What Do the Police Know About Me? How to Access Your Police Records and More

Many people are surprised to learn how much information the police may hold about them, even if they’ve never been arrested or charged with a crime. Whether you are applying for a visa, a job, or simply want to understand what’s on record, you have the legal right to ask. In this article, we explain how to access your police records in the UK, what kind of information might be held, and what to do if you need a certificate of good standing (also known as a police certificate or certificate of no criminal record).

Your Right to Your Private Data

Under UK data protection law, you are entitled to see the information held about you by the police. This includes:

Details of any arrests or charges
Information recorded during investigations
Intelligence notes or local station records
Whether you have a criminal record (spent or unspent)
Or, to see if there are any entries on the Police National Computer (PNC) at all

This is called making a “subject access request”, and it’s a legal right under the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR). Anyone can request this whether you are a British citizen or a foreign visitor.

How to Make a Police Subject Access Request

While it is technically possible to make a subject access request for your police records online through the ACRO Criminal Records Office or directly to a police force, many people who attempt this on their own encounter unnecessary delays, incomplete disclosures, or difficulties challenging inaccurate information.

Although the process may appear simple, the reality is that it requires precise documentation, a clear understanding of the police databases involved, and careful wording of your request to avoid confusion or rejection. Even once submitted, the police have up to a month to respond, and in practice, complex cases often drag on for longer.

Most importantly, the disclosure you receive will not clear or amend your record—it only shows what is currently held. If you believe the information is wrong, outdated, or unfair, challenging it can be a legally complex process that is easy to mishandle without expert support.

For these reasons, trying to navigate this alone can cause more problems than it solves. Our team has the experience to ensure your request is submitted correctly, followed up promptly, and, if needed, escalated effectively. We can also advise you on the best strategy if you wish to challenge or remove inaccurate records.

Police Certificates and Certificates of Good Character

If you’re applying for a visa, emigrating, or applying for certain jobs abroad, you may be asked to provide a police certificate showing your criminal record status. This is sometimes referred to as a “certificate of good standing,” “certificate of no criminal record,” or “certificate of good conduct.” This is not the same as a subject access request. A police certificate is a formal document issued for visa and immigration purposes and is used by many countries including the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

You can apply for a police certificate through ACRO:

The standard service takes about 20 working days.
You’ll need to submit passport, address, and a passport photograph.
There is a fee (£68 or £121 depending on processing time).
The certificate shows whether you have any criminal convictions, cautions, reprimands, or warnings recorded in the UK.

If you have no police record against you, you will receive a certificate that states there is “No Trace”, with an explanation that “You have no convictions, cautions, final warnings or reprimands recorded on PNC.”

What If You Want Something Removed or Corrected?

If you review your police data and believe it contains inaccurate or outdated information, or if you were never charged but your name still appears on record, you may be able to request its deletion. This is known as the Record Deletion Process.

For example, if you were arrested but never charged, or the case was dropped, you can ask for that data to be removed from police records. It’s not guaranteed, but it is possible, especially if the information is having an unfair impact on your life.

You may also have a right to ask for erasure under Article 17 of the UK GDPR, but this is usually subject to public interest tests.

We recommend getting legal advice before challenging police data, especially if it affects job or visa applications.

Final Thoughts

Your police record can affect your ability to travel, apply for work, or pass background checks. Fortunately, the law gives you the right to know exactly what’s held about you and to challenge it if it’s wrong.

If you need help accessing your police records, applying for a certificate of good standing, or correcting inaccurate entries, contact Lisa’s Law for expert advice. We’ll guide you through the process clearly, confidentially, and professionally.

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

Security for Costs: Key Lessons from High Court Decision in Sykes v Sumiki Ltd

The recent High Court decision in Sykes v Sumiki Ltd provides valuable guidance on the court’s approach to applications for security for costs, particularly where the appellant is resident outside the jurisdiction.

What is Security for Costs?

Security for costs is a mechanism under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 25.27–25.29) which allows a defendant (or, in appeals, a respondent) to apply for an order requiring the claimant or appellant to provide security by paying money into court to cover legal costs in the event they are unsuccessful. The purpose is to protect parties from the risk of pursuing costs orders against opponents who may have no assets within the jurisdiction.

Background to the Case

The case arose out of enforcement proceedings for a substantial loan guarantee. The appellant, who resided in Kenya, was appealing against a near £1 million judgment entered against him by the Central London County Court. Importantly, the appellant admitted that he had no assets within England and Wales.

