1. Abolishment of Fixed-Term Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs) – All tenancies will become periodic, allowing tenants to give two months notice to end a tenancy at any time from the commencement of the tenant.
2. Limit on Rent Increases – The shift to periodic tenancies means that Section 13 notices will be the only way for landlords to raise the rent’ these can only be served once per year, and must be in the correct prescribed format.
3. Abolishment of Section 21 Evictions – Landlords will no longer be able to serve “no-fault) eviction notices to regain possession of their properties. From 1st May 2026, no further Section 21 Notices can be served. Notices can be served prior to 1st May 2026 but must be enforced by 31st July 2026.
4. Expansion of Section 8 Possession Grounds – The Government is adding and updating both mandatory and discretionary grounds for possession due to the abolition of Section 21 Notices from 1st May 2026, these notices will be the only way to regain possession of a property should the tenant not give notice to vacate.
5. Introduction of a Landlord Ombudsman (mandatory membership for all landlords) – This will help resolve disputes between landlords and tenants impartially. Landlords will be expected to join this scheme in 2028, although this is still to be confirmed by the Government in terms of timescales.
6. Creation of a Private Rented Sector Database (mandatory registration for all landlords) – Designed to compile information about landlords and properties and provide visibility on compliance. Landlords will be expected to register on the database toward the end of 2-26, although this is still to be confirmed by the Government in terms of timescales.
7. Application of the Decent Homes Standard and Awaabs Law to the Private Rented Sector – All rental properties must meet minimum quality standards. The application of this is still to be confirmed by the Government in terms of timescales, however, this is proposed under Phase 3 of their implementation plan to be in 2035 or 2037.
8. Prohibiting Discrimination – Landlords cannot refuse tenants on benefits or with children.
9. Allowing Renting with Pets – Landlords cannot unreasonably refuse tenants with pets.
10. Ban on Rental Bidding – Landlords and agents cannot accept offers above the advertised price.
11. Banning of Rent in Advance – Tenants will no longer be able to be asked to pay rent in advance.
12. Student Charges – Properties must be let exclusively to full time students and possession can only be gained using a Section 4A notice. Student tenancies will be periodic from the outset, with two months required from the tenants should they wish to end the tenancy.
13. Notice Changes for Landlords Selling Properties – Landlord must serve 4 months notice on tenants (not to expire within the first 12 months of a tenancy) to regain possession of a property in order to sell. The property cannot be subsequently re-let within 12 months of the expiry of such a notice in the case of a sale falling through, or being withdraw from the sales market.

This pace of change will be fast over the next year and landlords, courts and local authorities will need to adapt quickly so this sector can flourish once again. The hope is landlords are not put off by such changes and will re-join the market to grow it once again.

However, most of its changes are expected to come into force from 1 May 2026, these include:

• Removal of fixed-term assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs), replacing them with rolling periodic assured tenancies. Tenants can terminate giving at least 2 months notice (expiring at the end of the rent period).
• The abolition of section 21 “no-fault” evictions. Landlords will need to seek possession from tenants using one of the Section 8 Grounds (which have been substantially modified). Court proceedings will be required if the tenants refuse to leave upon expiry of a Section 8 Notice.
• Rent increases will be limited to once a year through a formal process, with tenants able to challenge increases they believe exceed market levels.
• Awaab’s Law extended to tenants, allowing them to challenge hazardous conditions within properties and require landlords to act within prescribed timescales.
• Fairness introduced on discriminating against potential tenants who have children or receive benefits.
• Landlords cannot unreasonably refuse consent to a tenant wishing to keep a pet at the Property.

These reforms are expected to impact the property market, particularly where properties are sold with tenants in situ. Some landlords may reassess their portfolios in response to increased regulation and longer possession timeframes, which may lead to more tenanted properties being offered for sale. This is likely to increase the importance of pricing and planning around vacant possession.

What this means for you

• Landlords should plan early for compliance, possession and potential sales.
• Buyers must understand tenancy status and whether vacant possession is realistic.
• Sellers of tenanted property should seek early advice to avoid delays.

 

To find out more, contact Claire Levy or the Residential Real Estate team. 

