UK Real Estate Round Up April 2026

Training

Our PROPcast series continued in April with Episode 3 and our subject was “Contractual Controls Reform – what landowners and developers need to know”. In this session Joe Geen considered the major change to the status quo coming in 2027 when those benefitting from certain “contractual controls” will have to provide the Land Registry with a raft of information for publication. The aim is to bring greater transparency to development arrangements agreed with landowners and the PROPcast provided an overview of the new regime, the planning that needs to be done and the consequences of non-compliance. If you missed it, you can watch or listen back here.

PROPcast Episode 4 is at 10 a.m. on 12 May when our subject will be: “Cyber security in real estate – managing digital risk in smart buildings”. As buildings become smarter and more digitally connected, cyber security is fast becoming a critical real estate risk. Join Kelly Holmes, Partner and Head of Strategic Contracts, who will explore where responsibility for cyber security in real estate really sits, and what buyers, tenants and lenders should be asking to understand a building’s cyber resilience. Sign up for the PROPcast here. 

Legal Updates

Building Safety Act 2022

“Higher risk building” in England: 18m or seven+ storeys high and two or more residential units
“Relevant building” in England: 11m or five+ storeys high and two or more dwellings

Consultation on changes to the status of works in higher risk buildings

The government is consulting on proposals to reform the categorisation of building work to existing higher-risk buildings in England under the regime overseen by the Building Safety Regulator.  With very limited exceptions, currently all work to existing HRBs must go through the BSR gateways as either Category A work (to which the most stringent requirements apply) or Category B work (for which the documentation and other requirements are somewhat relaxed).   The BSR has received more than five times the number of applications for Category A work than it expected – leading to significant delay.  The consultation proposes, as option 1, amending Category A works to exclude most building work within individual residential units (unless it affects active fire safety measures).  Option 2 goes further and proposes also excluding small-scale work in HRB communal areas i.e. work which can be completed within five working days by three or fewer people (unless the work affects active fire safety measures or structural/external walls).  The consultation is open until 28 May: Improving proportionality and building safety outcomes in building control: categorisation of higher-risk building work - GOV.UK 

BSR publishes strategic plan

The Building Safety Regulator has published its strategic plan for the next year, including a roadmap of activity. The plan focuses on five priority areas: (1) improving operations and processes; (2) remediation; (3) the building phase and gateway 3 (including encouraging recruitment of registered building inspectors to carry out site inspections); (4) enhancing safety monitoring and (5) raising professional standards across the industry. The plan states that by March 2027, the BSR aims to respond to gateway 2 applications for new buildings within 18 weeks in “non-complex cases” and to respond to remediation applications for non-complex cases within 12 weeks. By working with others, improving guidance, and supporting applicants the BSR says that it expects applications for both new build and remediation schemes to have an approval rating of 65%.  You can read the plan in full here: Building Safety Regulator strategic plan 2026 to 2027 - GOV.UK

New Building Liability Order (BLO) case – extending liability across building contractor’s corporate structure

In Crest Nicholson Regeneration Limited -v- Ardmore Construction Limited (in administration) and others [2026] EWHC 789 (TCC) the claimant obtained a BLO against seven group companies of the original design and build contractor in relation to defects in a block of apartments, in relation to claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972.  The High Court was prepared to make the BLO on an “anticipatory” basis, without determining the question of the underlying liability which would be determined at a later trial.  The judge gave further guidance on how the question of it being “just and equitable” to make a BLO should be approached.  In summary:

• the assessment of whether it is just and equitable to grant a BLO is a broad test and necessarily fact specific
• the power is discretionary and should therefore be exercised having regard to the purpose of the BSA and all relevant factors
• the purpose of section 130 of the BSA is to provide the Court with powers to allow those directly responsible for defective work which gives rise to a relevant liability for the purposes of the statute to be pursued through their associates. Whilst those powers may have the effect of removing the protections afforded by special purpose vehicles and shell companies, the purpose of the BSA should not be defined as in any way limited to being directed at special purpose vehicles and shell companies;
• the Court should not seek to limit or circumscribe the statutory test by setting out an exhaustive list of factors
• the relevant factors in the case leading to it being just and equitable to make the order included that the original D&B contractor was in administration (and did not have the means to satisfy any judgment made against it), the administration was commenced specifically because of the contractor’s exposure to claims post-Grenfell, a specific ring-fencing exercise within the group had been attempted to shield other companies within it from liability, the same person had ultimate control of the original contractor and all of the group companies, the group had had knowledge of the potential claims for a long time and liability for the defects was not in real  doubt.

Contract

Boult v Together Personal Finance Ltd [2026] EWHC 809 (Ch)

The Chancery Division allowed the appellant's appeal against the County Court decision, holding that the legal charge was void. The appeal considered whether a material alteration to a deed after execution, by one party without the knowledge or consent of the other, renders it void under the 400-year-old rule in Pigot's Case. 

