The Renters’ Rights Act 2025: When Will It Come Into Effect?

The Renters’ Rights Bill has officially become law, receiving Royal Assent on 27 October 2025. The purpose of the Renters’ Rights Act is to create a fairer system for the private renting sector for tenants, and to assist landlords to manage properties more effectively.

We have previously discussed the major changes here. Since then, the key dates have been announced for the implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act. We provide these dates for your interest below.

Renters’ Rights Act Commencement Dates

The implementation of the Renters’ Rights Act is phased, however many of the most significant measures come into effect on 1st May 2026.

27 December 2025	Enforcement measures and investigatory powers for local councils
Jan 2026	Wording for tenancy agreement confirmed
Mar 2026	Information sheet for current tenants
1 May 2026	Formally commences the relevant tenancy reform measures in the PRS (abolition of section 21, introduction of new/revised section 8 grounds, section 13 rent increases, etc.) and relevant transitional provisions, rental discrimination and rental bidding (including relevant financial penalties), the new enforcement duty on local councils and expanded rent repayment orders (including extension to superior landlords).
Spring/Summer 2026	Financial penalties introduced for Category 1 hazard introduced
31 May 2026	Deadline of giving pre-existing tenants and information leaflet and notice of use on student ground
31 July 2026	Deadline for applications to court for possession under section 21
Late 2026	PRS database roll out
2028	Mandatory sign-up for PRS landlord ombudsman
Apr 2028	Expects end-to-end digitalisation of courts

Reminder of the changes

The most discussed of the changes within the Renters’ Rights Act is probably the end of Section 21 evictions, also known as ‘No-Fault’ evictions. This will be abolished. Going forward, all tenancies will be periodic and can only be ended on specific legal grounds such as serious rent arrears. The change is aiming to prevent unfair evictions and to provide more security for renters. This will take effect on 1^st May 2026.

As mentioned, tenancies will be transforming from Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs) to open-ended tenancies. These tenancies renew automatically periodically. This provides tenants with more flexibility, and they can give two months’ notice to leave.

PRS, new national landlord and property portal will be introduced as a database for rental properties. Useful information on the properties and the landlords will be accessible to renters to inspect, such as gas safety or energy certificates. The change hopes to bring about more transparency in the sector.

Furthermore, the landlords will be required to join the private rented sector Ombudsman scheme. This scheme is designed to resolve disputes without court proceeding, and hopefully with more efficiency and less costs. Through this scheme, the renters can file complaints about property standards or unfair treatment by the landlords.

We will keep an eye on further progress of the implementation, and hopefully bring you more useful information in the near future.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Goodbye Section 21: How Evictions Will Work After May 2026

In a seismic shift for the private rental market, landlords in England will no longer be able to rely on the traditional Section 21 “no-fault” eviction route for new tenancies.

The change follows the advent of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which has now received Royal Assent, confirming the long-planned abolition of Section 21. You can find out more about the Renters’ Rights Act in our explainer here.

The reform now brings England into line with Scotland and Wales, ending a process that allowed landlords to recover possession without proving fault.

Existing tenancies: can Section 21 still be used?

Section 21 is being phased out rather than removed overnight. Phase 1 of the Renters’ Rights Act is expected to commence on 1 May 2026, and from that date:

No new Section 21 notices can be issued.
Any valid notices served before 1 May 2026 may still proceed, subject to transitional rules.
Court claims using the Section 21 route must be issued by 31 July 2026. After this point, the Section 21 process will no longer be available.

Until the commencement date, landlords with existing assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs) can still use Section 21, provided all statutory requirements are met.

Requirements that still apply (until 1 May 2026)

A Section 21 notice remains invalid if the landlord has not complied with the usual conditions, including:

The tenancy began less than four months ago, or the fixed term has not expired (unless a break clause applies).
The deposit was not protected in an approved scheme.
The tenant has not been given the EPC, Gas Safety Certificate (if applicable), or the “How to Rent” guide.
An improvement or emergency repair notice has been served by the local authority within the past six months.
Any prohibited fees or unlawful deposits have not been repaid.

