UK Real Estate Round Up March 2026


People Capabilities In this section you can find Services Banking and Finance Banking and Finance overview Asset & Lease Finance Capital Markets Corporate Debt Leveraged Finance Project, Energy and Infrastructure Finance Real Estate Finance Restructuring and Insolvency Securitization and Structured Finance Trade and Export Finance Competition, Trade and Foreign Investment Competition, Trade and Foreign Investment overview Antitrust and Competition Litigation Dawn Raids Foreign Investment and National Security Law International Sanctions and Export Controls International Trade Law Merger Control Procurement and State Aid Construction and Engineering Construction and Engineering overview Construction Disputes Contracts and Procurement EPC Project Advisory Corporate and M&A Corporate and M&A overview Capital Markets Corporate Governance International Corporate Reorganizations Joint Ventures Mergers and Acquisitions Private Equity Venture Capital Corporate Crime Corporate Crime overview Anti-Bribery and Corruption Anti-Money Laundering International Sanctions and Export Controls Regulatory Investigations and Enforcement Data Privacy, Security and Technology Data Privacy, Security and Technology overview Cybersecurity Data Privacy Disruptive Technology Electronic and Mobile Commerce Information Law Product Counseling Regulatory Defense and Litigation Technology Transactions and Sourcing Telecom Services Employment, Labor and Pensions Employment, Labor and Pensions overview Corporate Transactions Cross-Border Employment and Pensions Diversity, Pay and Discrimination Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Employment Employment Litigation Global Mobility and Immigration Labor and Industrial Relations Pensions and Retirement Plans Pensions Risk Transfer and Management Financial Services Regulation Financial Services Regulation overview Asset Management Crypto Assets Derivatives Financial Services Disputes and Investigations Funds Insurance Insurance overview Captives Insurance and Reinsurance Disputes Insurance and Retirement Products, Insurance Distribution Insurance Financing and Capital Markets Insurance M&A, Reinsurance and Restructuring Insurance Regulation and Compliance Insurance Regulatory Investigations and Enforcement Insurance Taxation Insurtech Pensions Risk Transfer and Management Intellectual Property Intellectual Property overview IP Audits and Assessments IP Litigation IP Transactional Patents Trademarks, Trade Dress and Copyrights Trade Secrets Investigations Investigations overview Antitrust and Competition Investigations Employment Investigations Internal Investigations National Security Investigations Konexo Konexo overview Data and Cyber Consulting Legal Services Interim Resourcing Legal Team Consulting Litigation and Dispute Resolution Litigation and Dispute Resolution overview Class Actions Commercial Litigation Construction Disputes Energy Disputes Environmental, Health and Safety Financial Services Disputes and Investigations Fraud Insurance and Reinsurance Disputes International Arbitration Procurement Disputes Real Estate Disputes Regulatory Investigations and Enforcement Tax Controversy and Litigation Real Estate and Planning Real Estate and Planning overview Commercial Development and Leasing Corporate Real Estate Planning and Environmental Real Estate Disputes Real Estate Finance Living Strategic Contracts Strategic Contracts overview Contract Modernization Outsourcing Strategic Partnerships Tax Tax overview Acquisitions and Restructuring Business Taxation Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Real Estate Tax Taxation of Financial Transactions and Institutions Tax Controversy and Litigation Transfer Pricing US State and Local Tax VAT/Indirect Taxes Industries Consumer Consumer overview Food and Beverage Luxury Retail and Wholesale Energy Energy overview Clean Energy Energy Regulatory Hydrogen Nuclear Oil and Gas Power Financial Services Financial Services overview Corporate and Investment Banking Payments and Fintech Private Capital Retail Banking and Consumer Finance Governments and Infrastructure Governments and Infrastructure overview Governments and Strategic Projects Infrastructure Transportation Industrials Industrials overview Aerospace, Defense and Security Automotive Chemicals Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering Life Sciences and Healthcare Life Sciences and Healthcare overview Agriculture and Medicinal Cannabis and CBD Healthcare Industrial Biotechnology Medical Devices Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology Research and Development Vaccines Real Estate Real Estate overview Alternative Assets Multi and Single Family Residential Office and Industrial Real Estate Investment Retail and Mixed Use Transport Related Real Estate Technology & Digital Technology & Digital overview Digital Content Digital Infrastructure Technology Resources Insights Client tools Events and training Business topics About About us Firm leadership Purpose and values Responsible business Community Diversity and inclusion Environmental sustainability Pro bono Reports Service excellence Alumni News Careers Global careers Applications Why us? Lawyers and partners Business professionals Students and recent graduates Offices Global Visit global site Select a local version of the site Angola Asia Austria Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic Estonia Finland France Germany Hungary Iraq Ireland Italy Jordan Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Mauritius Mozambique Netherlands Poland Portugal Qatar Romania Saudi Arabia Slovakia South Africa Spain Sweden Switzerland Tunisia United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Rest