Aleena, Author at TV EDWARDS
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

Live Facial Recognition, Human Rights and the Justice System

As Live Facial Recognition expands, critics argue it masks the structural causes of crime behind a technological solution.

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
25 June 2026
Adalberto Dionisi
Paralegal
Blog Criminal Defence

Recent years have witnessed fierce debates on the merits and flaws of the use of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) technology by British police, a pendulum swinging from its alleged crime prevention results to its protested effects on people’s right to privacy.

LFR was first deployed by the Metropolitan Police Service (MET) at the 2015 Notting Hill Carnival and is currently used by almost all major police forces in the UK. Its deployment is on the rise: the MET used it 32 times between 2020 and 2023, and 231 times in 2025. 

LFR relies on a software-based facial matching tool which can be applied to videos or image feeds like CCTVs or custody databases without the need for installation. The software first detects a face; it then scans the biometrics of the ‘subject’ and converts them into a unique identifier – the ‘faceprint’; lastly, this digital signature is cross-referenced with other faceprints uploaded by the police on the ‘watchlist’ to find a match. The police use a static camera to record and stream footage in real time to the software. Upon finding a match, an alert is sent to a control room and to on-the-ground officers, both of whom have discretion to act on that alert by approaching the subject. Current watchlists span over 15,000 people, with deployments lasting usually around 6 hours with an average of 15,000 faces scanned per session.

Legal status

Currently, there is no UK legislation specifically regulating the use of LFR. Nonetheless, the technology has faced legal challenges due to its impact on the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.  These rights, afforded to us by the European Convention of Human Rights and the 1998 Human Rights Act, are qualified rights, so an interference with them can only be justified if it is:

  1. For a legitimate purpose,
  2. In accordance with the law (Art.8) or prescribed by law (Art.10, 11), and
  3. Necessary in a democratic society.

In the recent High Court case of The King (Shaun Thompson and Silkie Carlo) v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and The Equality and Human Rights Commission (Intervener) the claimants contended that the 2024 MET LFR policy, which except for some changes is still in operation, did not have the quality of law as it left too much discretion to police officers as to where, why and against whom LFR may be used.

The MET Policy, at the time of the challenged policy and now, presents three relatively broad scenarios to determine when and where LFR can be deployed, that is for:

  • Crime hotspots and missing-person hotspots,
  • Protective security operations, including major events and critical national infrastructure,
  • Deployments based on specific intelligence indicating that a sought individual is likely to be present at a particular location.

The list of people who could be placed on a watchlist includes three main categories:

  • Those wanted on a court warrant or subject to certain court orders,
  • Vulnerable and missing persons,
  • Those suspected of having committed, committing or about to commit, a crime.

Before authorising a deployment, an Authorising Officer must consider whether it would be a proportionate means of achieving the MET’s policing objectives, in light of the impact of deployment on the rights and freedoms of members of the public.

The Divisional Court unanimously dismissed the claim. The judges considered that the MET policy’s criteria regarding watchlist, deployment, operation and oversight were detailed and objective enough to have the ‘quality of law’. In particular, the judges cited the mandatory proportionality assessment which Authorising Officers need to carry out before deciding whether to deploy the technology. The claimants have stated their intention to appeal.

The limits of human rights

The Thompson case epitomises the limitations of human rights law to criticise or explain the operation of LFR. To talk about LFR in the language of human rights means that the primary question is one about the legitimacy of state interference in our lives and privacy. The provision and protection of human rights is ultimately always dependent on the state, hence why the human rights mechanism does not seek to question state interference, only to regulate it. This results in the police imposing superficial human-rights compliant safeguards, and the courts accepting them. In fact, the police implemented to the letter the suggestions of the Court of Appeal in the 2020 R v Bridges case, in which the South Wales Police’ LFR policy was deemed to be not ‘in accordance with the law’ as it was not detailed enough.

However, these checks and controls overlook the heart of the matter, in as much as the language of human rights fails to ask the right question. What is shrouded beneath the rights-compliance discourse is an almost bipartisan assumption that LFR is a ‘highly effective and efficient policing tool’, a ‘precision crime-fighting tactic’. The media, legal and political discourse has so far unquestionably accepted this narrative, one which relies on an idea of crime as something static and objective, which can be simplified to measurable data primed for quick-fix technical answers.

In light of the massive overextension of policing responsibility following the austerity cuts of 2010-2019 to statutory, social and mental health services as well as to the police itself, LFR was an alluring prospect which could help the police do more with less. But its perceived objectivity belies a belief that crime can be reduced not by addressing its root causes or social conditions, but rather by acting directly on the data generated by it. However, for data to be acted upon, it needs to be purified, abstracted from its context. Data is by default de-contextualised, and as such acting purely on data ultimately conceals and de-politicises the complex structural issues of inequality which fester within the criminal justice system.

Fixing the justice system  

The criminal justice system, including the penal system and the police, is unsurprisingly riven by long-standing rifts along lines of ethnicity, gender, nationality and class. Black and mixed-race people, especially children, are disproportionately represented in all aspects of the penal system, i.e. stop and searches, convictions and prison population. Social characteristics also shed light on the picture: people who never had a job, were taken into care as children or have attempted suicide at some point in their lives form a much greater proportion of the prison population than they do of the general population. The appeal of LFR is that, rather than addressing these long-term issues of structural inequality, it proposes a seemingly innocuous and technical fix.

Conveniently, this chimes in with some politicians’ craven promises to be ‘tough on crime’, which result in ill-thought vote-grabbing proposals such as limiting the right to jury trial. However, the extent to which LFR, and by extension the criminal justice system itself is equipped to deal with society’s ills is grossly misconceived. A structural example is the youth justice system. England and Wales had an average daily custody population of 420 children in 2024, with around 13,000 being sentenced in that year. Currently, 6 in 10 children released from custody reoffend within a year, and 80% of children cautioned or sentenced are neurodivergent or have SEND. Children in care are 10 times more likely than other children to ever receive a caution or conviction.

These shortcomings are systemic. The uniquely low age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales (10, compared to the average 14.5 in OECD countries), together with the chronic underfunding of key agencies means that issues that should be addressed early on by social services or child psychologists are delegated to the courts, which lack funding for truly ‘child-first’ procedures.