The respondent therefore applied for security for its appeal costs, citing the risk and difficulty of enforcing any costs order in Kenya.

The High Court’s Decision

Mr Justice Mould held that:

Residence abroad is not enough on its own to justify security for costs. Following the well-established principles in Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait [2002] and Bestfort Developments LLP v Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority [2016], the applicant must demonstrate a real risk of enforcement obstacles or additional burdens.
Evidence was produced that enforcement of English judgments in Kenya, while possible under reciprocal enforcement laws, involves procedural hurdles, potential delay, and additional costs. The judge accepted this as a sufficient basis to order security.
However, the court carefully limited the security to reflect only the likely additional costs of enforcement – setting the figure at £15,000 (significantly less than the £140,000 sought by the respondent).
The court declined to order security in respect of costs already incurred at first instance, emphasizing that such an order would require exceptional circumstances.

Why This Matters

This judgment highlights three important points for parties involved in cross-border disputes:

Foreign residence matters – but is not decisive: An applicant must show a real risk of difficulty or additional burden in enforcement. General assertions will not suffice.
Tailored approach: The courts will limit security orders to what is just and proportionate, often focusing on the additional enforcement burden rather than full projected costs.
Strategic considerations: Respondents facing appeals by parties with no UK assets should consider applying for security for costs early, supported by concrete evidence of enforcement risks in the relevant jurisdiction.

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 Settlement to Become Harder Under New Proposals

The Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has announced significant changes to the requirements for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in her Labour Party conference speech.

Currently, most migrants can apply for ILR after five years of lawful residence, provided they meet requirements such as English language ability, good character, and integration. ILR grants permanent residence in the UK, with the right to live, work and study without time restrictions.

Labour proposals for indefinite leave to remain

Under the new proposals, Labour intends to extend the qualifying period from five years to 10 years while also introducing tougher conditions. Migrants would need to:

Demonstrate high-level English language skills;
Maintain a clean criminal record;
Provide evidence of community contribution, such as volunteering; and
Show they are financially contributing through National Insurance without reliance on benefits.

Labour argues that these measures would ensure settlement is a privilege earned through integration and contribution. This aims to create a direct contrast in their approach with Reform UK, who have pledged to abolish ILR altogether and require migrants to reapply for visas every five years.

The government’s announcement comes amid heightened political attention on immigration, with Reform currently leading the opinion polls. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has criticised Reform’s policy as “racist” and “immoral,” while Labour maintains that its own proposals represent “fair migration” within secure borders.

Our perspective

These proposals, if implemented, would significantly raise the threshold for migrants seeking permanent residence. Extending the qualifying period to 10 years would align the UK more closely with restrictive systems seen elsewhere, while the proposed conditions introduce additional layers of scrutiny that may be challenging to evidence in practice (for example, quantifying “community contribution”).

For applicants, the changes would mean longer periods of immigration uncertainty, higher application costs over time, and potentially greater vulnerability if unable to meet the new criteria. Employers may also face retention challenges if valued staff cannot progress to secure status.

While Labour’s proposals stop short of Reform’s radical abolition of ILR, they still mark a clear shift towards tougher settlement requirements. Migrants and employers alike should monitor developments closely and, where possible, plan early to secure ILR under the current five-year route before any reforms are enacted.

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

Think Your Divorce Abroad Was Unfair? You Might Still Have a Case in England

In Potanina v Potanin (No. 2) [2025] EWCA Civ 1136, the Court of Appeal has revisited one of the most high-profile cross-border financial cases in recent family law. The decision clarifies when spouses can bring claims under Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (MFPA 1984), what counts as a genuine English connection, and why hardship and fairness still matter.

For clients and practitioners, the case is a reminder that the “leave” stage under Part III is not meant to be a mini-trial. England remains open to applications where a foreign divorce leaves serious gaps in financial provision.

The background

Natalia Potanina and Vladimir Potanin, both Russian nationals, were married for over 30 years before divorcing in Russia in 2014. Mr Potanin is one of Russia’s wealthiest men, with assets held through complex corporate and trust structures.

The Russian courts divided only those assets legally in the spouses’ names. Holdings through companies or trusts were excluded. The result was stark: Mrs Potanina received less than 1% of the wealth – leaving her without access to an estimated US$6 billion. The Supreme Court later described her award as a “tiny fraction” of what she would have received if beneficial holdings had been considered.

After the divorce, she obtained a UK investor visa, bought a London property, and by 2016 was habitually resident in England. In 2019 she applied under Part III MFPA 1984 for permission (“leave”) to pursue financial relief here.

Cohen J initially granted leave but, after a contested hearing, set it aside and dismissed her renewed application. He considered her English ties “recent and modest”, described the claim as “divorce tourism”, and found Russia to be the more appropriate forum.

The Court of Appeal’s decision

The Court of Appeal (Cobb, Moylan and Falk LJJ) disagreed. It allowed her appeal and granted leave itself, highlighting several key points:

The threshold test under s.13: “Substantial ground” means a solid case with a real prospect of success – not proof of entitlement. The leave stage should not resolve disputed facts.
Connection to England: The law does not require a “substantial” connection, only a genuine one. Mrs Potanina’s investor visa, London property, and habitual residence since 2016 were enough to establish this.
Hardship and injustice: While not formal preconditions, they remain highly relevant. The extreme disparity between her Russian award and the husband’s retained assets demonstrated a strong case for injustice.
Jurisdiction under EU rules: At the time of her application, the EU Maintenance Regulation applied. Because she was habitually resident in England, the court had jurisdiction and could not dismiss the needs-based aspect on forum grounds.

The Court also criticised Cohen J for treating the leave hearing like a trial, undervaluing her English connection, and overstating her Russian ties.

Why this matters

This ruling has practical consequences well beyond its high-profile context:

For applicants: Part III remains a genuine safety net where foreign provision is inadequate. Habitual residence, a property interest, or a visa may suffice to establish an English connection.
For respondents: Dismissing a claim as “divorce tourism” is not enough. Unless there is a clear and decisive argument against jurisdiction, leave is likely to be granted.
For cross-border families: England continues to act as a forum of last resort where other systems exclude beneficial ownership or produce starkly unequal outcomes.

Key takeaways

Leave requires only a real prospect of success, not proof of entitlement.
A meaningful English connection – residence, property, or visa – is sufficient.
Hardship and injustice remain persuasive factors.
The leave stage is not a trial; disputed facts should be dealt with later.

Final thoughts

Potanina v Potanin (No. 2) reaffirms that English courts will not close the door on spouses left with inadequate provision overseas, especially where foreign law creates structural gaps. For international families, the message is clear: if a foreign divorce leaves you unfairly short-changed, England may still provide a remedy – provided there is a genuine link to this jurisdiction.

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

What Will Happen to Those on Indefinite Leave to Remain if Reform UK Win the Next Election?

Reform UK has unveiled proposals that would abolish the right for migrants to obtain Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the UK after five years of lawful residence. Instead, migrants would be required to reapply for time-limited visas every five years under tougher conditions, such as higher salary thresholds and English language requirements.

This article takes a look at the party’s proposals, including what they mean for the hundreds of thousands of people currently on indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

The party argues that removing ILR would prevent long-term welfare dependency, with claims that this could save a highly disputed figure of £234 billion over several decades. It has also proposed restricting access to welfare to British citizens only and creating new visa routes for entrepreneurs, investors, and roles in acute skills shortage areas.

However, these proposals would have profound implications for the hundreds of thousands of migrants currently living and working in the UK.

ILR is a cornerstone of the UK’s immigration system, providing certainty to individuals and families who have built their lives here. It also serves as the primary route to British citizenship. Retrospectively removing the possibility of ILR could destabilise lives, separate families, and expose the government to significant legal challenges.

While the current government has floated proposals to lengthen the ILR qualifying period from five years to ten, Reform’s approach is unprecedented in its scope and severity. No other mainstream political party has proposed such a sweeping overhaul of settlement rights.

Conclusion

The abolition of ILR would represent a fundamental shift away from providing long-term security and integration opportunities for migrants. For individuals and families currently working towards settlement and citizenship, Reform’s proposals would create uncertainty and instability. Although politically eye-catching, it is doubtful whether such measures could be implemented without extensive legal, economic, and human rights challenges. For now, ILR remains intact, but applicants should keep abreast of political developments, as the pathway to settlement may face substantial reform in the coming years.

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

Understanding SDLT on Mixed Use Property: Essential Guide for Buyers

The rules around SDLT can become complex, particularly where you already hold a mixed-use property and subsequently acquire a residential property. Are you entitled to first-time buyers’ relief? Do you have to pay the higher rates of SDLT if you want to purchase a residential property? This depends on whether HMRC views your existing property as residential. As such, it is important for you to understand how your existing mixed-use property is classified as that affects how much SDLT you will pay when buying a residential property.

By Wai Ling Chin

What is a Mixed-Use Property?

According to HMRC guidance, a mixed-use property is one which incorporates both residential and non-residential elements. Common examples include:

A property which consists of a shop and a flat or flats above it;
A building combining offices within a dwelling; and
A farmhouse plus farmland used for agriculture.

In general, a mixed-use property is not a residential property and hence will not affect your SDLT tax liabilities. However, in some circumstances, HMRC may treat part of it as a residential property for SDLT purposes, which may affect your tax bill.

Why Classification Matters

Whether you are entitled to first-time buyers’ relief or need to pay the higher rates of SDLT depends on whether you have a residential property at the completion of your purchase.

If you haven’t had one, you will be entitled to first-time buyers’ relief if the price of the property you are purchasing does not exceed £500,000.

If you have, higher SDLT rates may apply. These higher rates are 5% above the standard residential rates in each band.

This can result in substantial tax differences.

Residential SDLT Rates (Standard vs Higher Rates) from 1 April 2025

Transfer value	Standard rates	Higher rates
Up to £125,000	Zero	5%
The next £125,000 (the portion from £125,001 to £250,000)	2%	7%
The next £675,000 (the portion from £250,001 to £925,000)	5%	10%
The next £575,000 (the portion from £925,001 to £1.5 million)	10%	15%
The remaining amount (the portion above £1.5 million)	12%	17%

Additionally, if you, and anyone else you are buying with, are first time buyers of a residential property, you pay no SDLT on the first £300,000 of a residential property as long as the purchase price is £500,000 or less.

It is therefore important to know what circumstances can cause HMRC to classify part of your mixed-use property as a residential property.

When is a Mixed-Use Property No Longer Classed as One?

The line between mixed-use and residential is not always clear. It all depends on the particular features of the residential element of a mixed-use property. If HMRC finds that it is a dwelling in its own right, it will be categorised as a residential property. This is usually the case where you can carry out your daily activities, from sleeping and cooking to washing, in the residential unit, particularly if it has its own entrance.

If the dwelling was already part of the property when you purchased it, you would not count as a first-time buyer. However, if you purchase a mixed-use property and later adapt part of it into a dwelling, you may still be entitled to the relief.

In addition to the features of the residential element, its value is also relevant. For the purposes of first-time buyers’ relief, as soon as it is classified as a dwelling, it will be counted as a residential property, irrespective of its value. However, the higher SDLT rates will only apply when the property is worth £40,000 or more.

Further Information

If you are unsure how SDLT applies to your situation, it is always wise to get professional guidance. Contact us today for tailored legal advice to make sure your next property purchase does not come with any unexpected tax surprises.

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

Is the Home Office’s record-breaking crackdown on sponsor licences the right approach?

The Home Office has revoked an unprecedented number of sponsor licences over the past year, with 1,948 licences stripped from employers between July 2024 and June 2025. This represents more than double the 937 sponsor licence revocations in the previous 12 months, according to information we obtained from the government’s recent announcement.

To put these figures into context, just 261 licences were revoked in 2021-22 and 247 in 2022-23 during the same period. This dramatic increase raises important questions about whether the sponsorship system is working as intended.

The violations uncovered are serious. Employers have been underpaying migrant workers, helping individuals circumvent immigration rules, and failing to provide the work they promised when sponsoring visas. Adult social care, hospitality, retail and construction have emerged as the sectors with the highest levels of abuse.

Minister for Migration and Citizenship, Mike Tapp MP, stated:

“Those who abuse our immigration system must face the strongest possible consequences. We will not hesitate to ban companies from sponsoring workers from overseas where this is being done to undercut British workers and exploit vulnerable staff.”

The Home Office has also announced a 51% surge in illegal working arrests compared to the previous year, and removals have increased by 13% with 35,000 people removed. Additionally, the UK will now cut visa access for countries that don’t comply with returns of migrants who have no right to remain.

But is this aggressive enforcement strategy solving the problem or creating new ones?

Adult social care is already facing a severe staffing crisis. Revoking sponsor licences from care providers at this scale could leave vulnerable people without adequate support. Similarly, hospitality and construction sectors, which have long relied on migrant workers to fill essential roles, may struggle to operate effectively.

Implications of rapid sponsor licence revocation

It makes me wonder whether the Home Office has considered the practical implications of removing sponsorship rights from nearly 2,000 employers in a single year. While exploitative employers certainly should face consequences, are legitimate businesses being caught in the crossfire? The shift from physical compliance visits to intelligence-led enforcement may be more efficient, but it also raises questions about whether employers are being given adequate opportunity to rectify minor compliance issues before facing the nuclear option of licence revocation.

Rather than simply revoking licences at record rates, would it not be more effective to implement a graduated system of warnings and penalties that allows genuine employers to improve their practices? This could help protect vulnerable workers while maintaining the workforce that many sectors desperately need.

The government clearly believes that demonstrating tough action will address public concerns about migration levels. However, with current trends suggesting revocation numbers will exceed even this year’s record, one has to question whether this approach is sustainable or whether it will simply drive more employers and workers into the grey economy.

Final thoughts

For employers currently holding sponsor licences, particularly those in the high-risk sectors identified, the message is clear: compliance is no longer optional. The days of lax enforcement are over. But this also means that employers need clear guidance and support to ensure they can comply with increasingly complex immigration rules.

I have no doubt that exploitation of migrant workers must be addressed. Workers who depend on their employers for their immigration status are particularly vulnerable to abuse. However, removing sponsor licences in mass may not be the answer if it simply pushes these workers into even more precarious situations.

If you are an employer concerned about your sponsor licence compliance, or if you have received a compliance notice from the Home Office, it would be wise to seek professional advice immediately. The cost of non-compliance has never been higher, and as we’ve seen from these figures, the Home Office is not hesitating to take action.

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

HMOs and Planning Permission – What Every Landlord Needs to Know

If you are purchasing a buy to let and intend to enter the renting market, you should understand the term HMO – House in Multiple Occupation. Crucially, you may also need planning permission depending to your local council’s rules. HMO licensing and planning permission are two separate legal requirements – failure to comply can amount to a criminal offence and cost you unlimited fine.

What is an HMO?

A house in multiple occupation (HMO) is a house or flat where both of the following apply:

At least three people live there, forming more than one household.
The occupants share toilet, bathroom or kitchen facilities with other tenants.

There are two main types:

Small HMO – typically 3–4 tenants in 2 or more households.
Large HMO – 5 or more tenants in multiple households (this requires a mandatory licence).

When do you need an HMO licence?

You will always need a licence for a large HMO. For a small HMO, a licence is required if the local authority imposes an additional licensing scheme. Always check your local council scheme before renting out your property.

A licence is valid for a maximum of 5 years, and you must renew your licence before it runs out.

Conditions for an HMO licence

The conditions for an HMO licence are that you must:

send the council an updated gas safety certificate every year
install and maintain smoke alarms
provide safety certificates for all electrical appliances when requested

The council may add other conditions to your licence, for example improving the standard of your facilities. They will let you know when you apply.

Planning permission

You do not need planning permission when converting the use of a dwelling house (use class C3) to a C4 HMO (small HMO), as this is a permitted development.

However, planning permission may be required for change of use from C3 to C4 HMO, subject to whether the Article 4 Directions applies by the council.

If the Article 4 Directions applies in the area:

You need to apply for planning permission to use the property as an HMO
Failure to have planning consent could mean the property is in breach of planning control
Local authority could serve an enforcement notice, requiring use to revert to C3 (single household)

If you are converting C3 into a large HMO, planning permission is always required, regardless of Article 4 Directions.

Final thoughts

In summary, even if the property does not require an HMO licence, you may still need planning permission if it is in Article 4 area. Landlords should therefore check both the licensing and planning rules before renting out the property.

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

Party Wall Agreement – Does No Response Mean Consent?

Are you a homeowner who is planning to extend your home, convert your loft, or carry out any building work near a shared wall or boundary? If you fit that criteria, then do not ignore the Party Wall Act 1996. A lack of response from your neighbour does not automatically mean a party wall agreement and consent for building works.

Understanding this Act will not only help you to stay within the law but to also maintain good relationships with neighbours and avoid costly legal disputes. The Act ensures that both you and your neighbours have clarity, protection, and a formal mechanism for resolving disagreements if they arise.

What is a party wall?

There are two main types of party wall:

1: A wall is considered a party wall if it sits on the boundary between two (or more) properties and either:

Forms part of one building;
Separates two or more buildings, or
Is a party fence wall, but not wooden fences or hedges.

2: A wall is also a party wall if it stands entirely on one owner’s land but is used by both owners to separate their buildings—such as when one owner builds against an existing wall.

Notably, only the part of the wall that serves a shared or dividing function is considered “party”.
There is also party structure, such as walls and floors between and dividing flats.

When is a party wall agreement needed?

Not all work to party walls requires a party wall agreement. For example, you do not need it for minor work, such as drilling into the wall internally to fit kitchen units or shelving.

However, you must obtain a party wall agreement if you’re planning building work near or on a party wall.

Here are some examples of common works which require such an agreement:

Alterations to shared (party) walls in semi-detached or terraced houses
Work on shared structures, such as floors between flats
Changes to garden boundary walls
Excavations or underpinning within 3–6 metres of a party wall
Loft conversions that cut into a party wall
Inserting a damp-proof course into a party wall
Making a party wall thicker or higher
Adding a second storey above a shared wall
Building a new wall up to or off a party wall

What should I do If my planned works fall in one of the categories?

You need to notify your neighbours with a formal Party Wall Notice and agreeing in writing before work begins.

The homeowner is responsible for serving the notice. It is advised that the notice should include details of the work that you plan to carry out, the date that work will start, any access requirements over their property, and your contact details.

My neighbour does not respond to my notice, is that consent?

The simple answer is: No.

After you served the notice, your neighbour could have options to reply to state that they give their consent, or refuse to give consent, or give counter notice.

It is not uncommon that they simply do not respond. But no response does not equal consent; you are considered to be in dispute, if after 14 days of service of the notice, your neighbour does nothing.

At this stage, you can still try to communicate with your neighbour and get their consent to the works. They might serve you a counter notice about costs to meet or some restrictions and conditions for work.

If an agreement cannot be reached, you will either appoint a party wall surveyor to act for both of you or you each appoint your own. The surveyor will arrange a Party Wall Award, setting out details of the work can be carried out and who is responsible to pay. You can appeal against it at a county court if you are not happy with the award.

Even if you have an agreement in place, the homeowner is still responsible for ensuring any damage caused during the works is repaired. It is also advisable for you to keep a record and share the photos on the condition of the wall in order to avoid later disputes.

Finally, we would like to add, the Act does not change the ownership of any wall, nor does it change the position of any boundary. The Act does not contain any provision that could be used to settle a boundary line dispute.

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 Could Suspend Visas for Countries That Refuse to Accept Returns

The Home Office has announced significant new measures targeting countries that delay or refuse to accept the return of their nationals who have no legal right to remain in the UK. This development means that the UK could suspend visas for countries that refuse to accept returns and marks a notable shift in Britain’s approach to managing immigration enforcement through diplomatic channels.

The new Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has reached an agreement with counterparts from the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (the Five Eyes alliance) to strengthen return processes across all partner countries. The agreement establishes clear expectations for countries to cooperate with deportation procedures and introduces consequences for those that fail to comply.

What does this mean in practice?

Countries that consistently refuse to issue travel documents, cause prolonged delays, or show limited engagement in the returns process could face visa restrictions. The Home Office has indicated that visa arrangements may be adjusted to reflect changes in immigration risk where countries prove uncooperative.

This represents a more robust approach than previous diplomatic efforts, creating tangible consequences for non-compliance rather than relying solely on goodwill.

The joint statement takes immediate effect, suggesting the Home Office is prepared to implement these measures without lengthy consultation periods.

Is this approach likely to succeed?

The effectiveness of visa restrictions as leverage will largely depend on the economic importance of UK visas to the targeted countries. Nations with significant trade, educational or family connections to Britain may find the pressure more compelling than those with limited visa dependency.

However, there are practical considerations. Some countries may genuinely lack the administrative capacity to process returns quickly, rather than deliberately obstructing the process. The policy risks penalising states facing genuine logistical challenges alongside those showing wilful non-compliance.

The policy also highlights the government’s broader strategy of using economic levers to achieve immigration objectives, an approach that may extend to other areas of immigration policy in future.

Whether this approach proves effective in practice remains to be seen, but it clearly signals the government’s determination to address perceived failures in the returns system through concrete action rather than continued diplomatic patience.

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.