Notice period and enforcement

Until the law changes, the standard minimum two-month notice period continues to apply. A notice must still comply with the current AST framework, though the relevance of fixed terms will fall away once all tenancies convert to periodic arrangements under the new system.

After 1 May 2026:

Section 21 will be fully switched off.
All possession claims must rely on the updated Section 8 grounds, each with its own prescribed notice period.

What happens once Section 21 is abolished?

Landlords will need to use Section 8, which requires a specific statutory ground for possession. Examples include:

Serious rent arrears or persistent late payment
Breach of tenancy terms or anti-social behaviour
The landlord’s intention to sell or move into the property

Successful applications will require evidence, meaning landlords should ensure accurate and well-kept records.

Key takeaways

Section 21 will be abolished from 1 May 2026, as part of Phase 1 of the Renters’ Rights Act.
It remains available for existing ASTs until that date, and court claims must be issued by 31 July 2026.
Landlords should prepare to rely on the revamped Section 8 possession grounds going forward.
Tenants will benefit from greater security of tenure, though contractual obligations remain unchanged.

Have questions about what this will mean for you as either a tenant or landlord? Contact us today.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Business Bankruptcy: Should You File Voluntarily or Wait for Creditors?

Running a business can be challenging, and financial difficulties can arise unexpectedly. When your business starts to struggle, a key question arises: should you file for bankruptcy voluntarily, or wait for creditors to initiate involuntary bankruptcy? Understanding the difference and knowing the legal implications can save you time, money, and personal liability if you are ever faced with the lamentable situation of business bankruptcy.

What Is Voluntary vs. Involuntary Business Bankruptcy?

Voluntary bankruptcy occurs when the business owner proactively applies to the court to declare bankruptcy. This allows you to control the timing and the process.
Involuntary bankruptcy happens when creditors take the initiative and request the court to declare your business bankrupt. In this case, the process is largely in the hands of others.

So, which approach is better when your business is in difficulty?

Timing and Cost Considerations

Timing: Filing voluntarily is usually quicker. When you take the initiative, the bankruptcy process can begin immediately, allowing you to move on sooner and start rebuilding your financial life.

By contrast, waiting for creditors means uncertainty. You cannot predict when they might file, leaving the threat of bankruptcy hanging over your business indefinitely.

Cost: Involuntary bankruptcy may seem cheaper in terms of upfront expenses. The business owner does not need to engage solicitors or pay court fees—these costs are borne by the creditors.

Legal Responsibilities You Cannot Ignore

From a legal perspective, there is no “better” option. According to UK law:

If a company can no longer continue its operations, its directors must act immediately to file for bankruptcy.
Failing to act and allowing the company to accrue further debt may render the directors personally liable. Creditors can sue directors to recover debts from their personal assets.
For sole traders, ignoring bankruptcy responsibilities can result in extended bankruptcy periods or even criminal charges for neglecting duties.

The Bottom Line

There is no choice between voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy based solely on convenience. The crucial factor is awareness and action. Once a business owner recognises that their business or personal enterprise is insolvent, it is critical to initiate bankruptcy proceedings promptly. Acting swiftly helps:

Limit personal liability
Protect assets
Begin rebuilding financial stability sooner

Need Legal Advice on Bankruptcy?

If your business is facing financial difficulties, it is essential to seek professional legal advice. Our team of experienced insolvency and corporate solicitors can guide you through the bankruptcy process – whether voluntary or involuntary – ensuring compliance with the law and protecting your interests.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Successful Appeal Against Civil Penalty for Allegedly Employing an Illegal Migrant

Earlier in August, our client successfully appealed a civil penalty, resulting in the cancellation of a £40,000 fine issued for allegedly employing an illegal migrant. The case turned on the fact that the individual in question was not an employee of our client. Given the complex nature of the proceedings, and the fact that this decision is unreported, we consider it useful to share an outline of the matter and its outcome.

