Following the announcement that the Law Commission proposed retaining the security of tenure regime under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 in substantially the same form, a second consultation paper has now been released inviting views on how the Act might be modernised.

Published: 18 June 2026
Authors: Kate McCall

In this series of articles, we review the key areas of change under consideration in the Consultation.

Proposals for reform

The consultation (which closes on 16 September 2026) poses 67 questions considering:

• the tenancies to which the Act applies; excluding more short-term tenancies by increasing the duration threshold from six months to as much as two years and excluding the majority of periodic tenancies
• simplification of the contracting out  procedure;  by including the declaration in the lease rather than via service of warning and declaration notices
• the terms of a renewal tenancy; in particular, whether changes should be made to address environmental matters
• how rent should be calculated; allowing the court to grant leases including a turnover rent and improving the calculation and enforcement of interim rent payments
• modernising the grounds of opposition; redefining the categories ofworks that can be relied on under Ground F (redevelopment), including a consideration of how to permit access for works relating to the landlords’ obligations under the MEES regime
• dispute resolution process – exploring whether lease renewal disputes should remain in the county courts or whether some or all cases should be decided in the tribunal and/or High Court, and considering whether Alternative Dispute Resolution could have a greater role in resolving disputes.

Continuity over change

When it comes to consideration of the grounds of opposition under s.30(1) of the Act, the headline is one of continuity rather than wholesale change. No new grounds are proposed, and most of the existing framework is left intact.

From a commercial perspective, that balance remains important. Retaining meaningful (albeit limited) rights to recover possession may reduce the incentive for landlords to contract out of the Act entirely.

That said, the consultation does reveal where pressure points lie in modern practice. Ground F (redevelopment) and Ground G (own occupation) are highlighted as areas where targeted clarification or reform may be warranted.

Ground F in the spotlight: Refinement, not reinvention

Ground F continues to attract the greatest scrutiny, which is unsurprising given it is the ground most commonly encountered in practice. The consultation acknowledges “significant dissatisfaction” with its operation, but stops short of proposing fundamental change.

Two key aspects are expressly preserved:

• the intention test, including consideration of the landlord’s motive following S Franses v Cavendish, is retained.
• the “crunch” point for assessing intention remains the date of the hearing.

Instead, the focus is on the scope of qualifying works. Three options are proposed:

1. expanded categories for works that can satisfy Ground F, with a purpose/motive filter
2. expanded categories without a filter
3. a single “substantial works” test

These options respond to recognised issues in practice:

• uncertainty around what constitutes “refurbishment”
• difficulty in accommodating modern works such as retrofitting
• the risk that rigid categories become outdated

Option 3, focusing on “substantial works”, represents the most radical reframing, allowing the court to assess the scheme holistically while retaining safeguards such as the requirement that possession is reasonably necessary.

The MEES driver

A key policy driver is the interaction with the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES) regime. In some cases, landlords cannot lawfully let sub‑standard properties, yet the works required to remedy those properties may not currently satisfy Ground F.

The consultation stops short of proposing a new MEES-specific ground, instead exploring whether reform of Ground F itself is sufficient – including the possibility of specifically referencing the MEES regime in Ground F.

Takeaways

For landlords and tenants alike, the consultation signals no imminent shift in the fundamental architecture of security of tenure.

The direction of travel is towards the simplification of short-term leasing processes and increasing flexibility in accommodating modernisation and sustainability works, but with continued scrutiny of intention. Depending on what reform is proposed, we can anticipate more litigation, not less, particularly on the boundaries of what works qualify for Ground F.

Alongside this, another consultation will consider the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, and the sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 relating to rights of first refusal over commercial/mixed-use premises.

As ever, it is important to remember that these are for now, only consultations. Any views provided in response will form the basis of recommendations by the Law Commission. It will then be for Government to choose how to implement (or not) those recommendations in order to reform the landscape for commercial landlord and tenant relationships.