1954 Act Consultation – registration gap

In the twelfth instalment of our deep dive into the Law Commission’s second consultation on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the “1954 Act”) we focus on the Law Commission’s views on the challenges presented by the ‘registration gap’. This is the period between completion of a property transaction and registration of the new owner at HM Land Registry.  Legal title passes only when the registration is completed and, consequently, until then, the new owner has only an equitable interest in the property. The legal title rests with the entity registered at HM Land Registry.  In some cases, registration is taking between 8 - 11 months.  

The registration gap can cause problems because it creates uncertainty about which of the seller (as legal owner) or buyer (as equitable owner) is the correct party to undertake certain actions relating to the property after completion.  With regards to the 1954 Act, it is the legal owner that is obliged to take various steps such as: serving section 25 and 26 notices, issuing court proceedings, making applications for interim rent and proving its intention under grounds F and G when opposing renewal and completion of the renewal tenancy itself.  Indeed, it is the legal owner that is relevant in other statutory and contractual contexts too, such as serving break notices.  Failure to get it right can invalidate the process and the common workarounds that have been developed to navigate the issue increase costs and are not failsafe. 

The Law Commission takes a cautious approach in terms of reform and first seeks views on the scale of the problem in 1954 Act cases, whether it creates other issues that it has not identified in the consultation and whether consultees think it is desirable to amend the 1954 Act to address the issue, even though this would create an inconsistency in approach with other areas, potentially causing greater confusion.   If consultees think change might be justified, it proposes the 5 options set out below, but recognises that each has its drawbacks:

• Option 1 - under this option, the 1954 Act would be amended so that, during the registration gap, both the legal owner and the equitable owner could serve and receive notices under the 1954 Act; but this would not deal with other steps that potentially need to be taken during the process.
• Option 2 – this would involve wider reform, enabling the equitable owner to participate throughout the renewal process. This would address 1954 Act specific issues but would conflict with established legal principles that only legal owners can deal with the property. 
• Option 3 – this would not change the current position but is aimed at improving transparency and would require the legal owner to give prescribed information to the other party (e.g. that a transfer or assignment has taken place and that, until further notice, 1954 Act notices should still be served on the legal owner.  This may reduce the risk of mistakes being made but it does not address the fundamental problem. 
• Option 4 – no reform. 
• Option 5 – the Commission invites consultees to suggest an alternative approach. 

The Commission is right to raise this issue in its consultation, as it does present challenges in practice.  The responses from consultees will be interesting but, at the moment, the Commission’s preferred option appears to be to retain the current law. 

In our final article, we look at various procedural areas that the Commission recommends be clarified or tidied up on reform.  

Consultees are invited to respond by 16 September 2026

Subscribe to our latest insights by topic here.