of the world en Select language English UK Real Estate Round Up March 2026 Home Resources Insights Home Resources Insights UK Real Estate Round Up March 2026 UK Real Estate Round Up March 2026 A closer look at the latest developments April 02, 2026 United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom Training Our PROPcast series continued in March with Episode 2 and our subject was “Staying Out of Trouble – Financial Crime in the Real Estate Sector”. In this session Steve Smith, defender and investigator, outlined the criminal risk areas for all those dealing with real estate in the UK, highlighting what individuals need to do, and what organisations should have in place to stay on the right side of the law. If you missed it, you can watch or listen back here. PROPcast Episode 3 is at 10 a.m. on 14 April when our subject will be: “Contractual Controls Reform – what landowners and developers need to know”. In a major change to the status quo, from 2027 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. In this PROPcast, Professional Support Lawyer Joe Geen will provide an overview of the new regime, the planning that needs to be done and the consequences of non-compliance. Sign up for the PROPcast here. Our Real Estate Dispute Resolution team also presented this month on the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 – with a particular focus on the new grounds for possession and rent review provisions. You can watch it back 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 Building Safety Regulator publishes latest transparency data The Building Safety Regulator has published its latest transparency data, providing an update on performance and activity. The release confirms that a remediation improvement plan will be introduced in the coming weeks, setting out measures to improve the efficiency and timeliness of remediation applications. The data also shows that in the 12 week rolling period to 25 February 2026, the Regulator issued 108 decisions on Gateway 2 new build applications and received 82 new submissions. Of applications reviewed post validation by the Regulator’s innovation unit, 33% were approved and 33% were rejected. Senedd passes the Building Safety (Wales) Bill The Building Safety (Wales) Bill will become an Act following Royal Assent, having completed its passage through the Senedd. The new legislation establishes a new building safety regime for all multi-occupied residential buildings in Wales, regardless of height. Buildings are classified as category 1, 2 or 3 depending on height, with different regulatory requirements applying to each category: Category 1 and 2 buildings will be subject to both fire safety and structural safety duties. Category 3 buildings will be subject only to fire safety duties. An Accountable Person regime will operate in Wales, which is similar (but not identical) to the English regime. The new law is expected to be implemented in stages from April 2027 to allow time for industry to get up to speed with the new requirements. You can read more on the Welsh government website here: 'Huge step forward’ for fire safety in Wales \| GOV.WALES and our website here: The Building Safety (Wales) Bill ESG Update on timetable for reforms to the energy performance of buildings regime In January 2026, the government published a partial response to their consultation on proposals to reform the Energy Performance of Buildings regime. The partial response covered what new-style Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) for domestic and non-domestic properties will measure and when EPCs will be required under the new regime. Subject to Parliamentary approval, the government intended to bring forward regulations in 2026 to make these changes. However the government has now said, that, following engagement with industry on the delivery timeline, it has decided to postpone the launch of the reforms to the second half of 2027. It will work with industry and the devolved administrations to agree a new launch date and implementation plan by the summer of 2026. Land Registry Register of contractual controls The UK Government has published draft regulations and guidance which, if the former come into force, will implement the new contractual controls regime. The broad goal is to increase transparency of arrangements where landowners grant third parties rights which bind registered land and relate to its potential development. These will often be rights granted to developers and promoters. The justification is that having this information in the public domain will make it easier for other stakeholders to identify land with development potential. The regulations are currently in draft form but there is an expectation that these will become law. Our PROPcast on 14 April at 10 a.m. will explain more about the new regime – sign up here. What agreements will the regime apply to? The most commonly encountered agreements that the regime will apply to will be options, pre-emption rights and promotion agreements. There are a number of exemptions which will take arrangements outside of the regime, these include: Rights which are not held for development purposes. There are detailed provisions around this. Essentially, to be exempt the rights must exclusively be held for purposes that are not development which would result in the provision of one or more dwelling houses or a building where the floorspace created is 100sqm or more Rights with a control period of less than 18 months Rights relating to a loan or overage What will people have to do? Those subject to the regime will have to provide specified information to HM Land Registry, most of which will be published