Case Background

Our client, a small restaurant business established in 2024, was served in January 2025 with a Civil Penalty Notice under section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. The penalty, initially set at £45,000 (later reduced to £40,000 for co-operation), related to allegations that the company unlawfully employed an individual as a waiter for three and a half days.

The Secretary of State argued that the company had failed to conduct a right-to-work check, and that the individual was engaged under a contract of service, thereby falling within the statutory definition of “employment.”

The company objected, maintaining that no employment relationship existed. When the Secretary of State rejected the objection, we were instructed to pursue an appeal.

The Appeal

At the court hearing, the Secretary of State relied primarily on the interview record of the alleged illegal worker, as well as email correspondence from the company owner (translated using software, as their first language was not English). The Secretary of State’s case rested on the contention that the individual had worked as a waiter with the expectation of payment.

Our case highlighted the following points:

No mutuality of obligations: Any job offer was conditional on the individual producing evidence of a lawful right to work, meaning no contract of service existed;
Credibility of witnesses: The company owner gave consistent evidence, supported in part by a resident witness. By contrast, the alleged worker’s account was inconsistent and self-serving;
Risk to the business and owner: Employing unlawfully would have jeopardised not only the business but also the owner’s immigration status and future citizenship prospects, making it implausible they would knowingly employ someone illegally;
Practical improbabilities: It was inherently unlikely that the owner would call the police to report the alleged worker if they had in fact been employing them unlawfully;
Good character of the owner: The owner acted with caution and had much to lose by dishonesty.

Decision

The judge allowed the appeal, finding that:

No immigration officer had witnessed the alleged worker carrying out any employment duties;
The Secretary of State’s evidence relied almost entirely on the alleged worker’s inconsistent and unsupported statements;
The company owner’s evidence, though occasionally unclear, was on the whole credible and careful;
It was “contrary to any common sense” to conclude that the owner would have reported the alleged worker to police had they knowingly employed them unlawfully.

The judge concluded that the Secretary of State had not satisfied the burden of proof to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the alleged worker was employed by the company. Accordingly, the civil penalty was cancelled, and the Secretary of State was ordered to pay the company approximately £9,500.

Conclusion

This case illustrates that not every civil penalty notice is sustainable and that the burden of proof rests firmly on the Secretary of State. Importantly, this was a highly unusual case in which:

No immigration officer witnessed the alleged worker performing any work, or even being present at the premises; and
The Secretary of State relied solely on the unsupported account of the alleged worker.

This is a rare factual scenario. In many other civil penalty cases, immigration officers personally observe individuals carrying out work at the premises, which significantly strengthens the Secretary of State’s position and makes appeals far harder to win.

Therefore, we strongly caution businesses receiving civil penalty notices to take them seriously and seek urgent legal advice. While this case was successful, it turned on very specific facts. Employers must remain vigilant in conducting robust right-to-work checks to protect against the risk of substantial fines and reputational harm.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

How the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 Affects Home Buyers and Sellers

As a London law firm specialising in residential conveyancing, we understand that legislation affecting the private rental market is no longer only relevant to landlords and tenants. We previously covered the Renters’ Rights Bill as a guide for landlords and tenants here. However, with the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 now on the statute books, it also carries meaningful implications for residential property transactions – whether you are buying, selling, or investing.

Here’s what home buyers and sellers need to know about the Renters’ Rights Act – and how we can help you navigate the changes.

Why this matters for conveyancing

The Act marks one of the most significant reforms in the private rented sector in England in decades. It received Royal Assent recently and will be brought into force shortly. For conveyancing clients, this means: a property that is let may have a different tenancy profile, different risks around vacant possession and exit strategy, and different compliance obligations for current or prospective landlords/sellers.