The respondent had lent money to the appellant which was secured on her property.  In due course, the respondent began possession proceedings. The appellant defended on the basis that the Legal Charge had been altered in manuscript after execution to include another property without her consent. The County Court had found at first instance that the alteration was an innocent mistake or administrative error and not material, therefore the rule in Pigot’s case did not apply. The appellant appealed.  The High Court found that the alteration was deliberate, not a mistake, as the respondent's solicitor intentionally added the title number for another property to the signed Legal Charge without checking with the appellant. The alteration was material at the time it was made because it created potential prejudice by exposing the appellant to enforcement action against the second property (and not just the original property). The fact that the respondent later reversed the alteration was irrelevant to materiality, which the Court said must be judged at the time of alteration. The legal charge was therefore void and unenforceable.

Landlord and Tenant

Renters’ Rights Act 2025 – PBSA – notice to existing students by 31 May 2026

For existing student tenancies (i.e. those signed before 1 May 2026), if landlords wish to evict students this academic year – relying on new Ground 4A of the grounds for possession – they have until 31 May 2026 to write to students to give them notice that they may be evicted using Ground 4A.  It is only if a landlord takes this preparatory step that they will be able to go on to serve a Ground 4A notice (at any time between 1 May 2026 and 30 July 2026) giving the student tenants 2 months’ notice to terminate the tenancy (rather than 4 months’ notice as would otherwise be the case).  The government’s RRA campaign page is the hub for guidance on the changing regime under the RRA: Private landlords

Renters’ Rights Act 2025 - SDLT

A Written Ministerial Statement was published setting out how Government intends to deal with the unintended consequences of the Renters Rights Act with respect to SDLT: (Written statements - Written questions, answers and statements - UK Parliament). As a reminder the issue arose because on moving to periodic tenancies, more normal leases would have started to fall within scope of SDLT over time.

To summarise Government’s response:

• The Government will legislate so that residential tenancies operating as periodic tenancies under the RRA will not give rise to an SDLT charge on the rent element (at or before this year’s Budget).
• HMRC will not collect SDLT on the rent element of affected tenancies from 1 May 2026.

This will not affect the SDLT treatment of premiums, long residential leases, shared ownership arrangements and non-residential property.

Renters’ Rights Act 2025– Superior landlords at risk of criminal and civil liability for tenant’s failures in a residential lease structure

Provisions of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 coming into force on 1 May 2026 will extend the ability for local authorities to seek rent repayment orders against not only direct landlords who have committed offences under the Housing Act 2004, but to superior landlords and freeholders. The liability is criminal and civil. Of particular interest is the offence of operating a house in multiple occupancy (HMO) without a licence (licensing is mandatory for an HMO where 5 or more people occupy, although there can also be selective licensing which could apply to smaller HMOs). 

The position pre-RRA was that only the party controlling or managing the unlicensed property could be liable, and could be made subject to a rent repayment order of up to two years’ rent as well as unlimited fines in a criminal prosecution.  However, from 1 May onwards, that liability is extended to “any person who as landlord under a tenancy…has an estate or interest in…the HMO that is superior (whether directly or indirectly) to the estate of [the person who has control or manages the HMO]”. Directors of corporate entities who hold such interests can also be personally liable if the offence is committed with their consent, or is as a result of their neglect. 

The good news is that there is a defence – if the superior landlord can show that it has taken “all reasonably practicable steps” to ensure that a property was licensed. Simply having a covenant in a lease that the tenant will comply with statute, or even that it will not operate an HMO is unlikely to be enough.

Park Cakes Limited v Caterpillar Property Limited (20 March 2026)

The successful claimant tenant, Park Cakes Limited (bakers and suppliers of the famous “Colin the Caterpillar” cake) applied by way of Part 8 claim for declaratory relief in the Leeds Business & Property Courts which raised a novel point of construction of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.  The landlord argued that the presence of a tenant’s option to renew in two factory leases meant that the landlord and tenant had reached agreements for future tenancies for the purposes of s.28 LTA 1954 – with the result that the leases did not enjoy the protection of Part II of the Act, and the tenant’s sole route of renewal lay in exercising the options (which would have led, among other things, to a new rent determined by a fixed formula rather than a market rent under s.35).  The Court rejected the landlord’s arguments and accepted on behalf of the tenants that, on their true construction, options (which may of course never be exercised) do not constitute agreements within the meaning of s.28 LTA 1954.  Such an agreement is reached only upon their effective exercise. Suggestions to the contrary would result in a serious lacuna in the Act, by providing parties with a de facto means of contracting out of the Act without first following the statutory procedures.

Leasehold reform under Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act delayed until 2028

The Minister for Housing and Planning confirmed in oral evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee in the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, that reform measures under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 may not be implemented until late in 2028.  This is due to “serious flaws” in the Act which need to be addressed in further primary legislation, along with the significant amount of secondary legislation that will be required to bring the relevant provisions into force.

