Legal guides

Couples increasingly ask a solicitor to draw up a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement before or during a marriage, expecting it to work the way a commercial contract does. In England and Wales it does not, quite. This guide covers England and Wales only; Scotland treats nuptial agreements differently under its own law.

Not automatically binding

A nuptial agreement, whether signed before the wedding as a prenup or afterwards as a postnup, is not automatically enforceable in England and Wales in the way a normal contract is. On divorce, a court retains its broad statutory discretion under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to decide how the couple’s finances should actually be divided, and no private agreement between the couple can simply remove that discretion. That has historically made nuptial agreements a weaker instrument in England and Wales than in many other jurisdictions.

The Radmacher test

That position shifted substantially with the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Radmacher v Granatino. The court held that a nuptial agreement freely entered into by each party, with a full appreciation of its implications, should be given effect unless it would not be fair, in the circumstances prevailing at the time, to hold the parties to it. Following Radmacher, a properly made agreement is not treated as binding in the strict contractual sense, but a court will now give it what has been described as decisive weight, meaning it is likely to be followed unless something makes it unfair to do so.

What makes an agreement more likely to be upheld

Because the test turns on whether the agreement was freely entered into with a full appreciation of its implications, and whether holding the parties to it would be fair, certain practical safeguards materially improve the chances a court will follow it. Both parties should take independent legal advice before signing, separately from each other. Each side should give full and honest disclosure of their financial position, so neither can later say they signed without understanding what they were giving up. The agreement should be signed with enough time before the wedding that no one can credibly claim they were pressured close to the date, commonly cited guidance suggests it should be finalised at least 28 days beforehand. Finally, the agreement should not leave either party, or any children of the family, without their financial needs being met, since a court is more likely to find it unfair to enforce an agreement that leaves someone in genuine hardship.

Postnuptial agreements work the same way

A postnuptial agreement, signed after the marriage has already taken place, is assessed by the courts on broadly the same fairness principles as a prenup. The main practical difference is timing: because it is signed after the wedding, the argument that one party felt pressured by an approaching ceremony date does not usually arise, though the same requirements for independent advice, full disclosure and overall fairness still apply.

A possible change is coming

The position may not stay as it is. The Ministry of Justice opened a public consultation, “A fairer end to relationships,” running from 5 June 2026 to 14 August 2026, which specifically asks for views on introducing legally binding qualifying nuptial agreements, allowing couples to make genuinely binding arrangements about the financial consequences of divorce, subject to safeguards intended to ensure any such agreement is entered into freely and with full information. This is a proposal, not a change in the law; any resulting legislation would need a government response to the consultation and then parliamentary time, so the current Radmacher-based approach continues to apply for now.

FAQs

If I sign a prenup, can a court simply ignore it?

A court cannot be contractually forced to follow it, but under the Radmacher test it will normally give a properly made agreement decisive weight, so ignoring it altogether would be unusual unless it were unfair to enforce.

Does a postnuptial agreement carry less weight than a prenup?

No. Courts apply broadly the same fairness-based approach to both; the main difference is the timing-related pressure argument that can sometimes affect prenups signed very close to the wedding date.

Can a prenup leave my children with nothing if we divorce?

A court is more likely to depart from an agreement that fails to meet the needs of any children of the family, since that unfairness is exactly the kind of circumstance the Radmacher test allows a court to weigh.

Are prenups about to become fully binding by law?

Not yet. The Ministry of Justice’s 2026 consultation proposed introducing binding qualifying nuptial agreements, but as of now this remains a proposal, not enacted law.

The bottom line

Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements are not automatically binding in England and Wales, but since Radmacher v Granatino in 2010 a court will generally give decisive weight to one that was freely entered into, with full appreciation of its implications, and that is not unfair to enforce. Independent legal advice for both parties, full financial disclosure, and signing well ahead of the wedding all improve the chances a court will follow it. A 2026 government consultation has proposed going further and making qualifying nuptial agreements genuinely binding, but that is not yet the law. This is general information, not legal advice on a specific agreement.

Sources

• Tozers Solicitors, “Pre-Nuptial Agreements in England and Wales: Are They Legally Binding?”
• GOV.UK / Ministry of Justice, “A fairer end to relationships” consultation
• legislation.gov.uk, “Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, section 25: Matters to which court is to have regard in deciding how to exercise its powers”

Leaseholders who are unhappy with how their block of flats is managed usually assume their only option is to prove the landlord has done something wrong. In England and Wales there is a statutory alternative that requires no such proof: the Right to Manage. This guide covers England and Wales, where the right derives from the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002; the equivalent options in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different and are not covered here.

What Right to Manage actually changes

The Right to Manage lets qualifying leaseholders take over certain management responsibilities from the landlord without having to show bad management or any wrongdoing at all. An RTM company, formed by the leaseholders, acquires the functions relating to services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance and management of the building. What it does not do is transfer ownership: the freeholder keeps the freehold, and keeps rights connected with enforcing the lease against a defaulting tenant, including forfeiture. Right to Manage changes who runs the building day to day, not who owns it.

The eligibility test

To qualify, the building must be a self-contained building or a self-contained part of a building, containing at least two flats held by qualifying tenants, and it must be at least two-thirds residential, meaning any non-residential floor area such as shops cannot exceed 50% of the total from 3 March 2025, when a change introduced by the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 took effect; before that date the non-residential limit was 25%. At least two-thirds of the total number of flats in the building must be held by qualifying tenants, and a qualifying tenant generally needs a long lease, originally granted for a term of more than 21 years, that is not a business tenancy.

Forming the RTM company and giving notice

The process runs through a company set up specifically to acquire and exercise the right, known as an RTM company. Leaseholders who are not yet members are first sent an invitation notice inviting them to participate. The RTM company then serves a formal claim notice on the landlord, and on any other parties with an interest such as an intermediate landlord or existing managing agent, at least 14 days after the invitation notice. That claim notice has to include prescribed explanatory information; leaving it out can invalidate the notice and force the process to restart.

What the landlord can do in response

A landlord or other recipient who disputes the RTM company’s entitlement can serve a counter-notice objecting to the claim. Where that happens, the dispute over whether the statutory conditions are genuinely met is resolved by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), not by further negotiation between the parties. If no valid counter-notice is served, or the Tribunal finds in the RTM company’s favour, management passes to the RTM company on the date set out in the claim notice.

Why leaseholders use it instead of other routes

The main alternative to Right to Manage is applying to the First-tier Tribunal to appoint a new manager, which does require leaseholders to prove the landlord or existing manager has failed in some respect, a higher bar with a slower, more adversarial process. Right to Manage’s no-fault design is precisely why it has become the more commonly used route for leaseholders who simply want more direct control over service charges, contractors and building decisions, rather than needing to build a case against anyone.

FAQs

Do all the leaseholders in the building have to agree to Right to Manage?

No. The claim can proceed once enough qualifying tenants participate to meet the statutory thresholds; leaseholders who choose not to join are simply not members of the RTM company, though they remain subject to its management.

Does Right to Manage let leaseholders buy the freehold?

No. It transfers management functions only; the freeholder retains ownership of the freehold and enforcement rights such as forfeiture.

What happens if the landlord disagrees the building qualifies?

The landlord can serve a counter-notice, and the dispute is then decided by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), not resolved informally.

Did the rules recently change?

Yes. From 3 March 2025, the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 raised the permitted level of non-residential floor area in a qualifying building from 25% to 50%, widening eligibility for buildings with ground-floor shops or commercial units.

The bottom line

Right to Manage lets qualifying leaseholders in England and Wales take over the management of their building through a dedicated RTM company, without needing to prove the landlord has done anything wrong, though ownership of the freehold stays exactly where it was. Eligibility turns on the two-thirds qualifying-tenant threshold and the building’s residential proportion, which was relaxed by the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 from March 2025. This is general information, not legal advice on a specific building; the formal notice requirements are technical and getting them wrong can restart the whole process.

Sources

• GOV.UK, “Leasehold property: Right to Manage and management disputes”
• Shelter England, “Right to manage for leaseholders of flats”

Two different protections can come to a UK cardholder’s rescue when a purchase goes wrong, a trader disappears, or goods never arrive, and they are often confused with each other. One is a legal right written into an Act of Parliament. The other is a set of rules run by the card payment schemes. Understanding which applies, and when, decides whether a consumer has an enforceable claim or is simply asking for a favour.

Section 75: a statutory right

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 makes a credit card provider jointly and severally liable, alongside the retailer or trader, for a breach of contract or a misrepresentation connected with something bought using the card. That means the cardholder can bring a claim against the credit card company directly, instead of or as well as against the seller, which matters most when the seller has gone out of business or is refusing to engage. The Act covers Great Britain and, with a related but separately worded provision, Northern Ireland.

The price limits that make it apply

Section 75 only applies where the goods or service cost more than £100 and not more than £30,000. That threshold is assessed against the cash price of each individual item or set of related items, not the total value of the shopping trip or the whole invoice, so two separate items each priced at £100 or less would not qualify even if bought together for more than £100 in total. A purchaser does not have to put the whole cost on the credit card to be covered; paying even part of the price on the card, such as a deposit, is enough to bring the whole transaction within Section 75, provided the total price of the item itself falls within the £100 to £30,000 band.

What it does not cover

Section 75 only applies to credit cards, not debit cards, and it does not apply to a plain cash withdrawal, because there is no debtor-creditor-supplier relationship of the kind the Act requires. Store cards and some other forms of running-account credit can be covered depending on how they are structured, but a straightforward debit card purchase is outside Section 75 entirely, whatever it cost.

Chargeback: a scheme rule, not a law

Chargeback is a different mechanism, run under the rules of the card payment schemes such as Visa and Mastercard rather than under the Consumer Credit Act. It lets a cardholder ask their card provider to reverse a transaction in certain circumstances, for example goods that never arrived or a company that has ceased trading, and it is available on debit cards as well as credit cards. Crucially, chargeback is not a legal right in the way Section 75 is; it is a voluntary scheme obligation the card provider has agreed to as a member of the relevant card network, so there is no statutory guarantee it will succeed, and card providers can and do decline chargeback requests that do not meet the scheme’s own conditions.

Why the price threshold pushes people toward chargeback

Because chargeback carries no minimum transaction value in the way Section 75 does, it is often the only realistic route for a purchase under £100, or for a debit card purchase of any size. A £60 item bought on a debit card, for example, has no Section 75 protection at all, since debit cards fall outside the Act, but a chargeback request through the bank is still worth pursuing.

Using both together

For a credit card purchase between £100 and £30,000, both options can potentially apply, and a cardholder is not required to pick only one; if a chargeback attempt fails, a Section 75 claim can still be pursued separately, since it rests on the Consumer Credit Act rather than the card scheme’s own rules.

FAQs

Does Section 75 apply if I only paid a small deposit on my credit card?

Yes, provided the total cash price of the item itself was between £100 and £30,000, part-paying on the card is enough to trigger Section 75 liability.

Can I use Section 75 for something I bought on a debit card?

No. Section 75 applies only to credit cards; a debit card purchase falls outside the Act regardless of price.

What if my item cost less than £100?

Section 75 will not apply, but chargeback has no minimum value, so it remains a possible route on either a credit or a debit card.

Is chargeback guaranteed to work?

No. Chargeback is a card scheme rule the provider has agreed to follow, not a statutory right, so a request can be declined if it does not meet the scheme’s own conditions.

The bottom line

Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is an enforceable legal right that makes a credit card provider jointly liable for problems with purchases costing between £100 and £30,000. Chargeback is a separate, non-statutory scheme rule with no price floor that can also cover debit cards. Knowing which one applies, and pursuing both where a credit card purchase qualifies for each, gives a consumer the strongest possible position. This is general information, not legal advice on an individual purchase dispute.

Sources

• legislation.gov.uk, “Consumer Credit Act 1974, section 75: Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier”
• Which?, “Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act”

When an organisation loses control of someone’s personal data, whether through a hack, a misdirected email, or a careless disclosure, the person affected in the UK has a specific legal route to compensation. That route runs through the UK GDPR, not through the regulator most people contact first. This guide covers the position under UK law, which applies across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, since the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018 extend UK-wide, though a compensation claim itself is brought in the courts of the relevant nation.

The legal basis: Article 82

The right to compensation comes from Article 82 of the UK GDPR, which states that any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of the Regulation has the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor responsible for the damage. A controller processing personal data is liable for damage caused by processing that breaches the Regulation. A processor, broadly an organisation that processes data on a controller’s behalf, is liable only where it has failed to comply with obligations specifically directed at processors, or where it has acted outside or contrary to the controller’s lawful instructions. Either party can avoid liability by proving it is not in any way responsible for the event that caused the damage.

Material and non-material damage

Article 82 draws a deliberate distinction between two kinds of harm. Material damage covers a quantifiable financial loss, for example money lost to a fraudster who used leaked data. Non-material damage covers harm that is not financial, most commonly distress, anxiety or loss of control over personal information. UK GDPR does not require a claimant to show a monetary loss before compensation is available; distress on its own can support a claim, though the damage still has to be real and the court will not award compensation for a trivial or inconsequential breach.

What proving damage actually involves

A claimant still has to demonstrate, to the court’s satisfaction, that they suffered genuine damage and that the damage resulted from the infringement in question. If a court is not persuaded that any real damage occurred, it will not award compensation, and a claimant who brings a weak or exaggerated claim can be ordered to pay the other side’s costs. This is why claims tend to focus on specific, describable consequences, such as a documented period of anxiety, unwanted contact resulting from a leaked address, or a demonstrable financial loss, rather than the fact of the breach alone.

Where a claim is actually decided

The Information Commissioner’s Office regulates data protection compliance and can investigate an organisation, issue enforcement notices and impose fines, but the ICO has no power to award compensation to an individual, even where it finds an organisation has broken the law. If an organisation will not agree to pay compensation directly, the next step is a claim in the courts, typically the County Court in England and Wales, brought under Article 82. An ICO finding against the organisation can be useful supporting evidence in that claim, but a court reaches its own, independent decision on both liability and the amount of damage, and its conclusion does not have to match the ICO’s.

Practical steps before a claim

Before litigation, the usual route is to complain to the organisation directly, since data protection law expects organisations to have a process for handling complaints and, where appropriate, offering redress. A complaint can also be made to the ICO, which can prompt an investigation and give the claimant a documented assessment to rely on later, though it will not itself deliver a payment. Only a court, or a settlement agreed directly with the organisation, can actually produce compensation.

FAQs

Can I claim compensation just because my data was breached, with no other effect?

Not reliably. A court needs to be satisfied that real damage, financial or non-material, actually resulted from the breach; the breach happening is the starting point, not the whole claim.

Does the ICO pay compensation if it upholds my complaint?

No. The ICO can investigate and take enforcement action against an organisation, but it has no power to award compensation to an individual.

Do I need to show I lost money to claim anything?

No. Article 82 allows compensation for non-material damage such as distress, separately from any financial loss.

Who do I sue if a processor, not the original organisation, caused the breach?

A processor can be liable directly where it breached obligations aimed specifically at processors, or acted outside the controller’s lawful instructions; otherwise the controller organisation you dealt with remains the primary target.

The bottom line

UK GDPR gives a genuine, standalone right to compensation for a data breach under Article 82, covering both financial loss and non-material harm such as distress, and it applies across the UK. The regulator that most people think of first, the ICO, investigates and can take enforcement action, but it cannot pay compensation; that has to come from the organisation directly or from a court, most often the County Court in England and Wales, in a claim brought under Article 82. This is general information, not legal advice on an individual breach.

Sources

• legislation.gov.uk, “UK GDPR, Article 82: Right to compensation and liability”
• Information Commissioner’s Office, “Taking your case to court and claiming compensation”

Most workplace disputes in Great Britain do not start in an employment tribunal. They start with a grievance, an employee’s formal complaint that their employer has failed in some duty owed to them, and how that grievance is handled is measured against a specific benchmark: the Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. The Code applies in England, Scotland and Wales; Northern Ireland has its own, separate disciplinary and grievance framework.

