished along with requirements that at least two thirds of leaseholders opt to take over from the freeholder
Measures to make it easier for leaseholders to get together and buy the freehold of their flats
Challenging service charges and fees for maintenance would be made easier
l Reform of 'marriage value', which would be shared 50-50 between the freeholder and leaseholder.

Shula Rich, of the Brighton, Hove and District Leaseholders' Association, criticised the right to manage proposals, saying freeholders would still influence a property by sitting on any management committee.

But in common with many leaseholders' organisations she reserved her bitterest criticism for the Government's refusal to go all the way and abolish leasehold in favour of commonhold.

Ms Rich said: "We are just policing the system and we are not creating a way out, and what people need is a way out because of the misery they are in.

"I think they have ducked out of commonhold. It is just another item on the menu. It is not going to be mandatory so what is the point of it?"

The loudest criticism, however, is unlikely to come from leaseholders who want a more radical Bill but from landlords who would like to preserve the existing system.

Mr Lepper has seen proposals to reform leaseholding flounder before, especially in the House of Lords, and predicts getting the Bill on to the statute book will be one of the bigger political battles of the next 12 months.

He said: "Even in a reformed House of Lords there is still going to be a strong lobby on behalf of property companies and the major landowners.

"I think it will be one of the set piece battles because I think it does challenge what some property companies and landowners think are their ancient rights."