What sellers of rental properties should consider

If you are going to sell a residential property that is, or has been, let to tenants, the Act amplifies the need for careful vendor due diligence:

Existing assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs) and fixed-term tenancies may automatically convert to periodic assured tenancies under the new regime.
The abolition of “no-fault” evictions (so-called section 21) means regaining vacant possession may become more complex for landlords.
Sellers must disclose to potential buyers any tenancy arrangements, especially those which may restrict the ability to regain possession or affect future income/exit strategy; this influences marketability and may affect timing of sale (for example, whether to sell with vacant possession or with tenant in situ).
If we are advising a vendor landlord, it’s important to highlight that letting property in the transition phase may carry heightened regulatory and compliance risks (e.g., increased enforcement powers for local authorities).

What buyers (owner-occupiers & investor buyers) should watch for

For a buyer, acquiring residential property in the current climate:

If you are buying a property with tenant in place or as a buy-to-let investment, you should ask: what type of tenancy is in place? What rights has the tenant? How easily can vacate possession be achieved in future under the new regime?
The shift to periodic tenancies means planning your exit strategy requires greater transparency and forethought – this could affect valuation, yield expectations and timing of future disposal/sale.
For owner-occupiers purchasing a property that is currently let (or lettable) but intended to be your main home after completion, you should be aware of whether the tenant can stay longer under the new protections, which may affect your completion/move-in timeframe.
Investors must factor in that compliance obligations on landlords are being expanded: increased safety/standard requirements, stricter enforcement powers and limitations on things like advance rent and rent-bidding. These may translate into cost, risk and liability of investor buyers.

How we can assist our clients

As an experienced law firm, we help position our conveyancing clients ahead of the curve by:

Updating precedents and contract documentation: ensuring sale contracts, vacant-possession schedules and tenancy disclosure forms reflect the new rental regime.
Seller and buyer advice: alerting sellers (particularly those exiting the rental market) to the implications of the Act and guiding buyers on how to assess tenancy risk and structuring their acquisition accordingly.
Timing strategies: advising on whether to market a property with tenant in situ or offer vacant possession, taking into account potential delays or constraints under the new legislation.
Risk management: highlighting regulatory and compliance risks for clients entering or exiting the rental sector, and supporting searches/assessments in transactions to identify potential liabilities for past landlord conduct.
Client-focused disclosure: for selling letting property, we recommend sellers providing clear information to property agents and buyers about tenancy type, service of notices, compliance history and likely conversion of tenancy type, so the buyer can make an informed decision and your sale is kept transparent and professional.

Looking ahead

While the Renters’ Rights Act is now law, many of its provisions will come into effect only once the Government issues commencement regulations and secondary legislation. That said, from a conveyancing perspective the time to prepare is now. Whether you’re disposing of a rental property or acquiring one, the legislation changes the playing field for tenants, landlords and property-transaction professionals alike. For both future sellers and buyers, working with a conveyancing firm that understands how the rental reforms ripple into transaction risk means greater certainty, smoother process and fewer surprises.

We would be happy to guide you through the implications of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and ensure you are fully prepared for the emerging rental-landscape in your conveyancing journey.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

The Cost of Care: When Family Caregiving Becomes a Legal Obligation: Rogers v Wills

When a family member steps in to care for an ageing parent, it is usually an act of love, not a business arrangement. Yet in Rogers v Wills, the High Court ruled that long-term family care can, in certain circumstances, create a binding legal obligation to pay. Such a situation can arise even without a formal contract, as an estate may still owe compensation for the benefit received.

What happened

Bernadette Rogers, a retired nurse, took her 90-year-old mother, Sheila, into her home in Bristol after Sheila was found wandering on a road in Norfolk in a confused state. What began as a temporary stay became a long-term care arrangement lasting over two years. During this time, Sheila’s health declined significantly, and she required daily and often intimate care.

After Sheila’s death in 2020, her will divided the estate equally between her children and appointed her son, Andrew Wills, as executor.

Family members had repeatedly said that Bernadette should not be “out of pocket” for the care she was providing, and Sheila herself had insisted that she wished to “pay her way” and that her daughter should be “paid properly”.