Judicial Review of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act

Some months ago, a consortium of landlords brought an action for judicial review in respect of various aspects of this Act, including the proposed cap of £250 on ground rents and the removal of marriage value from enfranchisement premiums.  The judicial review application was refused and the landlords appealed. The Court of Appeal has now overturned that decision allowing a judicial review action to commence.

Upwards only rent review ban – retrospective effect

The Bill containing the UORR ban has completed its progress through Parliament and was given Royal Assent on 29 April 2026.  The Schedule containing the ban is not yet in force and is likely not to be implemented until Summer 2027 or later.  In an earlier draft of the Bill, all leases completed before the ban comes into force, or completed pursuant to contractual arrangements exchanged before the ban comes into force would not have been caught.  However, a late amendment made in the House of Lords, introduced an element of retrospectivity for the first time.  This extends the ban on UORR to day one rent reviews in an option to renew and to the rent reviews in any lease granted pursuant to such an option (or other arrangement) if that option/arrangement was entered into on or after 17 March 2026. The provisions clearly capture put and call options, and will also catch some agreements for lease. 

Although the ban is not yet in force, to be sure that any rent reviews during the term of the resulting lease will not be subject to the ban, any leases granted pursuant to agreements for reversionary lease, options or pre-emptions in favour of existing tenants should be granted before the ban comes into force.  Leases granted pursuant to such arrangements, exchanged on or after 17 March 2026 and completed after the ban comes into force, will be subject to the ban, notwithstanding that such arrangements were exchanged before the ban becomes law.

Planning

Government consults on BNG exemption for brownfield residential development

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has published a consultation on a biodiversity net gain (BNG) exemption for brownfield residential development. The consultation is published alongside the government response to its May 2025 consultation on the implementation of BNG for minor, medium and brownfield development. The consultation proposals seek to complement the government's strong support for the development of brownfield land by exploring options for a targeted exemption from BNG for some brownfield residential development. It seeks views on:

• The definition of brownfield residential development. The government proposes that "brownfield development" would be defined as development where at least 75% of the land within the planning application boundary is "previously developed land". This would be land where there is or was a lawful permanent building or structure from 1948 onwards. "Structure" would include hardstanding, roads and fixed surface infrastructure. There would be exemptions for buildings last used for agriculture or forestry and for land used for minerals or landfill waste activities. Importantly, only development that is predominantly residential would fall within the new proposed BNG exemption.
• Potential area-based thresholds for an exemption. The government is considering whether the threshold for the exemption should be 0.5 hectare, 1 hectare, 1.5 hectares, 2 hectares or 2.5 hectares.

The consultation closes on 10 June 2026. 

Other

Articles & Publications

UKREiiF 2026

UKREiiF has firmly established itself as the premier event in our industry, and this year we are excited to be part of the experience by hosting two events that bring together colleagues, clients and peers from across the sector.

• A signature dinner hosted by Eversheds Sutherland & BBS Capital
  Co-hosted with BBS Capital, our dinner provides a fantastic opportunity to connect and catch up with peers from across the industry.

• Using Sport and Entertainment to create value and transform our cities
  Joined by keynote speaker, Deloitte, this expert panel discussion during UKREiiF, will explore how major sport and entertainment projects are being used to drive investment, unlock value and support place based regeneration across UK cities.

• Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill – which sets out a major package of reforms intended to modernise, strengthen, and ultimately replace large parts of the leasehold system in England and Wales. Links: Lawbite: Commonhold Reimagined: The Bill Set to Break the Leasehold Cycle / LinkedIn
  
  
• Revaluation of rateable values for business properties and statutory compensation under the LTA 1954 – which looks at the impact that the upcoming revaluation of rateable values will have on compensation calculations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. With changes taking effect in April 2026, the timing of notices will be more important than ever. Links: Revaluation of rateable values for business properties and statutory compensation / LinkedIn
  
  
• Lillystone v Bradgate Education Partnership [2025] EWHC 3341 (KB) – where the court considered a claim under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984. The court found that the respondent had not owed the appellant a duty under the 1957 Act or 1984 Act. The appellant’s injury had been caused as a result of his choice to adopt the dangerous manoeuvre of climbing a gate onto the respondent’s property. Links: A Leap Too Far: High Court Shuts Down Injury Claim at the School Gate / LinkedIn

Publications

Our Tax and Energy teams have prepared a briefing on the Orsted West of Dutten Sands case in which the Supreme Court rules that the costs incurred on environmental surveys and studies during the planning and design of offshore windfarms do not qualify for capital allowances.  Links: LinkedIn | ES Website

A new Compass Guide from our Corporate Crime team on the UK’s ‘failure to prevent fraud’ offence under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act (ECCTA) is available here.

You can read the latest edition of the Global Sustainability & ESG Insights here:  LinkedIn | ES Website

You can also read a briefing on limiting liability in contracts in the UK and the EU here on LinkedIn. The update focuses on approaches to liability caps and related contractual protections, providing practical insight for clients negotiating or reviewing commercial agreements. The key point for businesses is that the same liability clause can behave very differently depending on governing law.