What the Code actually is

The Acas Code sets out what Acas describes as the minimum an employer should follow when handling a disciplinary or grievance issue at work. It is not itself an Act of Parliament, and failing to follow it is not, on its own, an unlawful act that can be sued for directly. Its force comes from a different route: an employment tribunal is required to take the Code into account when it decides whether an employer, or an employee, has acted reasonably.

Raising a grievance formally

Under the Code, an employee who wants to raise a formal grievance should set it out in writing, addressed to a manager who is not the subject of the complaint, clearly stating the nature of the grievance. Many employers deal with concerns informally first, but once a grievance is raised formally the Code expects the employer to hold a meeting without unreasonable delay so the employee can explain the complaint and what outcome they are looking for. The employer may need to adjourn the meeting to investigate points raised before reaching a decision.

The right to be accompanied

Where the grievance concerns a duty the employer owes the worker, the worker has the right to be accompanied at the meeting. The Code identifies who that companion can be: a fellow worker, a trade union representative, or an official employed by a trade union (or a lay union official certified by their union as competent, if not employed by it). If the chosen companion is not available at the time proposed for the meeting, the employer must postpone it to a time proposed by the worker, provided that new time is reasonable and falls within five working days of the date originally proposed.

Reaching an outcome and the right to appeal

After the meeting, the employer should tell the employee what decision has been taken and, where appropriate, what action it intends to take to resolve the grievance. If the employee is not satisfied with how the matter has been dealt with, the Code expects them to be given the right to appeal, and to say so in writing without unreasonable delay. As far as is reasonably practicable, the appeal should be dealt with impartially and, wherever possible, by a manager who has not previously been involved in the case. The right to be accompanied applies to the appeal meeting as well.

What happens if the Code is ignored: the tribunal uplift

The Code’s real teeth sit in section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Where a claim covered by the Code succeeds at an employment tribunal, and the tribunal finds that the employer unreasonably failed to follow the Code, it can increase any compensation awarded by up to 25%. The same mechanism cuts the other way: if it is the employee who unreasonably failed to follow the Code, for example by skipping the formal grievance stage entirely, the tribunal can reduce the award by up to 25% instead. The adjustment does not apply to every type of claim, and it does not apply to grievances about redundancy selection or the non-renewal of a fixed-term contract, which the Code does not cover, but it is a real and quantifiable financial consequence for both sides of getting the process wrong.

Why employers and employees both follow it closely

Because the uplift is calculated as a percentage of whatever award the tribunal makes, its financial impact scales with the size of the claim: on a large compensatory award for unfair dismissal, a 25% swing can be a substantial sum either way. That incentive is why both employers’ HR teams and employees raising a grievance tend to follow the Code’s structure closely, even though the document itself is guidance rather than law. A tribunal claim form also generally cannot proceed until Acas early conciliation has been attempted, a separate but related step in the same overall system for resolving workplace disputes before they reach a full hearing.

FAQs

Do I have to raise my grievance in writing?

The Code expects a formal grievance to be set out in writing and sent to a manager who is not the subject of the complaint, so that the nature of the complaint is clear from the outset.

Can I bring a solicitor to a grievance meeting?

No. The Code’s right to be accompanied is limited to a fellow worker or a trade union representative or official; it does not extend to a lawyer.

What happens if my employer refuses to let me appeal?

Refusing a reasonable appeal request is the kind of failure a tribunal can treat as an unreasonable breach of the Code, which is relevant to the up-to-25% uplift if a related claim later succeeds.

Does the Code apply if I work in Northern Ireland?

No. The Acas Code covers England, Scotland and Wales; Northern Ireland has a separate statutory disciplinary and grievance framework.

The bottom line

The Acas Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures is guidance, not legislation, but employment tribunals in Great Britain are required to consider it and can move a compensation award by up to 25% in either direction depending on who unreasonably ignored it. A written grievance, a prompt meeting, the right to be accompanied by a colleague or union representative, and a genuine right of appeal are the minimum structure the Code expects. This is general information, not legal advice on an individual grievance; anyone facing a live workplace dispute should get advice on their specific circumstances.

Sources

• Acas, “Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures”
• legislation.gov.uk, “Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, section 207A: Effect of failure to comply with Code: adjustment of awards”

Most decisions about benefits such as Personal Independence Payment, Employment and Support Allowance, Universal Credit, Disability Living Allowance and Carer’s Allowance can be challenged first through mandatory reconsideration and, if that fails, through an appeal to an independent tribunal. This guide covers Great Britain; Northern Ireland has its own social security appeals system operated separately from HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

Step one: mandatory reconsideration

Mandatory reconsideration is a free request for the decision-making office to look again at its own decision. GOV.UK says it can be used where someone thinks the office dealing with the claim made an error, missed important evidence, or where the person simply disagrees with the reasons given for the decision. For most of the roughly twenty benefits this process covers, including PIP, ESA, Universal Credit, DLA and Carer’s Allowance, mandatory reconsideration has to happen before an appeal can be lodged; a small number of benefits, including Housing Benefit, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance, use different challenge routes instead of this process.

The time limit for requesting it

GOV.UK says a mandatory reconsideration request usually has to be made within one month of the date of the decision being challenged. A request made after that month can still be considered where there is a good reason for the delay, and GOV.UK gives examples such as having been in hospital or dealing with a bereavement, though a late request is not guaranteed to be accepted and the reason for the delay needs to be explained.

What happens after the request

The office reconsiders the original decision and issues a mandatory reconsideration notice, which either changes the decision or confirms it. This notice is important because it is what unlocks the right to appeal: for most of the covered benefits, an appeal to the tribunal cannot be lodged until this notice has been received, and the notice itself will normally confirm whether the case is one where mandatory reconsideration was required first.

Step two: appealing to the tribunal

If the mandatory reconsideration outcome is still disputed, the next step is an appeal to the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal, part of the First-tier Tribunal and administered by HM Courts and Tribunals Service. GOV.UK describes the tribunal as impartial and independent of government, meaning it is a separate body from the department that made the original decision, not a further internal review by the same organisation. The appeal itself is free to bring.

The appeal time limit

GOV.UK says an appeal must be brought within one month of receiving the mandatory reconsideration notice. If the appeal is started after that month, the appellant has to explain why it was not done earlier, and GOV.UK is explicit that a late appeal might not be accepted, so the explanation for lateness needs to be a genuine and specific reason rather than a general statement. Once lodged, an appeal can be managed online, including providing evidence to the tribunal ahead of any hearing.

What happens at a hearing

GOV.UK describes the tribunal as listening to both sides before making its decision, which can involve a paper-based hearing decided on the documents alone or an oral hearing where the appellant attends, depending on how the case has been listed and any preference expressed when appealing. The tribunal is not bound to reach the same conclusion as the original decision maker or the mandatory reconsideration outcome, and can uphold, change or overturn the original decision based on the evidence in front of it.

If the tribunal decision is still disputed

GOV.UK says an appellant who remains unhappy after a tribunal decision has two possible further steps: applying to have the tribunal’s own decision set aside, meaning cancelled, typically where there was a procedural error, or appealing to the Upper Tribunal, but only on a point of law rather than simply disagreeing with the outcome. Legal aid may be available for advice at this stage in some circumstances. Because an Upper Tribunal appeal has to identify a specific legal error rather than reargue the facts, advice at this stage is generally more specialised than at the First-tier Tribunal.

Getting help

GOV.UK points to free sources of advice throughout the process, including Citizens Advice, Advicenow, and local advisers found through Advicelocal, all of which can help with both the mandatory reconsideration request and the tribunal appeal itself, including gathering the evidence a tribunal is likely to want to see.

FAQs

Can someone appeal to the tribunal without asking for mandatory reconsideration first?

For most of the benefits covered by this process, no; the decision letter will confirm whether mandatory reconsideration is required before an appeal can be lodged.

How long is there to request mandatory reconsideration?

Usually one month from the date of the decision, with a late request possible where there is a good reason, such as hospitalisation or bereavement.

How long is there to appeal to the tribunal after mandatory reconsideration?

One month from receiving the mandatory reconsideration notice; a late appeal requires an explanation and might not be accepted.

Does an appeal to the tribunal cost anything?

No. GOV.UK describes the tribunal appeal as free to bring.

Bottom line

In Great Britain, most benefit decisions are challenged in two stages: a free mandatory reconsideration request within one month of the decision, followed, if necessary, by a free appeal to the independent Social Security and Child Support Tribunal within one month of the mandatory reconsideration notice. Both time limits are strict but can be extended for a good reason. This article is general information, not advice on a specific claim; Citizens Advice or a welfare rights adviser can help prepare a mandatory reconsideration request or tribunal appeal.

Sources

• GOV.UK, “Mandatory reconsideration”
• GOV.UK, “Appeal a benefit decision”

Many business tenancies in England and Wales carry on beyond their fixed term because of statutory protection under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, rather than because the lease document itself says so. This guide covers England and Wales, where the 1954 Act applies; Scotland has separate commercial lease law.

Continuation of the tenancy under section 24

Section 24 of the 1954 Act says a business tenancy within Part II does not come to an end unless it is terminated in accordance with the Act, so a lease term expiring on paper does not by itself bring the tenancy to an end. Either the landlord or the tenant can apply to court for a new tenancy, the landlord by first serving a notice under section 25, or the tenant by making a request under section 26. Section 24 also protects the process itself: once one party has applied to court and the application has been served, the other party cannot make a competing application, and a landlord cannot withdraw its own application without the tenant’s consent.

How a landlord ends the tenancy: the section 25 notice

A landlord who wants to end or renegotiate the tenancy must serve a notice under section 25 specifying a termination date. That date must be not less than six months and not more than twelve months after the notice is given, so a landlord cannot spring an abrupt termination on a tenant, and where the tenancy itself required a longer notice to quit, the notice period can extend up to eighteen months. If the landlord is opposing the grant of a new tenancy, the notice must state that opposition and specify one or more of the statutory grounds in section 30(1). If the landlord is not opposing renewal, the notice must instead set out the landlord’s proposals for the property to be let, the rent and the other terms of the new tenancy, giving the tenant a starting point for negotiation.

The seven grounds a landlord can rely on

Section 30(1) lists the only grounds available to a landlord who wants to oppose renewal. They are: the tenant’s failure to keep the holding in repair; persistent delay in paying rent that has become due; other substantial breaches of the tenant’s obligations, or reasons connected with how the tenant has used or managed the property; the landlord’s ability to offer suitable alternative accommodation on reasonable terms; where the tenancy is a sub-letting, that letting the property as a whole would produce a significantly better rent than letting it in parts; the landlord’s intention to carry out substantial demolition, reconstruction or construction work that requires possession; and the landlord’s intention to occupy the property itself for business or as a residence, subject to restrictions where the landlord only acquired its interest within five years of the tenancy ending. A landlord relying on one of these grounds still has to prove it, and the tenant can contest the notice and ask the court to grant a new tenancy regardless.

The tenant’s alternative: a section 26 request

Rather than waiting for the landlord to act, a tenant with the right kind of tenancy can take the initiative under section 26 and request a new tenancy directly, proposing its own terms and a start date. This can suit a tenant who wants certainty earlier, rather than waiting to see whether or when the landlord serves a section 25 notice. As with a section 25 notice, a landlord who wants to resist a section 26 request must object on one of the section 30(1) grounds.

Excluding the protection

Not every business tenancy carries these rights. Landlords and tenants can agree, before the tenancy is granted and following a specific statutory procedure involving a warning notice and a tenant’s declaration, to exclude the security of tenure that Part II otherwise provides. A tenancy granted on this excluded basis simply ends on its contractual expiry date, with no automatic right to renewal, which is why checking whether a lease is “inside” or “outside” the Act, usually stated in the lease itself, is one of the first questions in any commercial tenancy dispute or renewal negotiation.

Why the process matters in practice

Because the statutory notice periods and grounds are fixed rather than negotiable, missing a deadline or misreading which ground applies can be costly for either side. A tenant who does not respond appropriately to a section 25 notice, or who lets the time limit for applying to court lapse, risks losing security of tenure it would otherwise have kept; a landlord who serves a defective notice, or cannot make out the ground relied on, risks having to grant a tenancy it did not want to grant. Both sides typically take advice first.

FAQs

Does every business lease automatically renew under the 1954 Act?

Only tenancies within Part II that have not been validly excluded from security of tenure through the statutory contracting-out procedure.

How much notice must a landlord give to end a business tenancy?

Section 25 requires a termination date not less than six months and not more than twelve months after the notice, extending up to eighteen months where the tenancy required a longer notice to quit.

Can a landlord refuse to renew for any reason at all?

No. A landlord opposing renewal must rely on one or more of the seven specific grounds set out in section 30(1) and prove the ground relied on.

Can a tenant start the renewal process instead of waiting for the landlord?

Yes, using a section 26 request, provided the tenancy is the type of tenancy the section covers.

Bottom line

In England and Wales, a business tenancy within Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 continues until ended in the way the Act requires, giving most business tenants a genuine right to a new tenancy unless the landlord can prove one of seven specific grounds, or the tenancy was validly excluded from protection at the outset. The section 25 and section 26 notice procedures carry fixed time limits that leave little room for error. This article is general information, not legal advice on a specific lease; a solicitor specialising in commercial property should be consulted before a notice is served or a deadline is missed.

Sources

• legislation.gov.uk, “Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, section 24: Continuation of tenancies to which Part II applies and grant of new tenancies”
• legislation.gov.uk, “Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, section 25: Termination of tenancy by the landlord”
• legislation.gov.uk, “Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, section 30: Opposition by landlord to application for new tenancy”

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations, generally known as TUPE, protect employees when the business or organisation they work for changes ownership, or when a contracted-out service moves to a new provider. GOV.UK confirms TUPE applies across Great Britain, whatever the size of the employer, provided the part of the business transferring operates in the UK; Northern Ireland has its own equivalent regulations.

What TUPE actually protects

GOV.UK says that when TUPE applies, employees’ jobs usually transfer to the new employer, except where the transfer involves redundancy or the old employer’s insolvency. Their employment terms and conditions transfer with them, and their continuity of employment is preserved, so accrued rights that depend on length of service, such as redundancy entitlement, are not reset by the transfer. The new employer effectively steps into the old employer’s shoes as far as those employees’ contracts are concerned.

The two situations TUPE covers

GOV.UK identifies two scenarios. The first is a business transfer, where a business or part of a business moves from one employer to another, including through a merger. The second is a service provision change, where an in-house service such as cleaning, catering or IT support is outsourced to a contractor for the first time, brought back in-house, or moved from one contractor to another when a contract changes hands. Both situations trigger the same core protections for the affected employees, even though the underlying transaction looks very different in each case.

The duty to inform and consult

Before a relevant transfer, an employer must inform and consult affected employees. GOV.UK says that where a recognised trade union is in place, the employer consults through union representatives; where there is no union, the employer consults other elected employee representatives. Employers must tell representatives that the transfer is happening, when and why, how it will affect employees, whether there will be any reorganisation, and how many agency workers are being used and in what roles. Employers must also consult employee representatives about anything connected with the transfer that would affect employees, such as a proposed reorganisation, and try to reach agreement with them. GOV.UK states that employers can be penalised if they fail to carry out this consultation properly.

Direct consultation for smaller employers

Smaller employers can consult employees directly rather than through elected representatives. GOV.UK explains that this threshold changed on 1 July 2024: before that date, only employers with fewer than 10 employees could inform and consult directly. Since 1 July 2024, an employer can consult directly with the employees affected if either the employer has fewer than 50 employees in total, or the transfer itself involves fewer than 10 employees, whichever situation applies, without needing to run an election for representatives. This gives many smaller and mid-sized employers a simpler route to comply with the consultation duty, provided the substance of the information given and the consultation still takes place.

What TUPE does not do

TUPE preserves existing terms; it does not freeze them forever or prevent all change. A new employer can still agree changes to terms with employees or their representatives after a transfer in the same way any employer can, provided any change is not made solely because of the transfer itself without a valid economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce. Dismissals connected with the transfer are also subject to specific protection, and an employee who is dismissed for a reason connected with the transfer, without such a reason, may be able to bring an unfair dismissal claim.

Getting help with a transfer

GOV.UK recommends that an employee unsure how a transfer affects them, or an employer unsure how to run the consultation, contacts Acas, Citizens Advice, or in the case of an employee, their trade union representative. Because consultation failures can lead to financial penalties against the employer and because continuity of employment questions can affect later redundancy or unfair dismissal claims, getting the process right, or getting early advice where it goes wrong, matters on both sides of a transfer.

FAQs

Does TUPE apply to outsourcing a service, not just selling a business?

Yes. GOV.UK treats a service provision change, such as outsourcing cleaning or IT support, as a second category of transfer covered by TUPE, alongside a traditional business transfer.

Can a new employer change staff terms straight after a TUPE transfer?

Changes are restricted where they are made solely because of the transfer and there is no valid economic, technical or organisational reason entailing changes in the workforce.

What changed for small employers in 2024?

From 1 July 2024, direct consultation with employees, instead of through elected representatives, became available to employers with fewer than 50 employees, or where fewer than 10 employees are transferring, widening on the previous under-10-employee threshold.

What happens if an employer does not consult properly?

GOV.UK states that employers can be penalised for failing to inform and consult as TUPE requires.

Bottom line

TUPE protects employees’ jobs, terms and continuity of service when a business or a contracted-out service transfers to a new employer in Great Britain, and requires the employer to inform and consult employee representatives, or employees directly where the 2024 thresholds allow it, before the transfer takes place. This article is general information, not legal advice on a specific transfer; Acas or an employment solicitor can advise on individual circumstances.

Sources

• GOV.UK, “Business transfers, takeovers and TUPE”
• GOV.UK, “Consulting employees when transferring a business (TUPE)”

Parental responsibility is the legal term for the rights and duties involved in bringing up a child, and GOV.UK describes it as covering decisions such as providing a home, protecting and maintaining the child, disciplining them, choosing and managing their education, and consenting to medical treatment. This guide covers England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own family law rules on parental rights.

Who has it automatically

GOV.UK says a birth mother automatically has parental responsibility for her child. A father automatically has it if he was married to, or in a civil partnership with, the mother at the time of the birth, and he keeps it even if the couple later divorces. GOV.UK also says a father who marries or enters a civil partnership with the mother after the birth acquires parental responsibility at that point. An unmarried father does not have parental responsibility automatically, but can acquire it by being registered jointly with the mother as the child’s father on the birth certificate; GOV.UK notes that registering births works differently for same-sex couples.

Step-parents are not automatically included

GOV.UK is explicit that step-parents do not automatically get parental responsibility for a child, even where they are married to, or in a civil partnership with, the child’s parent. A step-parent who wants a formal legal role in decisions about the child has to apply for parental responsibility separately, using the same routes available to a father or second parent who does not have it automatically.

Option one: a parental responsibility agreement

Where the birth mother agrees, an unmarried father or a second female parent can obtain parental responsibility by signing a parental responsibility agreement using form CPRA1; a step-parent uses form CPRA2 instead. GOV.UK explains that the agreement must be signed in front of a court officer at a local family court, and that the applicant needs to bring the child’s birth certificate and photo identification, such as a passport or driving licence. Once witnessed, two copies of the completed agreement are sent to the Principal Registry of the Family Division in London to be recorded. This route has no court fee, because it depends on the other parent’s agreement rather than a contested application.

Option two: applying to the court

Where the birth mother does not agree, or cannot be found, the applicant must ask the court to make an order instead, using form C1, submitted to the local family court. GOV.UK gives the current court fee for this application as £270, with fee reduction or exemption available to applicants on a low income or certain benefits through the Help with Fees scheme. Unlike the agreement route, a contested court application is decided by a judge, who will consider the child’s welfare in deciding whether to grant the order.

Surrogacy and separated parents

GOV.UK notes two further situations that use different routes. Parents having a child through surrogacy need to apply for a parental order rather than a standard parental responsibility application, because a parental order also transfers legal parenthood, not just parental responsibility. Separated parents can also acquire parental responsibility through a child arrangements order, which sets out where a child lives and spends time, and which automatically gives parental responsibility to a father or second parent named in it as someone the child lives with or spends time with, where they did not already have it.

What parental responsibility actually changes

Holding parental responsibility does not, by itself, decide how much time a child spends with each parent; that is dealt with separately through arrangements agreed between parents or, if necessary, a child arrangements order. What it does is give the holder a formal legal say in significant decisions, such as consenting to medical treatment, being consulted about a change of school, and being asked to agree to the child moving abroad. More than one person can hold parental responsibility for the same child at the same time, and holding it does not remove it from anyone who already has it; a mother does not lose her parental responsibility because a father later acquires his.

FAQs

Does an unmarried father automatically have parental responsibility?

No. GOV.UK says an unmarried father can acquire it by being registered jointly with the mother on the birth certificate, or through an agreement or court order.

Do step-parents get parental responsibility just by marrying the child’s parent?

No. GOV.UK is explicit that step-parents do not automatically get parental responsibility, even if married to or in a civil partnership with the child’s parent.

What does it cost to apply for parental responsibility?

A parental responsibility agreement, where the mother consents, has no court fee. A contested court application using form C1 currently costs £270, with help available for those on a low income.

Can more than one person hold parental responsibility at once?