Disputes later emerged within the family. Bernadette said that her mother and other relatives had agreed she would be paid a reasonable sum for her care. Andrew disagreed, insisting that the arrangement was purely domestic and not legally binding. Tensions deepened when Bernadette withdrew £100,000 from her mother’s bank account, claiming she had been authorised to do so.

A complete breakdown in the relationship between the siblings followed. Bernadette brought proceedings against her brother as executor, arguing that there was a contract for reasonable payment, or alternatively that the estate had been unjustly enriched by her unpaid work.

The court’s decision

The High Court found in Bernadette’s favour.

The judge held that there was sufficient evidence from family discussions and Sheila’s own comments to show that the care was not intended to be gratuitous. This gave rise to an implied contract for services, entitling Bernadette to reasonable remuneration under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
The court rejected arguments that Sheila lacked capacity to make such an agreement. HHJ Paul Matthews emphasised that a diagnosis of dementia does not automatically remove capacity, which must be assessed for each decision and proved to be absent with evidence. The court reaffirmed the presumption of capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and found that Sheila remained capable of making binding arrangements.
Even if no contract existed, the estate had still benefited from Bernadette’s services. The court held that Sheila had freely accepted her daughter’s care, knowing it was not intended to be a gift.

In doing so, the court drew a clear distinction between two restitutionary principles: failure of basis, which depends on a shared mistaken assumption, and free acceptance, which arises where someone knowingly accepts a benefit without paying for it. The latter applied here, since Sheila had knowingly accepted care with the understanding that payment would follow.

Although the exact amount of compensation was left for a later hearing, the court encouraged the parties to resolve the matter through mediation rather than further litigation.

The follow-up costs ruling

A month later, in Rogers v Wills [2025] EWHC 1711 (Ch), the court ordered Andrew Wills to pay Bernadette’s legal costs of the liability trial. The judge noted that she was clearly the successful party and awarded an interim payment of £75,685.50, representing 90% of her approved costs budget.

The judgment also reminded executors that they are personally responsible for litigation costs unless they have obtained a Beddoe order – a formal court permission to use estate funds to defend or pursue proceedings.

Why this case matters

This decision outlines the legal obligations for family care and is a thoughtful reminder that goodwill and care within families can, over time, blur into legal and financial responsibility.

The case also illustrates how the courts will increasingly look at family care arrangements through the same lens as professional ones, especially where long-term support replaces formal care services. It highlights the importance of documenting intentions at an early stage to avoid costly disputes after death.

Practical lessons for families and advisers:

Record any understanding about payment for family care in writing, even if it feels awkward.
Consider a short written care or service agreement to avoid uncertainty later.
Executors should seek legal advice early, particularly before spending estate funds on legal costs.
Mediation can often achieve a fair resolution without the strain of further proceedings.

As more families take on caring roles, Rogers v Wills underlines the importance of clarity. Compassion and trust remain at the heart of family life, but they are best supported by clear agreements and early professional advice. In the end, a short conversation and a written understanding can prevent years of uncertainty and conflict.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

UK Visitor Visa Refusal? How Lisa’s Law Overturned an Unfair Home Office Decision

At Lisa’s Law Solicitors, our immigration team recently achieved success for a client whose UK visitor visa application was wrongly refused – despite his genuine circumstances and extensive supporting documentation.

Background

Our client, a Chinese national living and working in New Zealand, wanted to visit his elderly parents in the UK with his young son. His mother is seriously ill and unable to travel, so the visit was incredibly important to him and his family.

However, the client faced a big challenge – he had four previous visa refusals over the years, including both visitor and work visa applications. Despite this, he was determined to make a genuine visit to see his parents and applied for a standard UK visitor visa again in August 2024.

The Refusal

To his disappointment, the Home Office refused his visa application, claiming that he had not shown proof of his right to stay in New Zealand and that he had no family ties there.

