Licences, tenancies at will and periodic tenancies

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 27 October 2025. For guidance regarding the Act’s impact on residential tenancies in England, see Practice Note: Renters' Rights Act 2025—key provisions.

Licences

Leases (whether residential or commercial) give tenants a range of statutory protections. They include:

•
various forms of 'security of tenure', including under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) in respect of business tenancies, and under the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) in respect of assured tenancies (AT) and assured shorthold (AST) residential tenancies
•
compensation for improvements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927
•
in respect of residential leases, protection from eviction and the regulation of costs such as service charges

Licensees will generally not enjoy many of those protections: both LTA 1954 and HA 1988 (in respect of ATs and ASTs) apply to tenancies, not licences. A licence might therefore seem to offer the owner of commercial property a way to allow occupation on an 'easy in, easy out'

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Property Disputes News

Business rates liability, CVAs intersect and proprietary rights (City of London v Robinson Webster)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In The Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London v Robinson Webster (Holdings) Ltd, the High Court, sitting as a Divisional Court (Lord Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Mould), considered the effect of company voluntary arrangements (CVAs) on liability for non-domestic rates on unoccupied property. Allowing the City of London Corporation’s appeal, the court held that a tenant subject to a CVA remained the ‘owner’ of premises for the purposes of section 45 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (LGFA 1988), even where its lease had not been surrendered, notwithstanding CVA provisions requiring the tenant to ‘exit’ the premises and offering to relinquish possession. The court’s analysis clarified that the purposive interpretation of ‘owner’ adopted in Rossendale BC v Hurstwood Properties (A) Ltd applies where a right to possession is created solely to avoid liability for rates. Rossendale does not justify reallocating liability between landlord and tenant where the underlying lease is a genuine commercial transaction. The judgment provides important guidance on the limits of CVAs in affecting proprietary rights and confirms that Parliament has not exempted companies subject to CVAs from liability for non-domestic rates on unoccupied property. Written by Katherine (Kate) Traynor, barrister at Landmark Chambers.

HCLG Committee launches pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill

The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee (HCLG Committee) has launched a pre-legislative scrutiny inquiry examining the Government's draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, published on 27 January 2026. The Committee has published terms of reference for the inquiry and is accepting written evidence submissions until 25 February 2026, with oral evidence sessions scheduled to begin in March 2026. The inquiry will examine how the draft Bill meets the Government's policy intentions, including its commitment to 'bring the feudal leasehold system to an end', how it strengthens leaseholders' rights, and how the Government's proposals for commonhold would work in practice. The Committee will conclude the inquiry by publishing a report with recommendations to the Government on improving the draft legislation before its introduction to Parliament. The Committee has appointed two Specialist Advisers to support the inquiry: Professor Nicholas Hopkins from University College London and Wendy Wilson, non-executive director at the Leasehold Advisory Service.

Property Disputes weekly highlights—5 February 2026

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: the BPF and Law Commission’s comments on the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill and RICS’s comments on the valuation implications of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, High Court decisions regarding proprietary estoppel and unenforceable land contracts, possession proceedings against houseboat occupants, an injunction to prohibit unauthorised encampments and fly-tipping, and decision that a company was liable to pay non-domestic rates despite a Company Voluntary Arrangement. It also includes Upper Tribunal decisions on building safety, and how a microwave alone is insufficient to amount ‘cooking facilities’ for the purposes of determining whether it is a house in multiple occupation, a recent First-tier Tribunal decision granting adverse possession and the Senedd progressing the Building Safety (Wales) Bill to Stage 3 plenary consideration.

Microwave alone insufficient to amount to ‘cooking facilities’ in HMO test (Oxford Hotel Investments Ltd v Great Yarmouth BC)

Local Government analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) considered the definition of cooking facilities as part of the test for whether a building is an HMO set out in section 254 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004) and in particular whether that term was satisfied by the presence of a microwave (alone). The property concerned had no other facilities for cooking. The UT held that the presence of a microwave on its own was not sufficient to amount to cooking facilities such as to take the property out of the definition of an HMO and as such held that the property was part of an HMO and subject to the controls of HA 2004. Written by Josef Cannon KC, barrister at Cornerstone Barristers.

View Property Disputes by content type :

News