Call us for free on 0800 1777 522
Info Articles

NA Legal

Solicitors for small & medium business.

70 Years of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954: Still Going Strong

2024 marks the 70th anniversary of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, a piece of legislation that has had a lasting and significant impact on commercial property law in England and Wales. Though often updated and shaped by case law over the decades, the core principles of the Act remain central to the relationship between commercial landlords and tenants today.

A Brief History

The 1954 Act was passed in the post-war period, at a time when the government was keen to provide greater protection for business tenants. Before the Act came into force, landlords were free to terminate business tenancies on expiry without offering renewal, placing tenants in a precarious position, especially those who had built up goodwill in particular premises.

The 1954 Act sought to redress this imbalance by introducing security of tenure for tenants of business premises—meaning that a qualifying tenant has the right to a new lease on similar terms when the existing one expires, unless the landlord can establish certain statutory grounds for refusing.

Key Features of the 1954 Act

1. Security of Tenure

The most famous aspect of the Act is Part II, which grants tenants the right to remain in occupation and apply to the court for a new lease unless:

The lease was specifically contracted out of the Act, or

The landlord can prove a ground for opposition, such as intending to redevelop the property or occupy it themselves.

2. Grounds for Opposition

There are several statutory grounds under Section 30(1) on which a landlord may oppose renewal. These include tenant default (non-payment, disrepair, or other breaches) as well as landlord-specific reasons such as:

Intention to redevelop (Ground (f))

Intention to occupy the premises themselves (Ground (g))

3. Court Involvement

If renewal is opposed or terms cannot be agreed, the matter may go before the court. The court has the power to determine whether the tenant should be granted a new lease and on what terms, including rent.

4. Contracting Out

Landlords and tenants can agree to "contract out" of the Act, meaning the tenant gives up the right to a new lease at the end of the term. This must be done through a formal notice and declaration process before the lease is entered into.

Why the 1954 Act Still Matters

Despite being 70 years old, the 1954 Act remains a cornerstone of commercial lease law. It provides a structured and balanced framework for lease renewals and terminations, helping to ensure predictability and fairness in landlord and tenant relationships.

That said, the Act is not without its critics. Over the years, there have been calls for reform to simplify its provisions and reflect the modern commercial landscape. The Law Commission and other bodies have periodically reviewed it, but the basic principles have endured.

Common Issues and Practical Tips

Understand Your Lease Status: Both landlords and tenants should know whether a lease is inside or outside the 1954 Act.

Plan Ahead: Notices under the Act (such as Section 25 or Section 26 notices) must be timed and worded carefully—mistakes can be costly.

Get Advice Early: Whether you are renewing a lease or opposing one, early legal advice can help protect your position and avoid disputes.

Looking Ahead

As we mark the 70th anniversary of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, its durability is a testament to its importance in striking a fair balance between the rights of commercial landlords and tenants. While the commercial property landscape has evolved significantly since 1954, the Act continues to play a vital role in shaping lease negotiations and resolving disputes.

Whether reforms will eventually replace it with a more modern framework remains to be seen. For now, the 1954 Act continues to underpin a large part of commercial property practice—and deserves recognition as a landmark piece of legislation.
Understanding Security of Tenure under the Landlor...
Typical Share Sale Warranties

Call us for free on 0800 1777 522


Get In Touch Call or fill out the form below

Please let us know your name.
Please let us know your email address.
Please write a subject for your message.
Please let us know your message.
Invalid Input

 


We advise and represent transport businesses throughout the whole of the UK in all parts of England, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland

Uk





Latest Blogs

It is easy to fall foul of technical aspects of operator licencing. Whether of goods vehicles or passenger service vehicles. One commonly seen relates to disc loaning or licence lending.An operator is...
As with many applications or ‘regulatory’ public inquiries, the Traffic Commissioner (TC) has before her or him a set of papers prepared by their case worker. The fact a public inquiry has been conven...
We were instructed by a business primarily involved in farming and authorised to operate six large goods vehiclesThe public inquiry was called before the Traffic Commissioner to consider the operator’...

Latest Transport Law

Transport Law
It is easy to fall foul of technical aspects of operator licencing. Whether of goods vehicles or passenger service vehicles. One commonly seen relates to disc loaning or licence lending.

An operator is generally not permitted to allow other businesses to ‘use’ the O Licence. And to deliberately do so would likely lead to revocation of the licence, and possible disqualification (perhaps indefinitely) of the legal entity or person behind the licence from holding or even applying for a licence.

Some operators, while not acting with deliberate intent, inadvertently blur the lines of who is ‘using’ or operating the vehicles. One such case was an operator (a limited company) in the North-East traffic area that we represented at the Leeds OTC public inquiry (PI) room.

Our client successfully ran ( and continues to do so) a niche business with highly bespoke heavy goods vehicles. It used several legal entities, including limited companies, to conduct its well-established business. It’s not unfair to say the business model was unusual and complex. (Although the Traffic Commissioner (TC) is not a regulator of businesses, to the extent that matters touch on O Licencing, he/she has regulatory powers to exercise against operators. ) An additional factor was that it involved a restricted licence, meaning that the vehicles could only carry the goods of the entity with the licence.

Without going into all the detail, the operator was using vehicles in such a way that raised the question of whether other legal entities were using the licence, or otherwise unlawfully benefitting from it, and carrying the goods of another entity (Who is the ‘user’ of the vehicle and the true operator can be very complex, and is determined by multiple factors).