Justice’s blind arms have in recent years extended to embrace more and more political and societal issues, the brief mention of which will suffice to bring to mind the failure of the criminal system in actually ameliorating these problems. The shoplifting epidemic, the mental health crisis, the environmental, pro-Palestine and far-right protests, are all examples of deeper, structural issues which cannot be solved by purely legal or technical solutions.

How can we help

We know the system has its flaws — but we know how to work within them for you. We regularly challenge the admissibility of evidence obtained by the police and fight for our clients’ rights in Court. If you have been identified by LFR or have been accused of committing a crime, get in touch with our experienced Crime team.

You can contact us for a free, no obligation initial discussion on 020 3440 8000 or email enquiries@tvedwards.com.

For an extended version of the analysis behind this article, see: Adalberto Dionisi, ‘What Live Facial Recognition does not see: Human Rights, Discipline and Governmentality’ (2026) 11(1) LSE Law Review

Disclaimer: The information on the TV Edwards website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication.

Related Services:
Criminal Defence Solicitors
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

Deprivation of Liberty for 16 and 17 Year Olds

Deprivation of liberty cases involving young people sit at the intersection of care, safeguarding, and complex legal decision-making.

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
22 June 2026
Nilufer Ozdemir
Senior Associate Solicitor
Kerry Lynch
Solicitor
Blog Court of Protection

Deprivation of liberty cases involving young people can be complex and emotionally challenging for families and professionals alike. These cases usually arise where a vulnerable young person requires a high level of care and supervision to keep them safe.

A deprivation of liberty occurs where a person is under continuous supervision and control and is not free to leave their placement or accommodation, or is subjected to an intense level of restriction that amounts to a dynamic, objective confinement, to which they do not validly consent. Following the recent Supreme Court decision of A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of a devolution issue under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 [2026] UKSC 16., we no longer look blindly at a single “acid test”, instead, we must evaluate the type, duration, effects, and purpose of the restrictions alongside the young person’s subjective feelings – this is called the ‘multi factorial approach’. Examples of where a young person may be deprived of their liberty may include locked placements, constant supervision, restrictions on contact with others, or physical intervention to prevent harm.

For children under 16, parents are generally able to consent to restrictions placed upon their child as part of the normal exercise of parental responsibility. However, the legal position changes once a young person reaches the age of 16.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Young People

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 applies to young people aged 16 and 17 in England and Wales. The Act provides the legal framework for deciding whether a young person has mental capacity to make specific decisions for themselves.

A young person must be presumed to have capacity unless it is shown otherwise. If they are unable to understand, retain, use or weigh up relevant information because of an impairment of or a disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain, they may lack capacity to make that decision.

If a young person does not have the mental capacity to agree to care arrangements that amount to a deprivation of liberty, their parents cannot agree to those arrangements on their behalf. In Re D (A Child) [2019] UKSC 42, the Supreme Court decided that parental responsibility cannot be used to authorise this type of restriction for a young person who lacks capacity to consent.

Crucially, however, following the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in the AGNI reference case, a lack of domestic mental capacity does not automatically mean a young person cannot give “valid consent” under Article 5 ECHR. If a 16 or 17-year-old is able to meaningfully express their wishes, possesses a basic understanding of their environment, and demonstrates they are content with their placement, they can be deemed to have given valid consent. In those circumstances, there is no deprivation of liberty, and court intervention may be unnecessary. Where a young person actively objects, shows distress, or cannot express a view, in these cases, approval must usually be obtained from the Court of Protection.

The Role of the Court of Protection

The Court of Protection makes decisions for individuals who lack capacity to make certain decisions for themselves.

For those aged 16 and 17 where a factual deprivation of liberty is established and valid consent is absent, the Court may authorise restrictions which amount to a deprivation of liberty where the arrangements are necessary and in the young person’s best interests.

The Court will consider:

  • The young person’s wishes and feelings;
  • Any risks they pose to themselves or others;
  • Whether the restrictions are necessary and proportionate; and
  • Whether there are less restrictive options available.

Applications are commonly made by local authorities where a young person has complex care, behavioural or mental health needs.

The Link with the Children Act 1989

Many young people involved in deprivation of liberty proceedings are also supported by children’s services under the Children Act 1989.

For example, they may be:

  • Accommodated by the local authority under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989;
  • Subject to a Care Order; or
  • Receiving support due to safeguarding or disability-related needs.

Although the Children Act 1989 provides the framework for a child’s care and welfare, it does not automatically authorise a deprivation of liberty for young people. Separate authorisation from the Court of Protection or the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, depending on the care setting, is often required.

How We Can Help

TV Edwards has experienced Court of Protection solicitors who advise and represent clients in deprivation of liberty cases involving young people. We understand that these proceedings are often legally complex and emotionally difficult for families and professionals alike. Our team provides clear, practical advice and sensitive, expert representation throughout the process, helping clients navigate these challenging cases with confidence.

Related Services:
Court Of Protection Solicitors
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

Overruling the Decision in the Cheshire West Case

The 2014 decision introduced the well-known “acid test” for determining whether someone lacking capacity was deprived of their liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
18 June 2026
Jamie Callaghan
Solicitor
Joseph Borg
Trainee Solicitor
Blog Court of Protection

On 2 June 2026 the Supreme Court of the UK issued a decision that is likely to have a significant impact on the safeguards that are in place for people who lack mental capacity and receive care in care homes, hospitals, other residential settings, and other types of supported accommodation in the community.

The background to the recent decision is the Supreme Court’s previous 2014 ruling in the case of Cheshire West (Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19 [2014] AC 896). This case involved the court considering whether three adults who lacked mental capacity to make decisions about their living arrangements were subject to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In their determination, the Supreme Court ruled that the “acid test” for determining whether someone is deprived of liberty is whether a person is subject to continuous supervision and control, and is not free to leave.

This approach effectively meant that when a person lacked the capacity to make decisions around their residence and/or care according to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, they were unable to provide valid consent to the arrangements of their care. The “acid test” set out in Cheshire West meant that many people who lacked mental capacity but were not actively objecting to their care and living arrangements were nonetheless considered as being deprived of their liberty. This idea was famously encapsulated by Baroness Hale who stated: “a gilded cage is still a cage”. The impact of the Cheshire West case was that additional safeguards were required, in the form of independent advocates, best interests assessors, and authorisation by the Court of Protection, to ensure that the care and residential arrangements for people who lacked mental capacity were in their best interests; regardless of whether the incapacitous person was objecting to those arrangements.