 

The position with tenancies for high rents over £100,000 or more needs to be considered. The current position is rents over this sum are not protected by the Housing Act 1988, such tenancies cannot be Assured or Shorthold tenancies where the rent is above the high rent threshold. Therefore current tenancies with annual rents over £100,000 are exempt from the statutory protections of The Housing Act 1988. They are considered as common law tenancies governed by the terms of contract and common law requirements. The exemption is there as such tenants are deemed sophisticated consumers who do not need statutory protection and who can afford to obtain legal advice. Therefore, these tenancies being exempt, fall outside the reform to Assured tenancies in the Renters’ Rights Bill.

However the Government could of course increase the high rent threshold bringing tenancies with high rents into the reformed assured tenancy regime.

Historically, the threshold was increased in 2010 from £25,000 to £100,000 to reflect rising inflation and changing market conditions. The increase in the annual threshold therefore, meant many more tenancies were then protected by the Housing Act legislation. Clearly rents have risen once again, 15 years having elapsed since the last review. Therefore, we could see that the threshold is raised once again.

These higher rent tenancies would then fall within the scope of the Renters’ Rights Bill which means landlords are restricted on rent increase and rent review clauses and landlords would be subject to statutory procedures for rent changes, tenancy renewals and evictions. Grounds for possession would be required before serving Notices to Quit and compliance would be needed with the Deposit Protection Rules, registering on the private rented sector database and with the private rented sector landlord ombudsman and of course repairing obligations to meet standards under the Decent Homes Standards and AWAAB’s law.

Although only a small number of tenancies will be affected if the threshold raised from £100,000, it would affect landlords, requiring them to follow the increased regulation.

It does appear that the market is re-setting due to the Government’s proposed changes and it remains to be seen whether we will have an active and profitable rental market following November’s budget.

To find out more, please contact the Residential Real Estate team. 

What is a Lasting Power of Attorney?

A Lasting Power of Attorney is a legal document allowing someone you trust (your attorney) to make decisions for you. In property and financial matters, this includes signing contracts, completing sales, or buying a home. An LPA must be registered with the Office of the Public Guardian before it can be used. Once registered, it remains valid until revoked or until the donor passes away.

Can You Buy or Sell a Property Using an LPA?

Yes, this is a common scenario. For example, you may need to sell a parent’s home if they have moved into care, or you might be living abroad and want someone in the UK to handle the purchase of your new house. The key is that the LPA must be properly registered and give the attorney clear authority to deal with property and land.

How to Prove an LPA is Valid – Getting an Access Code

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) offers an online service that makes it quicker and easier to prove an LPA is valid. The donor or attorney can request a secure access code at www.gov.uk/view-lpa. This code can then be shared with organisations such as banks, solicitors, or care providers, who can view a digital summary of the registered LPA.

While the access code is a useful tool for many organisations, HM Land Registry still requires a certified copy of the LPA to be lodged with applications. This is because the Registry must hold documentary evidence on file and cannot rely solely on the online summary.

For attorneys, it is still sensible to request an access code in advance, as it can speed up checks with other organisations involved in the transaction. However, when registering a property transfer or mortgage, a certified copy of the LPA must still be provided to Land Registry.

What Does HM Land Registry Need?

When an attorney signs a transfer deed, mortgage, or other legal document, the Land Registry will usually ask to see the registered LPA (or a certified copy). If the LPA is more than a year old, they may also want confirmation that it has not been revoked. If anything is missing or unclear, the Land Registry may raise queries, potentially delaying the transaction.

What About Jointly Owned Property?

If the property is jointly owned, the rules can be more complex. A sole attorney cannot always give a valid receipt for the sale proceeds, so in some cases, more than one attorney or a trustee may need to be involved. Getting this right is crucial to avoid problems later on.

What If the Donor Has Lost Capacity?

One of the main benefits of an LPA is that it can still be used if the donor loses mental capacity. Provided the LPA is registered and valid, the attorney can complete the transaction. Buyers and lenders are also protected if they rely in good faith on a registered LPA, meaning the purchase remains secure even if issues with the document come to light later.

How We Can Help

Using an LPA in property transactions requires careful handling, but with the right legal advice, the process can run smoothly. Our Residential Property team regularly advises attorneys and families on sales and purchases involving a Power of Attorney. Whether you are selling a parent’s house under an LPA or buying a home while living abroad, we can guide you every step of the way.

Although the Land Registry has existed for many years, a surprising number of properties across England and Wales remain unregistered, especially where ownership has not changed hands for generations. If your home or land is unregistered, proving ownership depends entirely on old title deeds, which can create risks and complications.

What Does “Unregistered” Mean?

When a property is registered, HM Land Registry holds an official, digital record of who owns it, together with details of mortgages, rights of way, and covenants affecting the land. This register is secure, up-to-date, and easily accessible.

In contrast, an unregistered property has no such official record. Ownership is established only through original paper deeds and documents, sometimes going back decades. These papers must show an unbroken chain of ownership to prove a valid title.

Why Registration Matters

Registering your property offers several important advantages:

1. Protection against fraud
   Sadly, property fraud is on the rise. Fraudsters may attempt to pose as the owner of unregistered land and sell or mortgage it without your knowledge. Registration makes it much harder, as HM Land Registry has robust checks and safeguards in place.

2. Clear proof of ownership
   If you want to sell, remortgage, or transfer ownership in the future, having your title registered makes the process far simpler and more secure.

3. Avoiding lost or damaged deeds
   If the original title deeds are lost, damaged, or incomplete, proving ownership of unregistered land can beome costly and time-consuming. Registering your property now removes this risk.

4. Certainty about boundaries and rights
   A Land Registry title plan shows the general boundaries of your property and records key rights, restrictions, and covenants. This clarity reduces the risk of disputes with neighbours and helps future buyers understand exactly what they are purchasing.

5. Speed and efficiency in transactions
   Registered land is easier to sell or mortgage. Buyers, lenders, and solicitors can rely on Land Registry records, so transactions proceed more smoothly and with fewer delays.

 

Voluntary Registration

Registration of unregistered property is compulsory when it is sold, mortgaged, or gifted. However, you do not have to wait until then. You can choose to register your property voluntarily at any time, and benefit from a more streamlined process.

How We Can Help

Our Residential Property team can guide you through the registration process from start to finish. We will review your deeds, prepare the necessary application, and liaise with HM Land Registry on your behalf. Once registration is complete, you will receive an official copy of your registered title – clear, secure proof that you are the legal owner.

Registering now gives you peace of mind and makes any future property transactions far simpler.

 

Sherrards’ Real Estate Litigation and Residential teams worked together to help our client to get vacant possession.

Vacant possession means the property must be empty on the day you complete your purchase or sale of it. 

The £5million property in Kensington had been sold subject to contract, however, there was a tenant in the property who was refusing to leave which was jeopardising the sale.

Proceedings were issued in the High Court.

The team worked hand in hand with our Residential Real Estate department in order to provide vacant possession and a successful outcome for our client and the sale of their property.

Being connected to the internet is something we almost take for granted these days. Tenants looking to move into new premises are likely to assume that adequate connections will already be available or reasonably straightforward to set up.  This isn’t necessarily the case and before you find yourself unable to get your business up and running in your new premises, check out the position as you may need to enter into a wayleave agreement.  It is worthwhile doing this and getting the landlord involved as soon as you can.

While modern buildings should have fibre optic cabling installed, older buildings may not. Having connection at a level and speed required for business purposes may mean entering into a telecom agreement (a wayleave agreement) with the service provider for the installation, or upgrading, of cabling within the building.  This can take time and involve multiple parties.

While tenants should have rights to connect into existing service media in the building in their lease, this may not extend to new cabling.  This may mean seeking the consent of the landlord to run cabling through common parts of the building. The telecoms provider will also want to know they can access and maintain their kit once installed and connected.

A wayleave agreement or telecoms lease will usually need to be entered into between the tenant, the service provider and the landlord. The landlord will want to be involved in the process to protect their position as far as possible to ensure that the service provider only has the rights they are entitled to and the landlord can control as best they can removal of the kit from their building when required.

Landlords should be aware that telecommunications providers have statutory rights which are heavily weighted in their favour. It can take over 18 months to secure the removal of telecommunications apparatus from premises with the landlord needing to prove grounds to do so.  Operators are also allowed to assign their rights, upgrade the equipment or share with other providers without the landlord’s consent.

Before refurbishing or redeveloping a property in the medium to long term, a landlord will need to factor in the rights of telecoms providers within the building if their equipment is to be removed. There need to be adequate ‘lift and shift’ provisions in place in any wayleave or telecommunications lease to require providers to move the equipment to allow the landlord to refurbish the premises. 

To find out more contact law@sherrards.com 

The High Court in, Kettel and others v Bloomfold Ltd [2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch) granted an injunction to a group of tenants in a block of flats preventing the landlord from developing land where the tenants’ car parking spaces were located.  The Court ruled that the car parking spaces granted to the tenants as part of their long leases were easements and the tenants were entitled to an injunction preventing the landlord from carrying on the proposed development because the landlord was not entitled to unilaterally terminate the easements.