This was completely incorrect – the client had in fact submitted his valid New Zealand work visa and provided evidence that his wife and home were based there. The visitor visa refusal clearly showed that the caseworker had not properly reviewed the documents.

How Lisa’s Law Helped

Our experienced caseworker at Lisa’s Law immediately identified that the decision was unreasonable and unfair. We took prompt legal action by submitting a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter to the Home Office, which is a formal step before starting a judicial review. This PAP letter set out exactly how the decision breached immigration rules and fairness.

In the PAP letter, we highlighted that:

The Home Office failed to review key evidence properly;
The client clearly met the “genuine visitor” requirements, with a stable job and home in New Zealand;
His wife would remain in New Zealand while he visited the UK, showing strong reasons to return; and
His financial situation was well-documented, with funds from both himself and his family sponsor in the UK.

We also guided the client to prepare detailed explanations and documentary evidence for each of his previous refusals. This helped the Home Office see the full picture and understand that the past issues were unrelated to his current, genuine circumstances.

The Outcome

Following our intervention, the Home Office reconsidered and overturned the decision and the visitor visa was granted. Our client was finally able to visit his parents in the UK after years of refusals and uncertainty.

This case demonstrates how careful preparation and strong legal representation can make all the difference.

Visitor Visas: Why Expert Help Matters

Many people think a UK visitor visa is simple to apply for, however that’s not always the case. Visitor visas are discretionary, meaning that even with the right documents, it’s ultimately up to the Home Office caseworker to decide whether they believe an applicant is a “genuine visitor.”

To strengthen your application, you must be ready to provide:

Full financial evidence showing you can fund your trip,
Proof of family and employment ties to your home country, and
A clear explanation of your travel purpose and plans to return home.

At Lisa’s Law Solicitors, we know how to present your story effectively, highlight key evidence, and challenge unfair decisions when necessary.

Conclusion

This case is a perfect example of how persistence and professional legal support can turn things around, even after multiple refusals.

If you have had a UK visa refused or believe your application wasn’t fairly assessed, get in touch with Lisa’s Law Solicitors today. Our experienced immigration team is here to guide you every step of the way.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Lisa’s Law Retains Legal 500 Ranking for 2025

We are delighted to announce that Lisa’s Law Solicitors has retained its Tier 4 ranking in the Legal 500 UK 2025 directory for Immigration: personal, reaffirming our place among the leading law firms specialising in immigration in the country. This follows our inaugural entry into the Legal 500 rankings in 2024.

This continued recognition reflects the consistent professionalism and client-focused approach of our immigration team. We are also proud to have retained the Legal 500 Client Service accolade, awarded to firms demonstrating exceptional client care and outstanding client feedback. With over 1,000 Google reviews and an average rating of 4.9, client satisfaction remains central to everything we do at Lisa’s Law.

Lisa’s Law continues to offer expert advice across a range of practice areas including Wills & Probate, Residential and Commercial Conveyancing, Family Law, Litigation, and Business Law. We remain focused on achieving recognition for more practise areas in future Legal 500 editions.

You can view our Legal 500 profile here: [https://www.legal500.com/firms/236911-lisas-law-solicitors/r-england/rankings]

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Presumption of Parental Involvement Scrapped to “Protect Children From Abusive Parents”

A landmark change in the law will see family courts working from a starting point of no longer presuming that having contact with both parents is in the best interests of a child, commonly known as presumption of parental involvement.

Presently, under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989, courts in England and Wales work under the principle that children should have contact with both parents providing that there is no evidence that a parent could put the child at risk of harm.

According to family lawyers and campaigners, this “pro-contact culture” has meant that in many cases, the family courts have placed the rights of abusive fathers over the safety and wellbeing of children.

This has often put children at risk, with a report published last month for the domestic abuse commissioner’s office finding that even in cases where domestic abuse was present, unsupervised overnight contact had been allowed. A review of the presumption of parental involvement was originally launched in November 2020 by the then Conversative government, which concluded in 2024, however the results were not published by the Ministry of Justice until now.