The legal position changed on 2 June 2026 following the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in A Reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland of a devolution issue under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 [[2026] UKSC16]. The Supreme Court had been asked to consider whether the Minister of Health for Northern Ireland could lawfully issue a revised Code of Practice under the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 to allow a vulnerable person (P) who lacks capacity to give valid consent to their care arrangements by expressing their wishes and feelings, and whether this would result in them not being deprived of their liberty under Article 5 ECHR.

In their determination, the Supreme Court exercised its powers under the 1966 Practice Statement to overrule the decision in Cheshire West on the basis that it went beyond the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and departed from the long-standing multifactorial approach to determining when a person is deprived of their liberty. This restored approach involves looking at the particular realities of the individual’s situation and considering factors such as the type of restrictions they live under, their duration, their effects, and the purpose of the measures i.e., to keep P safe. The Supreme Court held that the difference between a deprivation of liberty and a restriction of liberty is one of degree or intensity rather than nature or substance.

The recent ruling also determined that in order to establish whether P is deprived of their liberty, there must be an established objective fact of confinement and, subjectively, a lack of “valid consent”. The introduction of the concept of valid consent  means that while P may lack mental capacity to make decisions regarding their care and residence, if they are able to meaningfully express their wishes, have a basic understanding of their care and living arrangements, and demonstrate that they are happy or content with these arrangements then they can be considered capable of giving valid consent. In such circumstances, they may not be viewed as being deprived of their liberty notwithstanding restrictions like a locked door in a care home.

Additionally, the type of setting in which an individual is being cared for is now deemed to be a relevant factor when considering whether they are deprived of their liberty. For example, the Supreme Court determined that if P is living in their own home according to their wishes and feelings, then it is less likely they are being deprived of their liberty. It was noted by the Supreme Court that in order for there to be a deprivation of liberty at P’s own home there would need to be significant restrictions on P such as a combination of restraint, medication, or seclusion. The potentially controversial implication here is that a deprivation of liberty is now likely to involve some form of coercion or an externally imposed punitive measure, which would represent a significant departure from Baroness Hale’s ‘gilded cage’ concept.

The ruling also held that liberty means the physical freedom to go where one pleases. This is taken to mean that where the nature of P’s health conditions or needs mean they are unable to physically leave where they are, or even consider leaving as being a possibility, this means any deprivation of their liberty is their confinement is a consequence of their organic health conditions and not the result of the actions of a third party such a family or carers. Moving forward, this would indicate that the more freedom of movement P has, the less likely they will be deemed to be deprived of their liberty. This may be the case where P is not be able to leave their home unsupervised but enjoys unlimited access to the remainder of their home. 

What Next?

This ruling has changed the legal landscape around deprivation of liberty that has been in existence since Cheshire West. This has significant and immediate practical implications for the legal profession, local authorities, Integrated Care Boards, advocacy organisations and, most importantly, all the vulnerable persons who were entitled to have safeguards in place because they were deemed as being  deprived of their liberty, as well as their families, friends, or carers. The Supreme Court did not, in its judgment, provide guidance as to how these changes can and should be implemented, though initial guidance has recently been provided by the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice for England and Wales.  In the meantime, professionals involved in deprivation of liberty matters are required to apply the new tests immediately and give careful consideration as to what constitutes a deprivation of liberty on the ground, in this post Cheshire West world.

Related Services:
Court Of Protection Solicitors
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

The Soho Society’s Decision to Challenge Licence Applications in Westminster

The new licensing landscape could improve and promote equal footing among different types of operators.

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
15 June 2026
Jade James
Solicitor
Blog Licensing Law

The Decision

The Soho Society is a non-profit organisation established in 1972, which is funded by Westminster Council and aims to “preserve the character of Soho” and protect the interests of residents and businesses in the area. The group retains a formal consultative role to Westminster Council in relation to all planning and licensing applications in Soho.      

Following the group’s annual general meeting in the final week of May 2026, it has made a decision to object to all new licence applications, applications to renew existing licences and applications for venues to stay open beyond “core hours,” which end at 11pm in Westminster. 

With consideration of cumulative impact and licensing objectives, the Soho Society has specified that it will object to: 

  • all applications that wish to trade beyond defined core hours
  • all new applications for betting shops, bars, music, dance and nightclub premises
  • sex shop licences

The Soho Society claims that the decision was made to prevent public nuisance and crime and disorder due to the dense concentration of late-night premises in the Westminster area. However, restaurant and bar owners have expressed concerns that this could undermine the identity of Soho, which is widely considered one of London’s most culturally rich and vibrant neighborhoods. Many have complained that it is difficult to find places to have a meal and drink in central London after 11pm due to the “core hours” policy. Club owners in the area are also reportedly being refused licences to stay open late and are required to close around 1am. 

Furthermore, there have been concerns that the Soho Society’s decision could contribute to a decrease in hospitality jobs and exacerbate the current issue of high levels of youth unemployment in Britain by leading to reduced hours and jobs for young people. 

The Soho Society has been accused of making vexatious and biased complaints in relation to licence applications. Although a spokesperson for the group has stated that its concerns are a reflection of people in the community, the group is estimated to only represent a minor percentage and demographic of the district’s residents. 

The Draft London Strategic Licensing Policy 2026-2031

In February 2026, Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, set out a new London-wide Strategic Licensing Policy to boost the capital’s hospitality and nightlife industries. The policy aims to make licensing more transparent and consistent across London and provide new powers to the Mayor through the Licensing Act 2003 (to be amended by the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill).

Currently, all local authorities in England and Wales are required by the Licensing Act 2003 to prepare and publish a Statement of Licensing Policy establishing the principles and guidelines the authority will use when making decisions on licensing applications, highlighting the fragmented nature of the UK’s licensing framework. This means it is easier to acquire or amend a licence in some areas than in others. The new policy will establish principles that the 33 London boroughs will be required to follow when making licensing decisions, reducing licensing inconsistencies and supporting economic growth across the capital. 

The UK’s licensing framework is largely focused on economic growth and high street regeneration and balancing this alongside public safety and the statutory licensing objectives which are prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and protecting children from harm.  The Revised Guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, also imposes a duty on local authorities to have regard to economic growth, stating, “When making licensing decisions, all licensing authorities should consider the need to promote growth and deliver economic benefits”.

The Soho Society’s decision to challenge new licence applications seemingly misaligns with the goals set out in the new licensing policy, which is why it is being met with objections.