An easement is a right to use or pass over land, and not a right to possession or joint use of the land with the party that has granted the easement.  In addition, an easement cannot be claimed if its effect would be to deprive the party that has granted the easement the benefits of owning the land.  In other words, the right will not be an easement if it prevents the owner of the land in question having any reasonable use of the land.

The Tenants had been granted long leases of flats in the landlord’s existing development, which included a right to use a specific parking space.  In the leases, the landlord had reserved the right to develop its neighbouring property, even if this affected certain rights enjoyed by the tenants.  The landlord wanted to commence a new development on land which included the car parking spaces allotted to the tenants and required the tenants to accept different parking spaces elsewhere.

The Tenants sought an injunction to prevent the development, arguing that they had been granted rights to use the car parking spaces which amounted to exclusive possession, and which in turn deprived the landlord of all reasonable use of the land on which the car parking spaces were situated.  The landlord argued in return that the tenants did not have exclusive possession of the car parking spaces, and so the rights to use the car parking spaces were easements.  Therefore, the landlord further argued, if the proposed development deprived the tenants of their right to use the car parking spaces, the tenants should be awarded damages.

The High Court granted the injunction to the tenants.  The Court held that the tenants had not been granted exclusive possession of the car parking spaces and that the rights granted merely prevented the landlord from parking a car in the car parking spaces.  It did not prevent the landlord from doing anything else with the land, such as passing over it or laying pipes or service media beneath it for the existing block of flats.  Therefore, the landlord was left with reasonable use of the land.  However, there was no right set out in the tenants’ leases for the landlord to unilaterally vary the position of the car parking spaces.  In other words, the landlord could not on its own extinguish the easements that had been granted by granting equivalent easements to the tenants on a separate piece of land.  The landlord was entitled to temporarily obstruct the car parking spaces to carry out its maintenance obligations at the existing block of flats, but it could not extinguish the easement by requiring the tenants to park their cars elsewhere.  The Court therefore granted the injunction as an appropriate means of preventing the landlord from unilaterally terminating the easements, and the landlord was prevented from carrying out its proposed development.

This case confirms that where tenants are granted specific parking spaces within their lease, do have a legal entitlement to use the parking space.  Therefore, developers in granting new leases will need to consider and include a right to alter and indeed terminate the tenants parking rights, where there is a potential for development of that land further in the future.

To find out more, please contact Caroline Vernon. 

In recent years, there has been a surge in articles produced on Japanese Knotweed, a highly invasive and fast growing bamboo-like plant which seems to be haunting many gardens in Britain. It was introduced to the UK in the 1820s for its ornamental qualities but has since proved to be a hot topic as it is extremley costly for landowners and developers, causing structural damage, growing between concrete and blocking drainage systems. It is nearly impossible to eradicate and requires professional Japanese Knotweed contractors who have access to very powerful weed killers.

It has now reached the point where those affected by Knotweed are applying to the courts for compensation. The latest position adopted by the courts is to provide compensation in circumstances where there has been a loss of amenity but not where homeowners claim diminution in value.

This position follows a case that has been widely circulated in the news – Williams & Waistell v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. In 2017, two adjoining bungalow owners brought a claim against Network Rail for allowing knotweed to spread from the railway land up to the boundary and under their properties. The knotweed had not caused any physical damage to the bungalows so there was no basis for a claim in that sense. However, the bungalow owners alleged it had caused the properties to suffer a diminution in value and had stigmatised them. Mortgage lenders are very careful and are hesitant to lend on such properties.

The pair claimed that the presence of the knotweed had encroached on their properties, interfering with their quiet enjoyment and causing a loss of amenity by reducing market value. The judge found that Network Rail’s breach of duty and failure to properly manage the situation once they had become aware of the risks, had led to damage and continuing nuisance. The court awarded each claimant £10,000 for diminution of value and £4,320 for treating the knotweed to prevent further ingress.

Network Rail sought to challenge this decision at the Court of Appeal. The original judgment was upheld but it is important to highlight that the Court of Appeal based their decisions on different reasons to those given by the judge last year. The court determined that the parties affected could not succeed in a claim solely for private nuisance as a result of diminution in value. They could, however, be successful in a claim for nuisance caused by encroachment of the knotweed because of a reduced ability to enjoy the amenity of their respective properties.

To find out more information, click here to contact Paul Marmor.