Yes. It can be shared between, for example, both parents and a step-parent who has separately obtained it, without removing it from anyone who already holds it.

Bottom line

In England and Wales, a birth mother and a father married to her at the time of birth automatically hold parental responsibility; an unmarried father, a second female parent without automatic status, and a step-parent do not, and need either a signed agreement with the other parent’s consent or a court order to acquire it. The agreement route is free but depends on consent; the court route costs £270 and is decided on the child’s welfare. This article is general information, not legal advice on a specific family situation; a family solicitor or Cafcass can advise on individual cases.

Sources

• GOV.UK, “Parental rights and responsibilities”
• GOV.UK, “Who has parental responsibility”
• GOV.UK, “Apply for parental responsibility”

There is no legal status called common law marriage in England and Wales, however long a couple has lived together. Citizens Advice describes “common-law partner” as informal terminology only, not a legal category, and says a cohabiting couple generally has fewer automatic rights than a married couple or civil partners if the relationship ends. This guide covers England and Wales; Scotland has its own cohabitation law under the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006, and Northern Ireland has a separate legal system.

Why the “common law marriage” myth matters

Because no such status exists, living together for any length of time does not by itself create a right to maintenance from a partner, an automatic share in a home owned by the other partner, or automatic inheritance rights. Citizens Advice is explicit that unmarried partners have no legal duty to support each other financially. Every property question is instead decided by ordinary property and trust law, which looks at legal ownership, financial contributions and any agreements made, not at the length or nature of the relationship.

Sole ownership: the beneficial interest problem

Where a home is registered in one partner’s sole name, the other partner has no automatic right to stay or to a share of its value. Citizens Advice says that partner may still be able to establish a “beneficial interest” by showing a financial contribution to the property, such as paying towards the deposit, mortgage or major improvements, or by showing there was a shared understanding that ownership would be split even though only one name is on the title. Establishing a beneficial interest where there is no written agreement is fact-heavy and often disputed, because it depends on conversations and contributions that may have happened years earlier and are hard to evidence.

Joint ownership: a different starting point

Where both partners are on the legal title, Citizens Advice says both generally have equal rights to remain in the property, though the exact shares can still be disputed and a court can be asked to resolve disagreements about occupation or sale. Joint legal owners are usually presumed to hold the beneficial interest in equal shares unless there is a declaration of trust or other evidence setting out different proportions, for example where one partner put in a larger deposit and both intended their shares to reflect that.

Making a claim under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996

Where a dispute cannot be resolved by agreement, section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 lets a trustee of land, or anyone with an interest in property subject to a trust of land, apply to the court for an order. The court’s powers under section 14 include making orders about how trustees exercise their functions and declaring the nature or extent of a person’s interest in the trust property. This is the route generally referred to as a TOLATA claim. Section 14 does not create new financial rights between unmarried partners in the way that divorce law does between spouses; it is a mechanism for the court to work out and enforce existing property and trust interests, based on legal ownership, contributions and agreements. It cannot order one partner to pay maintenance to the other, and it cannot redistribute assets on the basis of fairness alone in the way a family court can on divorce.

Cohabitation contracts and declarations of trust

Citizens Advice notes that couples can formalise their position with a cohabitation contract, sometimes called a living together agreement, setting out how property, savings and bills will be dealt with during the relationship and if it ends. For a jointly owned home, a declaration of trust recording each partner’s contribution and intended share is a more direct way of avoiding a dispute over beneficial interest later. Neither document is compulsory, but both reduce the scope for the factual dispute a TOLATA claim exists to resolve.

Other financial consequences of not being married

Citizens Advice highlights two further consequences. First, if a partner dies without a will, the surviving partner does not automatically inherit anything unless the couple owned property jointly, regardless of how long they lived together; a will, or in some cases a claim under separate inheritance legislation, is needed to protect a surviving partner. Second, cohabiting partners do not receive the inheritance tax exemptions available to married couples and civil partners on assets passing between them. These are separate issues from a TOLATA claim, but they commonly arise alongside a property dispute when a relationship ends through separation or death.

FAQs

Does living together for a long time create marriage-like rights?

No. Citizens Advice confirms there is no common law marriage in England and Wales, regardless of how long a couple has lived together or whether they have children.

Can a partner with no name on the property title still get a share?

Possibly, by establishing a beneficial interest through financial contributions or a shared understanding about ownership, then asking the court to confirm that interest under section 14 of the 1996 Act if it is disputed.

Can a TOLATA claim order maintenance payments between partners?

No. Section 14 deals with property and trust interests, not maintenance; unmarried partners have no automatic legal duty to support each other financially.

Does a joint mortgage mean an automatic 50/50 split?

Not necessarily. Joint legal owners are generally presumed to hold equal beneficial shares, but a declaration of trust or other evidence can show the shares were intended to be different.

Bottom line

In England and Wales, unmarried partners rely on ordinary property and trust law, not family law, when a relationship involving shared property ends. A section 14 application under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 lets the court resolve a disputed beneficial interest, but it does not create new rights the way divorce law does for spouses. A cohabitation contract or a declaration of trust, made while the relationship is stable, is the most reliable way to avoid a dispute over informal contributions and understandings later. This article is general information, not legal advice on a specific property; a solicitor specialising in cohabitation or property disputes can advise on an individual case.

Sources

• Citizens Advice, “Living together and marriage: legal differences”
• legislation.gov.uk, “Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996, section 14: Applications for order”