The Mayor of London’s Plan to Overrule the Soho Society’s Decision

Most notably, the Mayor of London has vowed to overrule the Soho Society’s plan to object to all new licence applications in Soho. 

The new powers the Mayor will be granted by the government detailed in the Draft London Strategic Licensing Policy 2026-2031 are set to be fully implemented by the summer of 2026. This is significant as it will be the first time the Mayor has a formal strategic role in London’s licensing system. He has stated that he will use these new licensing powers to help “protect venues” and “extend London’s late-night offer”.

Specifically, the Mayor will be consulted by licensing authorities on their Statement of Licensing Policies, be able to overturn decisions to block pubs and bars from opening and be able to determine licence applications.  The Greater London Authority (GLA) is also being added as a responsible authority that can intervene in licensing decisions, and the Mayor will have the power to “call-in” or review applications in areas that are deemed to be of strategic importance to the night-time economy. This would permit bars to stay open later and increase al-fresco dining in Soho during the summertime. Al fresco dining is currently limited as the Soho Society and other residents took issue with its prominence following the pandemic.   

The new licensing landscape could improve and promote equal footing among different types of operators, as Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) and grassroots organisations are reported to be disproportionately burdened by the current system. There could also be a shift to abolish cumulative impact assessments (CIAs), which are tools that licensing authorities use to identify specific geographic zones where the high concentration of licensed premises negatively affects the local area. Furthermore, it could lead to responsibility for noise nuisance mitigation being placed on residential developers who build near existing hospitality venues.

Ultimately, these policy changes could make it easier for premises to acquire and amend licences and also prevent the imposition of blanket conditions and “core hours” policies, as each application will be assessed on its own merit.

How Our Licensing Solicitors Can Help

We provide comprehensive advice and representation on all aspects of licensing policies and licence applications:

We can help you by:

  • Reviewing and interpreting local authority licensing policies
  • Advising on how policies affect your application
  • Preparing compliant and strategically structured licence applications
  • Representing you in licensing hearings and negotiations
  • Justifying applications that deviate from licensing policies
  • Helping protect your licence from review or revocation

We act for a wide range of businesses, including restaurants, bars, pubs, nightclubs, event venues, and hospitality operators.  Our solicitors routinely deal with contested applications in Soho and across London, and are specialists in negotiating with responsible authorities, residents’ associations and neighbouring properties to seek a compromise and ensure a suitably licence is obtained.

Why Choose TV Edwards?

  • Highly ranked in legal directories – Legal 500 and Chambers UK 
  • Immediate emergency support – call us on 0203 440 8000
  • Specialist representation – police station advisers, solicitors, and higher court advocates
  • Hardworking problem-solvers – we fearlessly challenge evidence, protecting your interests
  • Honest and down-to-earth – we explain your options compassionately and in plain English
Related Services:
Licensing Solicitors
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

Cohabitation Reform 2026: The Current Position and the Government Consultation

The 2026 consultation marks a potentially transformative moment in the development of family law in England and Wales

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
8 June 2026
Mandeep Bhachu
Solicitor
Blog Family

The law relating to cohabiting couples in England and Wales has long been criticised for failing to reflect modern family life. With many couples choosing to live together without getting married or entering a civil partnership, pressure has increased on governments to reform a legal framework that many commentators regard as outdated.

In June 2026, the government launched a consultation on cohabitation reform, indicating the most significant review of cohabitants’ rights in a generation. The consultation seeks views on how greater legal protection can be provided to unmarried couples whilst maintaining the distinct legal status of marriage and civil partnership.

The Current Legal Position

Under the current law of England and Wales, cohabiting couples do not enjoy the same legal rights and responsibilities as married couples or civil partners. Despite the belief in the concept of a “common law marriage”, no such legal status exists. The fact that a couple has lived together for many years does not automatically give either party rights to the other’s property, pension, savings or income upon separation.

When a cohabiting relationship breaks down, disputes concerning property ownership are generally determined by property law rather than family law. A partner who is not a legal owner of the family home may have to establish a beneficial interest through complex trust law claims, often involving arguments about financial contributions or shared intentions. Litigation in this respect can be expensive, uncertain and difficult to pursue.

Limited remedies are available where children are involved. Schedule 1 of the Children Act 1989 permits applications for financial provision for children, including housing arrangements, but these claims are focused on the child’s needs rather than providing long term financial support for the former partner.

The position following death is also different from that of married couples. Cohabiting partners do not automatically inherit under the intestacy rules. Unless a valid will exists, a surviving partner may need to pursue a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975.

The 2026 Consultation

The government’s 2026 consultation represents a significant policy shift. The consultation seeks views on strengthening the legal rights of cohabiting couples while preserving marriage as a distinct legal institution.

Although the consultation process remains ongoing, reports indicate that the government is considering an opt-out framework under which certain cohabiting couples would become eligible for legal protection after meeting certain criteria. Proposed eligibility requirements may include living together for a minimum period, such as three years, or having a child together. Courts would also need to be satisfied that the parties were in an enduring family relationship.

The consultation explores whether eligible cohabitants should be able to seek financial remedies upon separation, including claims relating to property and other assets. It also considers whether surviving cohabitants should receive greater protection following the death of a partner, particularly in cases where no valid will exists.

Another significant aspect of the consultation concerns domestic abuse. The government has indicated that any future framework may take account of coercive and controlling behaviour, economic abuse and other forms of domestic abuse when determining financial outcomes. This reflects broader developments in family law and an increasing recognition of non-physical forms of abuse within intimate relationships.

Conclusion

The 2026 consultation marks a potentially transformative moment in the development of family law in England and Wales. For many years legal reform has lagged behind changing social patterns and family structures.

No new laws have been formally passed as of yet. Unmarried couples still lack the automatic financial and property protections granted to married couples or civil partners. To bridge this gap many family solicitors encourage unmarried couples to put a cohabitation agreement in place, formalising property ownership status (e.g. specifying joint tenants versus tenants in common) as interim protection.

The current law provides limited protection for cohabiting couples and often produces outcomes that are perceived as unfair, particularly where one partner has suffered economic disadvantage during the relationship.

The government has now prioritised long overdue changes. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the Law Commission are focusing on key areas that would reshape family law. The proposed legal changes are statutory financial schemes, transitional maintenance, bereavement and inheritance and legally binding cohabitation agreements.