monthly. The information will have to be submitted by a conveyancer. What information must be provided? There is a list in the regulations. Examples include the names of the parties, the land affected, the type of arrangement, the period of control (including any possible extensions). Financial information on the deal is not expected to be required. When are the regulations coming into force? They are expected to be made during the first half of 2026, with them coming into force on 6 April 2027. What triggers the obligation to provide information? The grant of contractual control rights Assignment of rights where either (1) they are contractual control rights at the date of the assignment or (2) contractual control information has previously been provided in relation to them Written variations of rights where the variation alters the relevant information that must be provided and either (1) they are contractual control rights at the date of the variation or (2) contractual control information has previously been provided in relation to them Once the regulations come into force (6 April 2027), the information must be submitted within 60 days of the above trigger event. If any rights are granted between the regulations being made and them coming into force, the information must be provided by 6 October 2027. There will also be an obligation to inform HM Land Registry when a contractual control right has come to an end or been exercised. This includes where a right has been exercised or come to an end in part, so multiple notifications may be needed. How will the obligations be enforced? Firstly, the affected agreements will usually be protected on title by a notice and/or restriction but HM Land Registry will refuse to register the notice and restriction unless the contractual control information has been provided. Secondly, there are criminal offences that may be committed through non-compliance. These are where either (1) a person fails to provide the information, without reasonable excuse or (2) a person provides false or misleading information and either knew that was the case or was reckless about it. The possible penalties are fines and imprisonment. Where the grantee is a company, partnership or some sort of body corporate, relevant officers (e.g directors, secretaries, partners, members) may be liable. What do you need to do now? Consider which transactions may be caught by the regime and plan deal timeframes accordingly Revisit the position on confidentiality Develop a strategy on alternate deal structures Keep a watching brief on the area as more guidance is released and practice develops Land Law In Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd v Piers and others [2026] EWHC 531 (Ch) the Chancery Division held that the second freehold option granted to Crest Nicholson (South) Limited (Crest) under a 2002 option agreement, as amended, remained valid and enforceable despite the rule against perpetuities. The proceedings concerned the legal effect of option agreements for the acquisition of land at Holmbush Farm near Bewbush. Crest contended it had an option to obtain a lease over remaining land together with an option to acquire the freehold. The Calverts (the defendants, comprising executors and children of the late Henry Calvert) contended the option agreement only entitled Crest to a licence and that the freehold option was void for perpetuity. The Court addressed three key issues: whether the 2002 agreement created an immediate interest in land; whether the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009 applied; and whether the lease/licence agreement created a lease or licence. Mrs Justice Bacon found that the 2002 agreement did create an immediate contingent interest under the second freehold option, subject to a twenty-one-year perpetuity period under section 9(2) Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964. The lease/licence agreement was construed as an agreement for a licence rather than a lease, as it did not confer exclusive possession on Crest. However, when Crest exercised the lease option on 19 September 2023, this created an equitable interest governed by the 2009 Act under section 15(1), which abolished the rule against perpetuities for options. Consequently, the second freehold option remained valid and enforceable, giving effect to the parties' original intentions to extend the option period beyond twenty-one years. Landlord and Tenant Section 5 LTA 1987 – tenants’ right of first refusal – important new Court of Appeal decision In SGL 1 Limited V FSV Freeholders Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 267 the Court of Appeal overturned a longstanding case on the meaning of “building” for the purpose of serving the tenants in the building with notices of their right to exercise their right of first refusal prior to a sale of that building. Section 5(3) of the Act provides that where a landlord proposes to effect a disposal of more than one building it should sever the transaction so as to deal with each building separately. In this case, there were multiple blocks in a development village and the question was whether notices served in relation to each individual block were valid, or if the blocks together should have been treated as one “building” and been the subject of one notice. The landlord (in administration) had served two notices – one for Block A, which was an old warehouse which had been redeveloped before the rest of the development, and one for the other three blocks together. Two of those blocks were interconnected, with one entrance for both blocks and a shared plant room. The third block was physically separate, but relied on the plant room in the combined block. The required number of residents did not respond to confirm they intended to exercise their right of first refusal and all 4 blocks were sold. The residents then challenged the sale and sought an order that the blocks should be transferred to them. At first instance the judge held that the notices were invalid, and all 4 blocks should have been treated as one “building” – weighing 13 factors in the balance when doing so. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision, and in doing so confirmed that an earlier case which had been the leading authority for 20 years had been wrongly decided. The key issue was whether the structures were within a “functionally integrated built envelope". Due to the three later developed blocks being interdependent with the shared plant room, the notice grouping the three together as one building had been validly served. New Residential Service Charge Code RICS has published RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code (fourth edition) as an update of the third edition published in 2016. The Code applies to all RICS members and RICS-regulated firms and is effective from 7 April 2026. The updates are intended to improve general standards in connection with the management of service charge in residential leasehold properties and incorporates recent developments in legislation such as the Building Safety Act 2022, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 and the Fire Safety Act 2021. Renters’ Rights Act (RRA)– mandatory information sheet for existing tenants published – must be provided by 31 May 2026 The Information Sheet is a document produced by the government for tenants. It explains how their tenancy may be affected by the changes introduced by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. The government guidance says that if landlords have a “letting agent” who manages the property on their behalf, then the agent must provide the Information Sheet to the tenant, even if the landlord has also provided it. The Information Sheet must be provided to a tenant if their tenancy: is an assured or assured shorthold tenancy was created before 1 May 2026 has a wholly or partly written record of terms (including a written tenancy agreement) Failing to do so by 31 May 2026 could result in a fine (up to £7,000 according to the guidance). The government’s webpage says that the information sheet is only valid when downloaded from that page and goes on to say that the full PDF must be provided in hard copy or electronically, but that simply sending a link to the webpage for the tenant to access the sheet themselves will not be sufficient. The information sheet and guidance are available here: The Renters’ Rights Act Information Sheet 2026 - GOV.UK RRA - Written statement of terms - for tenancies starting after 1 May Landlords who have tenancies that start on or after 1 May 2026 will need to provide their tenants with certain information about the tenancy in writing. This can be done as part of a tenancy agreement. Failure to provide this could result in the landlord receiving a fine of up to £7,000. RRA - Purpose-built student accommodation exemption The statutory instrument for the exemption for PBSA from the assured tenancy system has been published. This exempts private PBSA that complies with UNIPOL and ANUK student housing codes approved under section 233 of the Housing Act 2004 from the assured tenancy system and ensures providers have access to an amended “Ground 4A” (the student possession ground) for existing tenancies. RRA – Rent review The government has announced that a fee (of £47) will be payable by tenants who wish to challenge a landlord’s notice of rent increase in the First-tier Tribunal. This might perhaps go some way to alleviating fears that the Tribunal would be swamped by tenant challenges, given that the rent increase will only take effect from the date on which the Tribunal determines the claim (i.e. no backdating of the increase to the date of the landlord’s notice). Consultation on residential ground rents The government has published its summary of responses to this consultation. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the responses from leaseholders favoured the reduction to peppercorn rent approach. Modern leasehold - Restricting ground rent for existing leases - summary of responses Enfranchisement – a house is still a house even if substantially damaged and not reinstated In Sheppey Beach Villas Ltd v Taylor and others [2026] EWHC 647 (Ch) (19 March 2026) the court considered the application of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (1967 Act) on a severely damaged property. The 1967 Act provides that certain long leasehold tenants of a house are entitled to buy the freehold from the landlord. “A house” includes any building designed or adapted for living in and “reasonably so called.” In this case, the key issue was whether a property largely destroyed by fire remained a "house" within the meaning of the Act. The property was a single storey building of living accommodation and let on a 99-year lease. It was occupied up until the date it caught fire in 23 March 2021 which caused very severe damage. The property had not been inhabited, or habitable since that date. The tenant did not undertake any works to reinstate the property, in breach of the terms of the lease. The landlord therefore served three notices to forfeit the lease based on this breach of covenant. In counter to this, the tenant served two notices under the 1967 Act to acquire the freehold to the property. The court held that the property as damaged could still reasonably be called a house for the purposes of the 1967 Act. The judge emphasised temporary