header-logo header-logo

24 April 2026
Issue: 8158 / Categories: Legal News , Civil way , Procedure & practice , Landlord&tenant , Leasehold , Family
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Rent reforms unleash tribunal turmoil

A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting

New forms, fees and tribunal powers risk clogging the system, with the Property Chamber already ‘condemned’ to heavy workloads. Fee hikes and phased implementation aim to manage ‘operational risk’, but delays loom.

Meanwhile, family procedure updates, longer enforcement notice periods and a key Court of Appeal ruling on service charges reshape practice. Leaseholders scored a major win where ‘safety’ wording failed to cover structural defects.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll