June 2025
Is the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 aged and dated or a relevant and usable piece of legislation?
Many feel it is no longer fit for purpose, whereas others see it as a necessary protection for tenants.
The ongoing Law Commission consultation on the Act is seen by GCW as the best opportunity to effect change and improve the mechanisms and useability of the lease renewal process.
As a company, we have been vocal about the retail sector engaging with the consultation process, as retail units comprises of most cases that are impacted by the legislation.
But opinions across the market vary on whether the 1954 Act is still fit for purpose with respected industry experts giving different reactions.
GCW asked three prominent commentators, whether the Act in its current form works, Amanda Pearce, head of property at River Island, represented the tenant’s view, said the good parts are that it safeguards a business tenant, and “by making sure if a tenant losses possession...they get compensated”.
Drawing on his experience, Mark Harvey, asset manager and developer at Rivington Hark, offered the landlord’s perspective, said: “There are few benefits to us as landlords…in shopping centres… the act makes it more difficult to implement changes.”
Meanwhile, Doug Stevens, arbitrator and independent expert within global retail agency, stated: “Overall, it works pretty well…the bad parts, if there is one, is that it takes too long”.
Landlords, unsurprisingly, would prefer the Act to go in its entirety giving them more control at expiry in the event they wanted to alter or develop the property.
For tenants knowing they can have a new lease on market terms means they can plan and invest in their stores with more certainty about the future.
Time to Change.
However, where landlords and tenants do agree is the speed and cost of going through the renewal process needs to be addressed. Of course, how this could be achieved is still up for debate.
Two very simple changes could be made, said Stevens: “One is no longer having the court being the default position and no longer have a rolling valuation date, and have a fixed valuation date.”
Fixing the valuation date means doing multiple expert reports would become redundant, but this would need to be coupled with a streamlining of the whole process.
One solution suggested by Stevens, is if PACT was made the default position, not the county court, for an unopposed renewal then to ensure neither party can be disrupted by delaying or financially bullying the other, there would need to be a third party appointed, by agreement or via the RICS, three months before the expiry of the lease.
No significant amount of the third party’s cost would need to be incurred at this point, as they would simply need to confirm their terms and availability.
Further, you could be more prescriptive and make it that the parties must exchange Calderbank offers before the end of the lease. Then by the contractual expiry the third party would then be ready to confirm a timetable for their award and the parties would have a result within 3 months from the expiry.
At GCW we think it is unlikely that the security of tenure provision of the 1954 Act will be removed as there is simply no political capital for such a move.
The solution put forward above may not be everyone’s view, but the best thing for all parties is to work on persuading the Law Commission to recommend streamlining the process of the act, making it cheaper and quicker for those involved to get a result.
The second part of the Law Commission consultation is due in the summer and GCW recommend all effected parties look to put their views and thoughts forward.