While the final shape of the legislation remains uncertain, the consultation demonstrates a clear willingness by the government to revisit a long-standing area of concern. Whether reform ultimately takes the form of an opt-out scheme, enhanced inheritance rights, financial remedies on separation, or a combination of these measures, the outcome is likely to have significant implications for many cohabiting couples.  The consultation therefore represents an important opportunity to shape the future legal framework governing modern family relationships.

How can we help?

If you are living with a partner and would like advice on your current legal position, our family law team can help. Whether you are considering a cohabitation agreement, reviewing property ownership arrangements, or seeking guidance on your rights following separation, we can provide clear and practical advice tailored to your circumstances.

Contact us today to discuss your situation with one of our specialist family solicitors on 0203 400 8000 or email us at family@tvedwards.com.

Related Services:
Cohabitation Agreement Solicitors Family Finance Solicitors Family Law Solicitors
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

Navigating the Licensing Act 2003: A Guide for Hospitality, Leisure & Retail Businesses

Licensing authorities and holders of a licence under the Licensing Act 2003 have a duty to actively promote and have regard to the four licensing objectives

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
26 May 2026
Jade James
Solicitor
Blog Licensing Law

Securing the correct license authorisations under the Licensing Act 2003 is the critical first step for any hospitality, leisure or retail venture in England and Wales. Failure to comply with the relevant legislation and regulations can result in severe legal penalties, unlimited fines, or the closure of your business.

What are Licensable Activities?

Part 1 of the Licensing Act 2003 governs local authority authorisation.  These include:

  • The sale or supply of alcohol (on or off the premises)
  • Regulated entertainment (including plays, films, indoor sporting events, boxing/wrestling and certain live/recorded music performances)
  • Late-night refreshment (the provision of hot food or drink, consumed on or off the premises, between the hours of 23:00 and 05:00)

*Note that the Live Music Act 2012 and the Legislative Reform (Entertainment Licensing) Order 2014 (which amended the Licensing Act 2003) deregulated most live and recorded music performances between 08:00 and 23:00 for audiences of up to 500 people in venues licensed for the sale of alcohol.

The types of businesses that may require licences to operate include:

  • Pubs
  • Bars
  • Restaurants
  • Nightclubs
  • Off-licences
  • Hotels and guest houses
  • Private members clubs
  • Social clubs
  • Sports venues
  • Cinemas
  • Theatres
  • Amateur dramatic groups
  • Community groups
  • Youth clubs
  • Entertainment organisers

The Four Licensing Objectives

Licensing authorities and holders of a licence under the Licensing Act 2003 have a duty to actively promote and have regard to the four licensing objectives, which are at the heart of the licensing regime. These objectives are:

  • The prevention of crime and disorder
  • Public safety
  • The prevention of public nuisance
  • The protection of children from harm

Key Types of Authorisations

Premises Licence – A permanent license granted in respect of a specific location such as a pub, restaurant, nightclub or shop, which authorises the licence holder to carry out licensable activities.  The licence will only become invalid if the holder dies, loses capacity, loses their right to work, bankruptcy/insolvency, revocation or voluntary surrender. An annual fee is payable on the anniversary of the grant of each licence.  There must be an appointed Designated Premises Supervisor (DPS) if alcohol will be sold at a premises. 

Personal Licence – Required for individuals who wish to authorise the sale of alcohol where a Premises License is in force.  Any premises selling alcohol must have a named DPS who holds a Personal License.  The license is valid indefinitely and is not tied to a specific premises. A personal licence holder must meet certain criteria such as passing an accredited alcohol licensing qualification and undergoing a criminal background check.  

Club Premises Certificate – A certificate only available to qualifying members’ clubs such as sports clubs, permitting them to carry out licensable activities. Premises with this certificate are exempt from having to name a DPS.  

Temporary Event Notice (TEN) – A notice that is required for one-off events involving licensable activities such as weddings, festivals, pop-up events or for extending the activities of a pre-existing Premises Licence for special events.  The event can only last for a maximum of 7 days and there must be no more than 499 people on site at any time.

The Licensing Application Process

The process of obtaining a licence is governed by strict statutory timelines. Navigating these stages correctly is vital to avoid delays that can postpone your business launch.

Pre-Application and Evidence Gathering

Prior to submitting a licence application, the required documents and evidence must be gathered, such as a detailed premises plan, which must be drawn to scale and compliant with the Licensing Act 2003 and Section 182 Guidance, an operating schedule (part of the licence application) which outlines activities and precisely how the four licensing objectives will be promoted and right to work documents in accordance with requirements under the Immigration Act 2016.

Submission and Consultation Period

Once an application in relation to a venue or event is submitted to the licensing authority, copies of the application must be sent to the Responsible Authorities (such as the Police, Fire Authority, and Environmental Health, etc) on the same day. If you apply electronically, the licensing authority often automatically forwards the forms to the Responsible Authorities, but this is different with paper/postal applications.

A blue notice must be displayed at the premises the day after the application is submitted, and a notice must be published in a local newspaper within 10 working days starting on the day after the application is submitted. There will then be a consultation period during which the Responsible Authorities and members of the public can make representations (objections) in respect of the application. Representations must directly relate to one or more of the four statutory licensing objectives and cannot be frivolous, vexatious or repetitious.

Conflict Resolution and Mediation

Applicants can liaise with a party who makes a valid representation to reach an agreement and prompt them to withdraw their representation by proposing to add conditions to the licence which will address the concerns raised.   

Sub-Committee Hearing

If no agreement can be reached, the licensing authority will arrange for a sub-committee hearing to take place to address the issues and determine whether the business the application relates to will promote the statutory licensing objectives.  

*Note that unlike applications for Premises Licences or Club Premises Certificates, the process for a Personal Licence is focused solely on the applicant’s eligibility. 

Consequently, there is no requirement to display a public blue notice at a premises or to publish a notice in a local newspaper. Instead, the process is centered on the submission of accredited qualifications and valid criminal record disclosures to the relevant licensing authority.  Temporary Event Notices are also not subject to public consultation and do not require press advertising.

Why the Application Process is Challenging

The licensing application process can be complex, due to a variety of different factors. 

Evidentiary Burden

Key documents must be provided alongside the application.  For applications that relate to a venue or event, the operating schedule which forms part of the application is required to detail how the licensing objectives will be promoted, site plans that comply with the Licensing Act 2003 and Section 182 Guidance must be submitted and right to work evidence must also be provided.  