disruption and continuity of identity. The temporary ruinous state did not disrupt its status as a house. Many people would describe it as a "ruined house" or "burnt-out house", but the word "house" would be used. The court also held that the structure was a "dwelling" for the purposes of section 168 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, which restricts service of forfeiture notices without a prior determination of breach. The landlord’s notices were therefore invalid as there had been no prior finding of breach. Articles & Publications Read our Global Sustainability and ESG Themes for 2026 on LinkedIn or on our website: Global sustainability and ESG themes for 2026 The second edition of our Global Health & Life Sciences Bulletin has been published and is also available via LinkedIn. From our Real Estate Dispute Resolution team: A Lawbite on the case of Gavin Maher v Investalet Limited [2025] EWHC 3133 (Ch) – where the High Court considered and clarified the scope of section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and whether it allows the court to make an order for vacant possession against a trespasser. The decision confirms that s234 does not empower the court to order trespassers to give vacant possession because a trespasser’s possessory title is not ‘property’ that can be transferred or delivered under s234. Available here: Lawbite: Insolvency Act: no fast track to possession from trespassers and on LinkedIn. A Lawbite on the case of The Mayor and Commonality and Citizens of the City of London v Robinson Webster (Holdings) Limited [2026] EWHC 151 – which considers responsibility for business rates when a company enters a CVA. The case provides significant comfort for landlords that they will not be liable for the business rates of empty properties where the tenant enters a CVA albeit landlords do need to be careful not to explicitly or inadvertently accept a surrender of the lease. Available here: Lawbite: Business Rates – Who pays when a company enters a CVA? and on LinkedIn. The materials on the Eversheds Sutherland website are for general information purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. While reasonable care is taken to ensure accuracy, the materials may not reflect the most current legal developments. Eversheds Sutherland disclaims liability for actions taken based on the materials. Always consult a qualified lawyer for specific legal matters. To view the full disclaimer, see our Terms and Conditions or Disclaimer section in the footer. Services Real Estate and Planning Industries Real Estate Key contacts Heather Tomlinson Professional Support Lawyer United Kingdom David G. Jones Partner United Kingdom Latest Insights legal updates Consumer Lens - Session 1 \| The Rise of European Class Actions podcasts and webcasts Tax NOLs in Cross-Border Structures Webinar legal updates EU Pay Transparency Directive legal updates Soft Focus Latest News client news Next stop, public ownership: Eversheds Sutherland advises DfT on GTR transition firm news Eversheds Sutherland strengthens restructuring offering with senior partner appointment firm news Eversheds Sutherland strengthens Commercial Advisory practice with technology partner hire client news Eversheds Sutherland advises Schroders Greencoat on acquisition of Dutch biomethane platform Latest Events virtual \| June 02, 2026 Spanish employment law training virtual \| June 09, 2026 UK employment law training virtual \| June 16, 2026 Nordic (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) employment law training virtual \| June 23, 2026 Introduction to Swiss employment law Tabs Label legal updates May 29, 2026 Consumer Lens - Session 1 \| The Rise of European Class Actions podcasts and webcasts May 29, 2026 Tax NOLs in Cross-Border Structures Webinar legal updates May 28, 2026 EU Pay Transparency Directive legal updates May 26, 2026 Soft Focus Legal notices Terms & conditions Privacy notice Cookies LinkedIn Facebook YouTube Connect Contact us Client login Staff login Subscribe About us About Eversheds Sutherland Purpose and values Responsible business Alumni Insights Client tools Events and training Business topics Careers Offices © Eversheds Sutherland 2026. All rights reserved. Eversheds Sutherland is a provider of legal and other services operating through various separate and distinct legal entities. For further information about these entities and Eversheds Sutherlands' structure please see the Legal Notice page of this website. Eversheds Sutherland is the name and brand under which the members of Eversheds Sutherland Limited (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP and Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP) and their respective controlled, managed or affiliated firms and the members of Eversheds Sutherland (Europe) Limited and Eversheds Sutherland (Africa) Limited (each an "Eversheds Sutherland Entity" and together the "Eversheds Sutherland Entities") provide legal or other services to clients around the world. Eversheds Sutherland Entities are constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local regulatory and legal requirements. The use of the name Eversheds Sutherland, is for description purposes only and does not imply that the Eversheds Sutherland Entities are in a partnership or are part of a global entity. The responsibility for the provision of services to the client is defined in the terms of engagement between the instructed firm and the client. For further information about these Eversheds Sutherland Entities and Eversheds Sutherlands’ structure please see the Legal Notices page of this website. For information on Konexo please also see the Legal Notices page of this website.

Training

Our PROPcast series continued in March with Episode 2 and our subject was “Staying Out of Trouble – Financial Crime in the Real Estate Sector”. In this session Steve Smith, defender and investigator, outlined the criminal risk areas for all those dealing with real estate in the UK, highlighting what individuals need to do, and what organisations should have in place to stay on the right side of the law. If you missed it, you can watch or listen back here.

PROPcast Episode 3 is at 10 a.m. on 14 April when our subject will be: “Contractual Controls Reform – what landowners and developers need to know”. In a major change to the status quo, from 2027 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. In this PROPcast, Professional Support Lawyer Joe Geen will provide an overview of the new regime, the planning that needs to be done and the consequences of non-compliance. Sign up for the PROPcast here.

Our Real Estate Dispute Resolution team also presented this month on the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 – with a particular focus on the new grounds for possession and rent review provisions. You can watch it back 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

Building Safety Regulator publishes latest transparency data

The Building Safety Regulator has published its latest transparency data, providing an update on performance and activity. The release confirms that a remediation improvement plan will be introduced in the coming weeks, setting out measures to improve the efficiency and timeliness of remediation applications. The data also shows that in the 12 week rolling period to 25 February 2026, the Regulator issued 108 decisions on Gateway 2 new build applications and received 82 new submissions. Of applications reviewed post validation by the Regulator’s innovation unit, 33% were approved and 33% were rejected.

Senedd passes the Building Safety (Wales) Bill

The Building Safety (Wales) Bill will become an Act following Royal Assent, having completed its passage through the Senedd. The new legislation establishes a new building safety regime for all multi-occupied residential buildings in Wales, regardless of height. Buildings are classified as category 1, 2 or 3 depending on height, with different regulatory requirements applying to each category: Category 1 and 2 buildings will be subject to both fire safety and structural safety duties. Category 3 buildings will be subject only to fire safety duties. An Accountable Person regime will operate in Wales, which is similar (but not identical) to the English regime. The new law is expected to be implemented in stages from April 2027 to allow time for industry to get up to speed with the new requirements. You can read more on the Welsh government website here: 'Huge step forward’ for fire safety in Wales | GOV.WALES and our website here: The Building Safety (Wales) Bill

ESG

Update on timetable for reforms to the energy performance of buildings regime

In January 2026, the government published a partial response to their consultation on proposals to reform the Energy Performance of Buildings regime. The partial response covered what new-style Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) for domestic and non-domestic properties will measure and when EPCs will be required under the new regime. Subject to Parliamentary approval, the government intended to bring forward regulations in 2026 to make these changes. However the government has now said, that, following engagement with industry on the delivery timeline, it has decided to postpone the launch of the reforms to the second half of 2027. It will work with industry and the devolved administrations to agree a new launch date and implementation plan by the summer of 2026.

Land Registry

Register of contractual controls

The UK Government has published draft regulations and guidance which, if the former come into force, will implement the new contractual controls regime. The broad goal is to increase transparency of arrangements where landowners grant third parties rights which bind registered land and relate to its potential development. These will often be rights granted to developers and promoters. The justification is that having this information in the public domain will make it easier for other stakeholders to identify land with development potential. The regulations are currently in draft form but there is an expectation that these will become law. Our PROPcast on 14 April at 10 a.m. will explain more about the new regime – sign up here.

What agreements will the regime apply to?

The most commonly encountered agreements that the regime will apply to will be options, pre-emption rights and promotion agreements. There are a number of exemptions which will take arrangements outside of the regime, these include:

Rights which are not held for development purposes. There are detailed provisions around this. Essentially, to be exempt the rights must exclusively be held for purposes that are not development which would result in the provision of one or more dwelling houses or a building where the floorspace created is 100sqm or more
Rights with a control period of less than 18 months
Rights relating to a loan or overage

What will people have to do?

Those subject to the regime will have to provide specified information to HM Land Registry, most of which will be published monthly. The information will have to be submitted by a conveyancer.

What information must be provided?

There is a list in the regulations. Examples include the names of the parties, the land affected, the type of arrangement, the period of control (including any possible extensions). Financial information on the deal is not expected to be required.

When are the regulations coming into force?

They are expected to be made during the first half of 2026, with them coming into force on 6 April 2027.

What triggers the obligation to provide information?

The grant of contractual control rights
Assignment of rights where either (1) they are contractual control rights at the date of the assignment or (2) contractual control information has previously been provided in relation to them
Written variations of rights where the variation alters the relevant information that must be provided and either (1) they are contractual control rights at the date of the variation or (2) contractual control information has previously been provided in relation to them

Once the regulations come into force (6 April 2027), the information must be submitted within 60 days of the above trigger event. If any rights are granted between the regulations being made and them coming into force, the information must be provided by 6 October 2027.

There will also be an obligation to inform HM Land Registry when a contractual control right has come to an end or been exercised. This includes where a right has been exercised or come to an end in part, so multiple notifications may be needed.

How will the obligations be enforced?

Firstly, the affected agreements will usually be protected on title by a notice and/or restriction but HM Land Registry will refuse to register the notice and restriction unless the contractual control information has been provided.

Secondly, there are criminal offences that may be committed through non-compliance. These are where either (1) a person fails to provide the information, without reasonable excuse or (2) a person provides false or misleading information and either knew that was the case or was reckless about it. The possible penalties are fines and imprisonment. Where the grantee is a company, partnership or some sort of body corporate, relevant officers (e.g directors, secretaries, partners, members) may be liable.

What do you need to do now?

Consider which transactions may be caught by the regime and plan deal timeframes accordingly
Revisit the position on confidentiality
Develop a strategy on alternate deal structures
Keep a watching brief on the area as more guidance is released and practice develops

Land Law

In Crest Nicholson Regeneration Ltd v Piers and others [2026] EWHC 531 (Ch) the Chancery Division held that the second freehold option granted to Crest Nicholson (South) Limited (Crest) under a 2002 option agreement, as amended, remained valid and enforceable despite the rule against perpetuities. The proceedings concerned the legal effect of option agreements for the acquisition of land at Holmbush Farm near Bewbush. Crest contended it had an option to obtain a lease over remaining land together with an option to acquire the freehold. The Calverts (the defendants, comprising executors and children of the late Henry Calvert) contended the option agreement only entitled Crest to a licence and that the freehold option was void for perpetuity. The Court addressed three key issues:

whether the 2002 agreement created an immediate interest in land;
whether the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009 applied; and
whether the lease/licence agreement created a lease or licence.

Mrs Justice Bacon found that the 2002 agreement did create an immediate contingent interest under the second freehold option, subject to a twenty-one-year perpetuity period under section 9(2) Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964. The lease/licence agreement was construed as an agreement for a licence rather than a lease, as it did not confer exclusive possession on Crest. However, when Crest exercised the lease option on 19 September 2023, this created an equitable interest governed by the 2009 Act under section 15(1), which abolished the rule against perpetuities for options. Consequently, the second freehold option remained valid and enforceable, giving effect to the parties' original intentions to extend the option period beyond twenty-one years.

Landlord and Tenant

Section 5 LTA 1987 – tenants’ right of first refusal – important new Court of Appeal decision

In SGL 1 Limited V FSV Freeholders Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 267 the Court of Appeal overturned a longstanding case on the meaning of “building” for the purpose of serving the tenants in the building with notices of their right to exercise their right of first refusal prior to a sale of that building. Section 5(3) of the Act provides that where a landlord proposes to effect a disposal of more than one building it should sever the transaction so as to deal with each building separately. In this case, there were multiple blocks in a development village and the question was whether notices served in relation to each individual block were valid, or if the blocks together should have been treated as one “building” and been the subject of one notice.

The landlord (in administration) had served two notices – one for Block A, which was an old warehouse which had been redeveloped before the rest of the development, and one for the other three blocks together. Two of those blocks were interconnected, with one entrance for both blocks and a shared plant room. The third block was physically separate, but relied on the plant room in the combined block. The required number of residents did not respond to confirm they intended to exercise their right of first refusal and all 4 blocks were sold. The residents then challenged the sale and sought an order that the blocks should be transferred to them.

At first instance the judge held that the notices were invalid, and all 4 blocks should have been treated as one “building” – weighing 13 factors in the balance when doing so. The Court of Appeal overturned that decision, and in doing so confirmed that an earlier case which had been the leading authority for 20 years had been wrongly decided. The key issue was whether the structures were within a “functionally integrated built envelope". Due to the three later developed blocks being interdependent with the shared plant room, the notice grouping the three together as one building had been validly served.

New Residential Service Charge Code

RICS has published RICS Service Charge Residential Management Code (fourth edition) as an update of the third edition published in 2016. The Code applies to all RICS members and RICS-regulated firms and is effective from 7 April 2026. The updates are intended to improve general standards in connection with the management of service charge in residential leasehold properties and incorporates recent developments in legislation such as the Building Safety Act 2022, Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 and the Fire Safety Act 2021.

Renters’ Rights Act (RRA)– mandatory information sheet for existing tenants published – must be provided by 31 May 2026

The Information Sheet is a document produced by the government for tenants. It explains how their tenancy may be affected by the changes introduced by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. The government guidance says that if landlords have a “letting agent” who manages the property on their behalf, then the agent must provide the Information Sheet to the tenant, even if the landlord has also provided it. The Information Sheet must be provided to a tenant if their tenancy:

is an assured or assured shorthold tenancy
was created before 1 May 2026
has a wholly or partly written record of terms (including a written tenancy agreement)

Failing to do so by 31 May 2026 could result in a fine (up to £7,000 according to the guidance). The government’s webpage says that the information sheet is only valid when downloaded from that page and goes on to say that the full PDF must be provided in hard copy or electronically, but that simply sending a link to the webpage for the tenant to access the sheet themselves will not be sufficient. The information sheet and guidance are available here: The Renters’ Rights Act Information Sheet 2026 - GOV.UK

RRA - Written statement of terms - for tenancies starting after 1 May

Landlords who have tenancies that start on or after 1 May 2026 will need to provide their tenants with certain information about the tenancy in writing. This can be done as part of a tenancy agreement. Failure to provide this could result in the landlord receiving a fine of up to £7,000.

RRA - Purpose-built student accommodation exemption

The statutory instrument for the exemption for PBSA from the assured tenancy system has been published. This exempts private PBSA that complies with UNIPOL and ANUK student housing codes approved under section 233 of the Housing Act 2004 from the assured tenancy system and ensures providers have access to an amended “Ground 4A” (the student possession ground) for existing tenancies.

RRA – Rent review

The government has announced that a fee (of £47) will be payable by tenants who wish to challenge a landlord’s notice of rent increase in the First-tier Tribunal. This might perhaps go some way to alleviating fears that the Tribunal would be swamped by tenant challenges, given that the rent increase will only take effect from the date on which the Tribunal determines the claim (i.e. no backdating of the increase to the date of the landlord’s notice).

Consultation on residential ground rents

The government has published its summary of responses to this consultation. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the responses from leaseholders favoured the reduction to peppercorn rent approach. Modern leasehold - Restricting ground rent for existing leases - summary of responses

Enfranchisement – a house is still a house even if substantially damaged and not reinstated

In Sheppey Beach Villas Ltd v Taylor and others [2026] EWHC 647 (Ch) (19 March 2026) the court considered the application of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (1967 Act) on a severely damaged property. The 1967 Act provides that certain long leasehold tenants of a house are entitled to buy the freehold from the landlord. “A house” includes any building designed or adapted for living in and “reasonably so called.” In this case, the key issue was whether a property largely destroyed by fire remained a "house" within the meaning of the Act. The property was a single storey building of living accommodation and let on a 99-year lease. It was occupied up until the date it caught fire in 23 March 2021 which caused very severe damage. The property had not been inhabited, or habitable since that date. The tenant did not undertake any works to reinstate the property, in breach of the terms of the lease. The landlord therefore served three notices to forfeit the lease based on this breach of covenant. In counter to this, the tenant served two notices under the 1967 Act to acquire the freehold to the property. The court held that the property as damaged could still reasonably be called a house for the purposes of the 1967 Act. The judge emphasised temporary disruption and continuity of identity. The temporary ruinous state did not disrupt its status as a house. Many people would describe it as a "ruined house" or "burnt-out house", but the word "house" would be used.

The court also held that the structure was a "dwelling" for the purposes of section 168 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, which restricts service of forfeiture notices without a prior determination of breach. The landlord’s notices were therefore invalid as there had been no prior finding of breach.

Articles & Publications

Read our Global Sustainability and ESG Themes for 2026 on LinkedIn or on our website: Global sustainability and ESG themes for 2026

The second edition of our Global Health & Life Sciences Bulletin has been published and is also available via LinkedIn.

From our Real Estate Dispute Resolution team:

A Lawbite on the case of Gavin Maher v Investalet Limited [2025] EWHC 3133 (Ch) – where the High Court considered and clarified the scope of section 234 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and whether it allows the court to make an order for vacant possession against a trespasser. The decision confirms that s234 does not empower the court to order trespassers to give vacant possession because a trespasser’s possessory title is not ‘property’ that can be transferred or delivered under s234. Available here: Lawbite: Insolvency Act: no fast track to possession from trespassers and on LinkedIn.

A Lawbite on the case of The Mayor and Commonality and Citizens of the City of London v Robinson Webster (Holdings) Limited [2026] EWHC 151 – which considers responsibility for business rates when a company enters a CVA. The case provides significant comfort for landlords that they will not be liable for the business rates of empty properties where the tenant enters a CVA albeit landlords do need to be careful not to explicitly or inadvertently accept a surrender of the lease. Available here: Lawbite: Business Rates – Who pays when a company enters a CVA? and on LinkedIn.

The materials on the Eversheds Sutherland website are for general information purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. While reasonable care is taken to ensure accuracy, the materials may not reflect the most current legal developments. Eversheds Sutherland disclaims liability for actions taken based on the materials. Always consult a qualified lawyer for specific legal matters. To view the full disclaimer, see our Terms and Conditions or Disclaimer section in the footer.