A mere 2,300 days after Theresa May's Government first promised evictions reform, Keir Starmer's Government has now finished steering the Renters' Rights Act through Parliament. It will come into force in stages during the course of 2026.
To mark this major law reform, we have our own Renters' Rights Act hub with detailed Mishcon de Reya guidance. Key change: landlords will no longer be able to terminate a tenancy – after its fixed term has ended – by simply giving two months' notice without needing to give a reason. These "no fault evictions" will disappear, and most shorter-term residential tenancies will become rolling terms.
Landlords will not be able to terminate except on specific grounds, mostly based on serious tenant default. There will be new grounds for tenancy termination, including sale of the property by the landlord and sale by a mortgage lender. For comprehensive advice, see our guide to the Renters' Rights Act 2025 by partners Laura Odlind and Sabrina Furneaux-Gotch . We fear that the court system may struggle to cope with the probable increase in contested terminations.
The Renters' Rights Act also brings separate challenges for landlords of student accommodation. The end of fixed-term tenancies will take away the certainty of traditional student letting cycles, forcing investors to rethink assumptions on cashflow and tenant turnover. Daniel Lipman and Lucy Smith's article in Green Street News (subscription required) explores how this will reshape one of the most dynamic market sectors.
There are many good reasons for financing care homes. With an ageing population, the supply/demand imbalance makes care accommodation for older people a compelling lending proposition. The sector is robust, but operates within a detailed regulatory framework requiring bespoke diligence by lenders.
In Care Home Finance: Opportunities for Lenders in a Growing Market, Sarah Spurling and Katharine Langabeer examine how care home finance differs from other types of lending. Security tends to be taken over a "propco" and, separately, over an "opco". One is a real estate asset, the other is an operating business with employees, TUPE obligations and CQC reports. A lot of moving parts.
Do you know what a Ramsar site is? If you are developing near a major wetland site, then I'm sure you do, but I had to look it up. Ramsar is a town in Iran where a treaty was signed in 1971 under UNESCO auspices. The treaty provides for the conservation of internationally significant wetland sites, called "Ramsar sites" by those in the know.
In Planning, Protection, and the CG Fry Decision, my planning colleagues Anita Rivera and Danyal Raza look at the case of CG Fry, a developer who obtained outline permission in 2015 for 650 housing units. In 2020 the Council granted reserved matters approval for phase 3, subject to ten conditions, which CG Fry then applied to discharge.
Problem: Natural England had in the meantime published new policy guidance on development near Ramsar sites, one of which was in the vicinity. This advised planning authorities to treat Ramsar sites as having equivalent protection to habitat sites under the NPPF (national planning policy framework).
Acting on this advice, the Council refused to discharge the conditions, and CG Fry appealed. The Supreme Court ruled that the Council had acted unlawfully in refusing to discharge the planning conditions. It's a technical point but an important one: national policy protecting Ramsar sites cannot override legal rights granted by planning permission.
The judgment draws a clear distinction between policy guidance and statutory requirements. Only legislation can mandate further environmental assessments after permission is granted. However, the forthcoming Planning and Infrastructure Bill is expected to change things by giving Ramsar sites statutory protection.