Fragmented Local Frameworks

Each licensing authority is required to determine and publish its own Statement of Licensing Policy, which is tailored to address the specific community needs, geography and challenges of a particular borough or district.  This means that there are inconsistencies across rules and the general licensing legal system.

Cumulative Impact Zones

Making a licensing application for a venue or event in a cumulative impact zone means facing a rebuttal presumption of refusal, as local authorities will automatically assume that the application will be refused.  These zones are designated areas where a local authority has identified that the number, type, or density of licensed premises is contributing to crime, disorder or public nuisance and therefore, the burden is on the applicant to evidence that their business will not add to existing issues if they are granted a licence.

Objections

There is a risk that an application for a licence for a venue or event could receive representations from Responsible Authorities or members of the public. Thus, the applicant is responsible for demonstrating that their application promotes the statutory licensing objectives.  If the application goes to a local licensing committee for a hearing, this can delay opening dates, lead to the imposition of strict conditions or lead to the rejection of the application by the licensing authority.  

Completion of Operating Schedules

The operating schedule is a document in a licensing application that outlines the proposed licensable activities, opening hours and how the applicant intends to promote the statutory licensing objectives. Therefore, applicants need to find a balance between proposing enough suitable conditions to satisfy authorities without imposing overly restrictive rules that impact the operational flexibility of their business, as they will need to comply with all conditions of the licence.

How Our Licensing Solicitors Can Help

We provide comprehensive advice and representation on all aspects of licensing policies and licence applications:

We can help you by:

  • Reviewing and interpreting local authority licensing policies
  • Advising on how policies affect your application
  • Preparing compliant and strategically structured licence applications
  • Representing you in licensing hearings and negotiations
  • Justifying applications that deviate from licensing policies
  • Helping protect your licence from review or revocation

We act for a wide range of businesses, including restaurants, bars, pubs, nightclubs, event venues, and hospitality operators. 

Why Choose TV Edwards?

  • Highly ranked in legal directories – Legal 500 and Chambers UK 
  • Immediate emergency support – call us on  0203 440 8000
  • Specialist representation – police station advisers, solicitors, and higher court advocates
  • Hardworking problem-solvers – we fearlessly challenge evidence, protecting your interests
  • Honest and down-to-earth – we explain your options compassionately and in plain English
Related Services:
Licensing Solicitors
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

A brief history of divorce in England

Divorce is an emotionally and legally significant time, but with the right support, it does not need to be contentious or confusing.

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
14 May 2026
Katja Trela-Larsen
Solicitor
Blog Divorce and Family Finance

Over time, and through incremental legal reforms, divorce law has adapted to meet changing societal expectations, the following is whistle stop tour of the landmark changes in divorce law in England from medieval times to present day.

Ecclesiastical courts

Famously, the Catholic Church refused to allow King Henry VIII to end his marriage to his first wife, Katherine of Aragon which led to the founding of the Church of England in 1534.

The rhyme used to recall the fate of King Henry the VIII’s wives goes: divorced, decapitated, died, divorced, decapitated, survived. In actuality, Henry’s marriages to Katherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves were annulled by archbishops of the Church of England.  

Divorce by Acts of Parliament

Before the mid-19th century the only way of obtaining a full divorce, which allowed re-marriage, was by a Private Act of Parliament.

The first English true divorce, rather than an ecclesiastical separation, between John Manners, Lord Roos, and Lady Anne Roos (nee Pierpoint), was granted by an Act of Parliament in 1670 on the grounds of the wife’s adultery.

The process of divorce by Act of Parliament was complex and largely only open to wealthy and powerful male petitioners.

While men could divorce on the ground of adultery, women additionally had to prove incestuous adultery or bigamy.

The first divorce to be obtained by a woman in England and Wales was in 1801 when Jane Campbell divorced her husband Edward Addison on the grounds of adultery with her sister, under the Addison/Campbell Divorce Act.

Matrimonial Causes Act 1857

The 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act allowed ordinary people to divorce. Under this law, women divorcing on the grounds of adultery not only had to prove their husbands had been unfaithful but also had to prove additional faults, which included cruelty, rape and incest.

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1923, introduced as a private member’s bill, enabled women to divorce on the basis of their spouse’s adultery without the requirement for additional faults (as men had been able to since 1857).

In 1937 divorce was allowed on other grounds including drunkenness, insanity and desertion.

Divorce remained uncommon enough to be a potential source of shame through to the first half of the 20th century. 

Divorce Reform Act 1969

The Divorce Reform Act 1969 changed the law so a marriage could be ended if it had irretrievably broken down, provided one of five grounds could be proved. The breakdown of the marriage needed to be evidenced with proof of adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion, two years separation with the consent of both parties, or five years separation if only one party consented to the divorce.

The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1973 consolidated previous enactments relating to matrimonial proceedings. A marriage could be ended if it had irretrievably broken down, provided one of five grounds could be proved, as before, three grounds required fault and the other two were based on periods of separation.

Divorce Dissolution and Separation Act 2020

The Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 amended the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 allowing married couples to divorce without evidencing the breakdown of the marriage.

Since 6 April 2022, instead of relying on fault or separation, an application for divorce states that the marriage has broken down irretrievably and this does not have to be proved.

The advantage to this procedure is that it encourages a non-contentious approach to the divorce process. It also makes it harder for the other spouse to stop the divorce happening by contesting it as the divorce will go ahead even if they do not agree the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

Need help with your divorce

Divorce is an emotionally and legally significant time, but with the right support, it does not need to be contentious or confusing. Our Divorce solicitors have specialist experience of helping thousands of people through the process. We are passionate about the work do and are committed to provide exceptional client service to get you the best possible outcome in often stressful circumstances.

Get in touch with our Family Divorce and Finance team on 0203 440 8000 or email family@tvedwards.com to discuss how we can support you.

Related Services:
Divorce Solicitors Family Finance Solicitors
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

Avoiding a criminal conviction for young people

Encouraging non-judgmental conversations with your child about their school or social life could embolden them to open up.

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
27 April 2026
Talal Husseini
Paralegal
Blog Criminal Defence

Avoiding a criminal conviction for young people (aged 10-17) by diverting them away from prosecution is the starting point for the youth justice system. The key bodies involved in youth justice should all be working against the unnecessary criminalisation of children. This is based on evidence that a ‘Child First’ diversionary approach is more likely to prevent offending than formal prosecution.

In this article I will explain the types of out of court resolutions that are available to children, how they relate to specific offences, and how parents and defence lawyers should engage with the police and prosecutors to help young people avoid conviction.

Formal resolutions

Youth cautions and youth conditional cautions are the most common formal out of court resolutions. Formal means that they form part of a young person’s criminal record.  

Youth cautions

For the police to issue a youth caution there must be sufficient evidence to charge the child, the child must admit guilt, and the officer in charge of the case must be satisfied that the child should not be prosecuted.

Youth cautions should be issued as soon as practicable, and the police must refer the child to the Youth Justice Service (YJS) who will assess them and confirm that a caution is the most appropriate disposal.

Youth conditional cautions

Youth conditional cautions require that a child complies with certain conditions to facilitate rehabilitation, repair the wrong caused or punish the child in an informal way. These should be appropriate, proportionate and achievable. They should only impose what’s necessary and avoid unrealistic demands on the child.

Financial penalties (max. £100) must consider the child’s ability to pay. Other conditions may involve working with the council to right a wrong (e.g. clean up graffiti) or work with a social worker to help prevent reoffending. Conditions cannot last more than 16 weeks from the date the caution was imposed for low-level offences and ideally should not exceed 20 weeks for more serious offences, subject to appropriateness.

Failing to comply with conditions of a youth conditional caution can lead to warnings, may stay on the child’s record, or in the most serious cases may lead to prosecution for the original offence. However, the police are expected to try to avoid this by encouraging compliance.

Informal resolutions

Informal resolutions usually do not form part of a child’s criminal record and can be offered for very low-level offences committed by first-time offenders. The most common types include:

  • Community resolution order – designed for low-level offences such as illegal graffiti or drug possession. The child need only accept responsibility for the offence and be prepared to complete any agreed intervention (e.g. issue an apology, clean graffiti or attend a drugs meeting).
  • Triage – accompanied with No Further Action outcome. Local police forces decide how to administer triage but it usually involves the child speaking with a police officer or the Youth Justice Service about why their actions were wrong and how to avoid reoffending.
  • Outcome 22 – designed for when a rehabilitative or educational intervention activity has taken place and it is no longer in the public interest to take further action.

Serious offences

Technically, an out of court resolution can be considered even for serious offences. Calculating whether an out of court resolution is appropriate to a specific young person’s situation is governed by the Child Gravity Matrix, which takes into account aggravating and mitigating factors that guide police officers towards or away from prosecution.  

Knife crime is a prevalent issue today that would normally warrant prosecution. For adults, possession of a knife in a public place carries a sentencing starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment. For a first-time knife offence, avoiding conviction may be vital to a child’s future, such as preserving future job prospects.

The guidelines state that a youth conditional caution should be the starting point for any child under 16 provided it’s their first time and the offence is no more serious than simple possession (e.g. they haven’t tried to use or threaten anyone with the knife). A youth conditional caution is also available for those aged 16 to 17, but exceptional mitigating circumstances must exist. These may include underlying mental health issues, exploitation, persistent bullying, or peer pressure. A good defence lawyer will discover and advance those exceptional circumstances.  

The commission of sexual offences by children is not uncommon. Intense hormones and inexperience can blur the lines between sexual experimentation and  a criminal offence. Out of court resolutions in this respect can avoid prosecution of a child which would otherwise impact them for the rest of their lives. However, accepting a formal resolution can still lead to the child being placed on the sex offender register and all options must be considered before a child accepts a caution for a sexual offence.

Tips for parents/guardians

It can be distressing for a parent/guardian of a child accused of a crime, who must work with the defence lawyer by providing information about their child’s situation which could help them to avoid conviction. Understandably, children in custody are often unwilling to speak to strangers about their underlying issues that resulted in offending. Statistically this is more true for children from minority ethnic backgrounds or looked after children who may have already felt let down by the system, leading to a lack of trust in authority figures or adults in general.

Encouraging non-judgmental conversations with your child about their school or social life could embolden them to open up, unearthing those mitigating factors that could be the difference between conviction and diversion.

Good defence lawyers should:

  • Engage with parents/guardians at the police station to discover information about the child’s mental health issues, school and home life.
  • Familiarise themselves with the Child Gravity Matrix so they know what to look for when considering a child’s situation.
  • Make representations to the police and Crown Prosecution Service as early as possible to incentivise diversion over prosecution.

A word of warning

While accepting an out of court resolution will often be a positive alternative to prosecution, a young person’s decision to admit guilt shouldn’t be taken lightly. Defence lawyers will help the child to consider the evidence against them and always advise in their best interest. A parent of a child who maintains their innocence should not be afraid to take the case to trial. Accepting an out of court resolution just to avoid court proceedings will never be acceptable course of action.

Formal resolutions such as cautions can also be disclosed by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) which may affect future job applications. They can be barrier to travel to certain countries, and can be used as evidence during family law proceedings or immigration applications.

How can we help

Our experienced Crime team can provide early advice, represent your child at police interviews and in youth court, and ensure that your child’s interests are protected to produce a more favourable outcome.

Contact us for a free, no obligation initial discussion on 020 3440 8000 or email enquiries@tvedwards.com.  

Disclaimer: The information on the TV Edwards website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication.

Related Services:
Criminal Defence Solicitors
TV EDWARDS SOLICITORS LLP

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025: What Landlords Need to Know

This change is expected to provide greater security for tenants

Our Services Contact Us
← Back to News & Blogs
14 April 2026
TV Edwards Blog
Blog Dispute Resolution

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (“RRA 2025”) introduces significant reforms to the private rented sector in England. The aim is to improve security for tenants, raise housing standards and create a more transparent and accountable system for landlords.

This article provides an overview of the key changes and what they mean in practice.

Who Does the Act Apply To?

The RRA 2025 primarily affects the private rented sector in England. It applies to:

  • Private landlords;
  • Private registered providers of social housing;
  • Providers of supported accommodation;
  • Landlords offering temporary accommodation on behalf of local authorities.

Importantly, the RRA 2025 does not apply to local authority secure tenancies. While the legislation has limited impact in Wales, the main reforms are focused on England.

When Do the Changes Take Effect?

The reforms are being introduced in stages.

Some provisions came into force on 27 December 2025, however the most significant changes are expected from 1 May 2026. These include the end of “no fault” evictions, changes to tenancy structures and new tenant protections as explained within this article.

Further measures, such as a landlord ombudsman and a national landlord database are expected later in 2026, with additional reforms extending into 2027 and beyond.

The End of Fixed-Term Tenancies

One of the most fundamental changes is the abolition of fixed-term assured tenancies.

All new tenancies will become periodic (rolling) tenancies. This means:

  • Tenancies will continue indefinitely until ended by either the landlord or the tenant;
  • Rent periods must be monthly or for a period of less than 28 days; 
  • Fixed-term clauses will no longer have legal effect.

Existing tenancies will automatically convert to periodic tenancies once the relevant provisions come into force on 1st May 2026.

Abolition of “No Fault” Evictions

The RRA 2025 removes the provision which previously allowed landlords to use section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 to evict tenants without giving a reason.

Going forwards, landlords will only be able to recover possession by relying on specific legal grounds, serving a relevant and correctly drafted section 8 notice and obtaining a court order. Such grounds include matters such as rent arrears, anti-social behaviour or the landlord’s intention to sell or occupy the property.

This change is expected to provide greater security for tenants but it also means landlords must ensure they can evidence a valid reason when seeking possession.

Changes to Possession Grounds

Whilst “no fault” evictions are being abolished, the RRA 2025 expands and amends the existing grounds for possession.

Landlords will still be able to recover their property in defined circumstances but the process will be more structured. Courts will expect clear evidence and in many cases, possession will no longer be automatic.

There are also new safeguards. For example, landlords must generally comply with deposit protection rules and to register on a national database before the court will grant possession (although this latter protection is not expected to come into force until late 2026/early 2027).

Instructing a solicitor to advise on the new grounds for possession under the RRA 2025 is increasingly important for landlords because the legal landscape has shifted in a way that leaves far less room for error.

With the abolition of “no fault” evictions, landlords can no longer rely on a straightforward route to recover possession. Instead, every claim must now be based on a specific statutory ground and crucially, that ground must be properly evidenced and proven in court. This creates a more technical and in many cases, more demanding process.

A solicitor can help ensure that the correct ground is identified from the outset. Many of the revised and newly introduced grounds have detailed requirements, including notice periods, evidential thresholds and restrictions on when they can be used. Selecting the wrong ground or misunderstanding how it operates can lead to a claim being dismissed, cause delay, additional cost and potential loss of rental income.

New Rules on Rent Increases

The RRA 2025 introduces tighter controls on how and when rent can be increased.

Landlords will no longer be able to rely on rent review clauses in tenancy agreements. Instead, rent increases must follow a statutory process, typically requiring formal notice and giving tenants the opportunity to challenge increases through the First-Tier Tribunal.

In most cases, rent can only be increased once per year and arguably, tenants will have stronger rights to dispute excessive increases.

Ban on Rental Bidding

New rules introduced by the RRA 2025 will prohibit landlords from inviting or accepting offers above the advertised rent.

This is intended to create a fairer and more transparent market by preventing competitive bidding between prospective tenants.

We believe this will have particular effect on the residential rental market in London where demand is high and competition for well-presented properties is strong.

Landlords will therefore be well advised to carefully consider the rental market in the area their property is located before advertising the rental price of residential properties in the future.

Tenant Protection Against Discrimination

The RRA 2025 makes it unlawful for landlords to discriminate against prospective tenants because they:

  • Have children; or
  • Receive benefits.

Blanket bans such as “no DSS” or “no families” will no longer be permitted, except in limited circumstances where justification can be made, for example due to insurance requirements.

Tenants’ Right to Request a Pet

Tenants will have a new legal right to request permission to keep a pet. Such requests must be made in writing and contain a description of the pet.

Landlords must consider such requests and cannot unreasonably refuse them. Decisions must be made within a set timeframe and provided in writing.

This change reflects a shift towards greater flexibility in rental living, although landlords may still refuse where there is a valid reason.

What a ‘valid reason’ might be will likely depend heavily on the circumstances and we would suggest that landlords seek specialist legal advice on this point.

New Duties on Landlords, Stronger Enforcement and Penalties

The RRA 2025 introduces additional responsibilities for landlords, including a requirement to provide a written statement of key tenancy terms and information before the tenancy begins.

Failure to comply with these obligations can result in financial penalties. Local authorities will have strengthened enforcement powers, including the ability to investigate and issue fines.

Landlords who fail to comply with their obligations may face substantial financial penalties and in some cases, criminal liability. Rent repayment orders may also be made, requiring landlords to repay rent to tenants where certain offences have been committed.

In short, the strengthened enforcement regime means that compliance is no longer simply best practice, it is essential. Instructing a solicitor helps landlords navigate the new requirements with confidence, reduce risk and protect their position.

Introduction of a Landlord Ombudsman and Database

Further reforms include the creation of:

  • A national landlord redress scheme (often referred to as a Landlord Ombudsman);
  • A private rented sector database.

Landlords will be required to register and remain compliant. Failure to do so may result in penalties and could prevent landlords from regaining possession of their property.

It should be noted however, that these reforms are not expected to come into force until late 2026.

Improved Housing Standards

The legislation will extend key housing standards to the private rented sector, including:

  • The Decent Homes Standard;
  • “Awaab’s Law”, requiring landlords to investigate and resolve serious health hazards such as damp and mould within set timeframes.

These measures are designed to ensure safer and more habitable rental properties although these particular changes are not expected to be implemented until late 2026/early 2027.

What This Means in Practice

The RRA 2025 represents one of the most significant overhauls of the law governing the residential rental market in recent decades.

For tenants, it offers increased security, stronger protections and greater transparency.

For landlords, it introduces stricter compliance requirements and a more regulated environment.

It will therefore be important for landlords to understand their rights and obligations carefully as the reforms come into force.

How We Can Help

The changes introduced by the RRA 2025 are complex and will affect tenancy agreements, possession procedures and compliance requirements for landlords.

If you are a landlord and would like advice on how these reforms apply to your tenancies past, present or future, our specialist Dispute Resolution team can provide clear, practical advice to help landlords navigate these changes with confidence.

We assist with possession claims, including identifying the correct grounds, ensuring compliance with the new requirements and representing landlords where disputes arise. We also advise on regulatory obligations to minimise the risk of penalties, enforcement action and rent repayment orders, helping to protect your position.

Get in touch with our Dispute Resolution team on 0203 440 8000 or email adam.haffenden@tvedwards.com to discuss how we can support you.

Disclaimer: The information on the TV Edwards website is for general information only and reflects the position at the date of publication.

Contact Us
020 3440 8000 enquiries@tvedwards.com Our Offices Contact Us