While the change isn’t immediate, the government has confirmed that it would repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989 “when parliamentary time allows”. Campaigners have called for the immediate repeal of the presumption of parental involvement following the decision.

The government also recently announced plans to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility in cases where a personal with parental responsibility has been convicted of a serious sexual offence against any child, or in cases where a child has been born of rape. These measures form part of their plan to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.

What did “parental involvement” look like under the previous law?

The presumption of parental involvement applies to any kind of parental involvement. This can be direct (such as face-to-face contact) or indirect (such as letters, messages, or phone calls) – provided it is consistent with the child’s welfare.

This principle was introduced through the Children and Families Act 2014, following concerns that some parents, particularly fathers, were being unfairly excluded from their children’s lives after separation. The reform was intended to reinforce the importance of both parents maintaining a meaningful role in their child’s upbringing.

The approach has since proved controversial and is now at the centre of debate, with critics arguing that it has, in practice, led to unsafe contact arrangements in cases involving domestic abuse.

The Chief Executive of the charity, Women’s Aid, Farah Nazeer, commented on the decision:

“Women’s Aid warmly welcomes the decision to remove the presumption of contact in family court cases. This archaic presumption has put the lives of women and children at risk for far too long, and this must stop now.

Contact with an abuser is deeply harmful to children, with it not only risking their physical and mental wellbeing, behaviour, and development, but also their lives, in the most extreme of cases.

Decision makers need to recognise that abuse is a pattern of behaviours, and that the potential for escalation and risk of harm is there even after the parent’s relationship has ended.”

Family Solicitor Explains

Family Law Solicitor, Xinlei Zhang, explains the legal implications of the decision and its impact on clients.

While the intention behind the presumption of both parents’ involvement in a child’s life is to promote parental relationships – so that the child can grow up knowing both parents and maintaining relationships with each after separation – it was originally believed to be in the child’s best interests. However, this approach often overlooked the fact that the child’s safety must remain the paramount consideration, particularly in cases involving domestic abuse, where the courts have at times still permitted contact despite risks.

Following recent changes, the courts must now carefully assess any allegations of harm towards the child and weigh the presumption of parental involvement alongside the other factors in the welfare checklist under section 1 of the Children Act 1989. This approach provides a more balanced and effective way to safeguard children’s welfare.

Allegations of harm, including any past abusive behaviour, are now taken very seriously by the courts. Judges will carefully consider whether contact or shared parenting is safe. Parents can take comfort in knowing that the law aims to protect children while still allowing them to maintain safe and meaningful relationships with both parents wherever possible.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Successful Settlement Application Following British Nationality Renunciation

Our client first entered the UK in 1999 to join her husband. On 23 September 2004, she was granted Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR). In March 2006, she successfully naturalised as a British citizen.

With the UK’s transition to the digital eVisa system, individuals holding leave to remain or settlement status must now register for an eVisa. The old ILR vignette stickers in passports are no longer accepted.

Previously, some individuals holding both Chinese and British passports travelled between the two countries using their Chinese passport with an ILR vignette when they left China, and their British passport to enter the UK. However, this approach is no longer feasible, as both Chinese and UK border officials now require eVisa verification. Moreover, China does not recognise dual nationality, so individuals cannot legally hold both a Chinese and a British passport at the same time.

The only viable options are:

Relinquish Chinese nationality, retain British nationality, and apply for a Chinese visa when visiting China.
Relinquish British nationality, retain Chinese nationality, and reside in the UK under settled status.

Importantly, individuals who renounce their British nationality do not automatically regain ILR. They must apply for settlement again, typically through the 10-Year Long Residence Route (SET LR), provided they meet all relevant requirements.