We gave our comprehensive legal opinion on all matters that would foreseeably be raised at the hearing. This included urgent advice on an immediate change to how the company was using its vehicles; the company’s maintenance and compliance documentation; and how a different approach would be needed, particularly in respect of brake testing, daily walkarounds and defect reporting/remedying. The company was keen to learn and was receptive to our advice. This involved a site visit, email correspondence, and video-conference/telephone meetings.

All requested maintenance documentation and a business model was submitted in advance to the OTC.

At the hearing the company was able to demonstrate that it was operating vehicles within the authorised parameters. It had learned much in the build-up to the PI and was willing to implement advice - even as late as the day of the PI. The TC conducted a balancing exercise. He concluded there had been a falling-short of O Licence standards in respect of vehicle use and maintenance, and that the company was late to take on professional advice. On the other hand, new systems were in place and dramatic improvements made. OLAT courses had either been booked or completed and the services of a transport consultant were engaged. The almost inevitable regulatory action in this case was limited to a short curtailment involving some vehicles, and undertakings added to the licence. The client considered this a significantly good result considering the consequences of losing the licence or other kinds of regulatory action – which potentially had been on the cards based on the TCs public inquiry brief.
Transport Law
As with many applications or ‘regulatory’ public inquiries, the Traffic Commissioner (TC) has before her or him a set of papers prepared by their case worker. The fact a public inquiry has been convened means there are concerns. The papers alone cannot determine the TCs decision—one way or the other. It is imperative therefore that applicants or licence holders prepare their case thoroughly. If prepared properly, it will help assist the TC to make a favourable decision. If not, the TC may conclude that the case is as it appears on the papers – or even worse.

We recently represented a company that applied for an O Licence (the applicant). The matter was brought to public inquiry because of serious concerns that the new company was either a front for a company that had gone into administration, and/or a phoenix arrangement was taking place; transport manager (TM) considerations; and the application form had not been completed correctly—causing an appreciable misrepresentation of the facts (The simple filling out of the application form is the first opportunity the TC has to see anything about the applicant, including whether they are trustworthy!)

After taking instructions, we could see there was plenty of scope to prepare a strong case for the grant of the application. The applicant’s connection to a company that had gone into administration: any links were tenuous and superficial. There was no phoenix arrangement because there were no substantive connections between the two entities, or relevant individuals. The incorrectly filled-out application form was a genuine error (even though it appeared otherwise).

On the professional competence issue, we advised that a replacement TM was necessary. The originally nominated TM was, in our opinion, not suitable in this case. A TM may have the qualification, but depending on the facts, more is required, including experience, actual knowledge and other capabilities. Our client accepted our advice and contracted another TM, contingent on the grant of the licence.

Most, if not all, of the TCs case directions were fully adhered to. Documentary evidence and representations were submitted two weeks in advance.

Most of the work for the inquiry was completed beforehand. That just left the hearing. We advised on what the hearing would entail and how best to present first-person evidence. Hearings can be particularly stressful, especially if things are left last minute, or not addressed properly. In the end, this hearing was fairly straightforward and relatively short. The TC was satisfied that the evidence submitted adequately addressed concerns. Further evidence and submissions were presented at the hearing. Assurances were given, including a willingness to have conducted an independent audit. As at the date of the hearing, it was clear that the applicant had a good knowledge of O Licence compliance requirements and of their specific kind of haulage work. The application was granted with immediate effect with authorisation for several HGVs.
Transport Law
We were instructed by a business primarily involved in farming and authorised to operate six large goods vehicles

The public inquiry was called before the Traffic Commissioner to consider the operator’s repute. Revocation, suspension, curtailment of the licence, and possible disqualification, were also under consideration (under sections 26(1)(b), 26(c)(iii), 26(e) and 26(f) and 35 of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995.

Background: the operator (like many operators) had not understood the consequences of changing its legal entity. In this case from a sole trader to limited company. And that, generally, in such circumstances, a licence must be applied for in the name of the new legal entity.

Over the period of some months, the operator had started to run some of the business through the limited company; some thought the sole tradership. Meanwhile, one of its HGVs was stopped by DVSA at a roadside encounter. The vehicle was unfortunately given an ‘S’ marked prohibition for significant failings in its braking system. After questioning the operator, the DVSA concluded that there had been an outright change of legal entity. There were also some other less-significant shortcomings, relating to finances, daily walkaround checks, and paperwork issues .

Together, these were serious failings to overcome at PI. Much would depend on how responsive to our advice the operator and transport manager would be.

We were instructed in good time, and promptly advised on all relevant matters. DVSA had concluded there had been a categoric legal entity change, but we were able to give our opinion on this somewhat nuanced area of law. We advised that this could easily lead to the revocation of the licence, but not necessarily. A robust response would be needed in all areas and any shortcomings remedied as soon as practicably possible.

After several meetings, our client and the TM were clear on what needed to be done before the PI. We also advised on what to expect at the PI itself, including what questions might be asked. The client was responsive and we managed to adhere to the OTC deadlines. During our instructions, other matters emerged—ones not raised in the TCs PI Brief papers. We advised on these also to pre-empt further potential questioning.

The hearing went as near-to-plan as could be expected. The operator and TM were well prepared for the hearing. They were able to fully satisfy the TC on most matters raised. The TC accepted our final submissions that there had never been any attempt to deceive or gain an unfair commercial advantage (there had been no such advantage ) and that any mistakes were inadvertent. We’d submitted supporting evidence in advance.

The simple decision was that the TC curtailed the margin on the licence for two weeks. This resulted in no material disadvantage to the operator. On a balance of probabilities, the TC was satisfied that the business would be compliant as the holder of a goods vehicle operator licence. The effect was that the operator was now in a position to continue using its O’licence without interruption, and run its well-established and successful farming business.