10-Year Long Residence (SET LR) Requirements

To qualify for ILR under the 10-Year Long Residence route, applicants must:

Have continuously resided lawfully in the UK for a period of at least 10 years.
The total absences must not exceed 548 days during any part of the 10-year qualifying period before 11 April 2024.
Single absences must not exceed 184 days at any one time during any part of the 10-year qualifying period before 11 April 2024.
From 11 April 2024, absence days outside the UK must not exceed 180 in any rolling 12-month period.
Have no serious criminal convictions or breaches of immigration laws;
Demonstrate sufficient knowledge of English language (at least B1 level);
Pass the Life in the UK Test;
Intend to continue living in the UK;

Case Timeline

09 December 2024 – Our client submitted a British nationality renunciation application independently. However, our client was not aware of the SET(LR) requirements when submitting the application. Our client did not consult an immigration solicitor before taking this action.
11 December 2024 – Our client instructed our firm to assist with the SET LR application after submitting the renunciation form.
02 January 2025 – Our client stated that she finds it difficult to prepare for the Life in the UK test and the English language B1 test due to memory difficulties. The application allows the use of a Life in the UK test taken a long time ago, but a new English language B1 test must be provided. However, our client passed the Life in the UK test before 2006 and has lost the letter. According to Home Office guidance, we can explain to the Home Office if the Life in the UK letter has been lost, provided the test was taken before 17 December 2019.
03 January 2025 – Our client has decided to cancel her British nationality renunciation application. We submitted an email to the Home Office requesting the cancellation of our client’s application, as our client is still not confident about passing the English language tests. However, we have advised our client to continue preparing for the Life in the UK and B1 tests.
02 February 2025 – Our client successfully passed the Life in the UK test.
10 February 2025 – Our client located her old B1 English certificate, but we advised her to take a new test to meet current Home Office standards.
03 March 2025 – Our client passed her new B1 English language test. Our client decided to proceed with renunciation, and we notified the Home Office to ignore the cancellation request.
29 May 2025 – After several months, our client still hadn’t received her Declaration of Renunciation. We discovered she hadn’t sent the required original documents for her British nationality renunciation application. According to British nationality renunciation requirements, our client is required to submit her original documents to the Home Office. We advised her to do so as soon as possible. Ultimately, our client posted her original Chinese passport and naturalisation certificate to the Home Office.
22 July 2025 – Our client received her declaration of renunciation, issued on 6 May 2025. According to Home Office requirements, she must submit her ILR application within 14 days of renouncing her British nationality. The 14-day deadline therefore, started on 6 May 2025. However, our client only received her declaration of renunciation on 22 July 2025, which exceeded the 14-day deadline due to late delivery. For British nationality renunciation applications, the Home Office does not notify applicants of the result by email; the outcome is only known upon receipt of the physical declaration. We provided evidence to the Home Office showing that our client’s declaration of renunciation was only posted on 21 July 2025 and was received by our client on 22 July 2025, despite being issued on 6 May 2025.
24 July 2025 – We submitted the ILR (SET LR) application under standard service.
11 August 2025 – Our client attended a biometric appointment. At the time, she only had her British passport and an expired Chinese passport with her. Upon arrival at the biometric appointment centre, the staff informed her that none of the passports she presented matched the records in their system. Our client explained that her valid Chinese passport was held by the Home Office. One staff member requested proof that her valid Chinese passport was with the Home Office, and our client presented an email from the Home Office confirming that her Chinese passport had not yet been returned. Ultimately, the staff accepted this and allowed her to complete her biometric enrolment.
02 October 2025 – Our client’s ILR (SET LR) application was granted successfully.

Advice

We strongly advise clients to ensure that they fully meet all the requirements for settlement before submitting a British nationality renunciation application. Failing to do so is extremely risky, as relinquishing British nationality without having valid leave to remain in the UK could result in the loss of the right to live in the UK.

Have questions? Get in touch today!

Call our office on 020 7928 0276, we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.

Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.

Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/

For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.

James Cook

See Full Bio

Have a question? Our friendly and experienced team are here to help.

Subscribe to our newsletter

We post weekly articles covering a variety of topics, including immigration, property, and more, so subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates.