Month: April 2026

Cohabitation agreements: what are they and do I need one?

Three cyclists ride along a paved road at sunset, surrounded by grassy fields and distant hills under a vibrant sky.

When you live together as a couple, it is easy to assume that sharing a home means sharing ownership. However, living together as cohabiting partners does not of itself establish an interest in the home. Before moving in together, you should take legal advice, consider how best to record your intentions regarding your home, and protect your contributions to the property, by making a Cohabitation Agreement and/or a Declaration of Trust. 

What is a cohabitation agreement? 

A cohabitation agreement is a legal agreement made between two people who live together as a couple (or plan to do so) but who are not married or in a civil partnership. Its primary focus is usually on setting out intentions regarding ownership and running of the home, reflecting each party’s legal and beneficial interest in the property (which should be established by joint ownership or a declaration trust – see below) and setting out how any mortgage and household expenses will be paid during cohabitation.  

A cohabitation agreement often sets out what should happen to assets and liabilities if the relationship comes to an end or if one cohabitant dies (though it is important to take separate advice on wills and ensure that you have made a valid will). For example, where the property in which the couple has been living is co-owned by them, they may agree to sell the property if cohabitation ends and divide the proceeds, or there may be an opportunity to buy out the other party. A cohabitation agreement can record ownership of personal property (items such as cars, furniture, sports/gym equipment or art), which may be used or enjoyed by both cohabitants when they live together, but will be retained by the original owner if cohabitation ends.  

For high‑net‑worth (HNW) couples, the agreement can be tailored to reflect: 

  • Pre‑existing wealth and family assets. 
  • Property ownership and capital contributions. 
  • Business interests and complex asset structures. 
  • Ongoing financial commitments and future expectations. 

A properly prepared agreement should protect both parties and avoid the cost of litigating about former cohabitees’ respective beneficial interests in the home when cohabitation ends. 

Ownership of property gives rise to important rights to live in, deal with, benefit from, and in some circumstances, require the sale of the property. Before moving into a property (for example a property owned by your partner), it is important to take legal advice about ownership, as you are unlikely to gain the protections attached to ownership simply by living in the property. 

In England and Wales, there is a difference between legal ownership and beneficial ownership.  

  • Legal ownership refers to whose name appears on the title deeds (as registered at the Land Registry). The law formally recognises them as owning the property. 
  • Beneficial ownership is about who is entitled to benefit from the property in practice – for example, who is entitled to live there long‑term or to receive a share of the proceeds if the property is sold. 

The legal and the beneficial owners may be the same – but this is not always the case. One partner may be named on the deeds, while both partners may have an interest in the value of the property, particularly where they have both contributed financially towards the home. In these situations, the legal owner (the person named on the deeds) is said to hold the property on trust for the person who has the beneficial interest. You cannot always assume that contributing to a property will entitle you to benefit from it, so it is always best to take legal advice and ensure that your interest is properly documented. 

There are two ways in which the beneficial co-owners may hold the equitable estate to property: 

  • As joint tenants. 
  • As tenants in common. 

A joint tenancy is where the property is held in equal, indivisible shares and all the beneficial owners are equally entitled to the whole property.  On the death of one joint tenant, the survivor automatically inherits the property (regardless of what that person’s will says). 

A tenancy in common is where each person owns a particular distinct share in the property, be it 50% each or unequal shares. Where the property is sold, they would each receive their percentage share. As each tenant in common owns a distinct beneficial share of the property, each can transfer their share without the other’s consent.  

On the death of one tenant in common, their share passes according to their will. It is therefore crucial for these cohabitants to consider entering a declaration of trust when buying a property to confirm the extent of their respective beneficial interests and vital to make a will if they wish to provide for their partner upon death. 

What is a declaration of trust? 

A declaration of trust is a document that establishes and regulates the beneficial ownership of a property. In the absence of a vitiating factor (a factor that would “undo” the agreement), such as fraud, mistake or duress, an express declaration of trust is conclusive evidence of beneficial ownership unless such interests are subsequently varied.  

A declaration of trust should always be made where the property is jointly owned as tenants in common or where the legal title is different to the beneficial interests (for example where the property is in the sole name of one party, but the intention is for someone else to have a legal interest in the property).  

What is the difference between a cohabitation agreement and a declaration of trust? 

A cohabitation agreement is a flexible, bespoke agreement regulating cohabitation and often the financial aspects of cohabitation, such as who will pay the mortgage and other specific outgoings while the parties live together, and what will happen to the financial arrangements should the relationship break down. A cohabitation agreement can include setting out ownership of the property and often contains a declaration of trust within it – although it can stand without a declaration of trust and may simply contain provisions relating to other financial aspects of the relationship.  

A declaration of trust expressly states how the beneficial ownership of a property is shared between the parties. It can be executed as a standalone document or included within a cohabitation agreement.  

Why should I have a cohabitation agreement? 

Living together does not offer couples in England and Wales the same legal protections as marriage or civil partnership, regardless of how long the relationship lasts, whether the parties have children together, or how interlinked finances become. Without the protection of a cohabitation agreement, disputes concerning property rights and ownership leave couples with little choice but to pursue complicated trusts and property law claims. Such proceedings are highly technical, costly to pursue, and uncertain in outcome. 

A cohabitation agreement allows partners to take control by agreeing arrangements in advance, protecting pre‑existing assets and family wealth while also providing transparency, fairness and security. In practice, it is one of the most effective ways to avoid expensive, time‑consuming litigation and to ensure both partners are treated as they intended if circumstances change. 

For high‑net‑worth individuals living together outside marriage or civil partnership, a cohabitation agreement is an important part of financial planning, providing both partners with clarity, fairness and security, particularly where there is any financial imbalance. Our specialist Family team at Forsters can tailor a cohabitation agreement that’s built around you.

Does it matter who legally owns the home? 

The home that is the main subject of the cohabitation agreement can be owned by one party, co-owned by the parties together (in equal or unequal shares), or owned by a third party. Difficulties often arise where a property is owned by one partner and the other has made some financial contribution towards it, but no clear record has been made of how those contributions should be treated if the relationship breaks down. In all cases, whether the property is jointly or solely owned, it is important to ensure that intentions are discussed and recorded in writing. 

If the property is solely owned by one cohabitant, usually the other cohabitant will not have any rights to the property. The presumption is that the property is held in the way it is recorded at the Land Registry, and technically the non-owning cohabitant would have no right to occupy the property on a separation or claim a share. There may be an exception if the non-owning cohabitant can prove that they have contributed to the deposit or mortgage payments, or made a financial commitment to the property, such as paying for substantial renovations, on the understanding that they would own a share of the property. However, disputes as to whether a property should be treated differently to how it is legally owned can be difficult and costly, so it is far better to consider actual and potential contributions and enter into a declaration of trust and cohabitation agreement at the time of the purchase. 

A cohabitation agreement can be used to expressly permit the non-owning party to occupy the home as a licensee and clarify that the non-owner has no beneficial interest in the home.  

Is a cohabitation agreement legally binding? 

A properly concluded cohabitation agreement should be legally binding if the parties intend to create legal relations, there is no express or implied provision for payment for sexual relations, and the agreement complies with the necessary requirements for a valid contract (Sutton v Mishcon de Reya and Gawor and Co [2003] EWHC 3166 (Ch)).  

Accordingly, you should expect to be held to the terms of a cohabitation agreement. However, no recent cases have tested their enforceability.   

What are the advantages of entering into a cohabitation agreement? 

  • Clarity and transparency – Both parties are aware at the outset how their home and other assets will be owned, how their financial affairs will be arranged going forward and what should happen if the relationship comes to an end. This removes ambiguity and reduces the risk of future misunderstandings or disputes. 
  • Autonomy and control – The couple has the freedom to organise their financial future, enabling couples to make decisions that reflect their own circumstances, priorities and values, rather than risking leaving the outcome to the courts. 
  • Encouraging open communication – Although sometimes seen as unromantic, discussing and documenting financial arrangements early on can encourage honest conversations and mutual understanding at the outset of a relationship and actually strengthen the relationship as a partnership.  
  • Flexibility and tailoring – Each agreement can be bespoke, addressing a wide range of issues such as property ownership, mortgage payments, household expenses, savings, debts and arrangements on separation. The agreement can also be reviewed and updated as circumstances change. 
  • Protecting the “Bank of Mum & Dad” – Where parents have gifted, loaned or invested funds to enable a child to purchase property and the child subsequently wishes to cohabit with their partner in the property, parents may want a cohabitation agreement to protect family money invested in the property. 
  • Protection for both parties – Whether one partner is contributing more financially, bringing assets into the relationship, or giving up work or career opportunities, a cohabitation agreement can provide transparency and protection for both individuals – especially for the financially weaker party where the current absence of legal protections for cohabiting couples can expose families to real financial risk. 
  • Avoiding costly disputes – Without an agreement, property and financial disputes between cohabiting couples must be resolved through technically complex trusts and property law claims. A cohabitation agreement can significantly reduce the likelihood of litigation and the associated cost, stress and uncertainty. 
  • Future‑proofing in an uncertain legal landscape – With reform to cohabitation law anticipated but still uncertain in scope and detail (see below), a cohabitation agreement allows couples to secure certainty now rather than waiting for a statutory framework that may not reflect a couple’s preferences. 

Cohabitation reform on the horizon 

The Government is expected to launch a public consultation on cohabitation law reform in late Spring 2026. The consultation will play a pivotal role in shaping what rights and responsibilities cohabiting couples will have when relationships break down (or when one partner dies) in the future. For what this may mean for cohabiting couples, read our article Cohabitation reform 2026: what unmarried couples need to know now. 

Against a backdrop of anticipated but still uncertain reform (including what any new law will look like, who it will apply to, when it may come in and the extent to which it can be contracted out of), there is a strong case for cohabiting couples to take control now. By entering into a cohabitation agreement, couples can achieve greater certainty by clearly recording their intentions about property ownership, financial contributions and what should happen if the relationship ends. A cohabitation agreement provides a tailored solution at a time when the scope and detail of any future statutory scheme remain unknown – and may not ultimately reflect a couple’s individual preferences. 

Elizabeth Shaw
Author

Elizabeth Shaw

View profile
Polly Calver
Author

Polly Calver

View profile

Forsters’ Commercial real estate team advises Patrizia on 31,682 sq ft office letting to Costa Coffee

Skyscrapers rise into a cloudy night sky, their windows glowing with interior lights. Nearby buildings reflect on the glass surface, creating an urban atmosphere.

Forsters’ Commercial real estate team has advised Patrizia, a German investment management company focused on the real estate market across Europe, on its 31,682 sq ft office letting to Costa Coffee at Verulam Point in St Albans.

Costa will occupy the second and third floors of the building, establishing a new, consolidated UK headquarters for the company.

The letting is one of the largest office lettings in the St Albans market in recent months, demonstrating continued demand for premium office space in well-connected regional markets.

Under Patrizia’s asset management, Verulam Point has undergone a comprehensive refurbishment programme, enhancing the asset’s sustainability credentials.

Forsters’ team on this letting comprised Anthony Goodmaker and Katie Hibbs. Richard Spring and Charlotte Mashhoudy have advised on construction matters relating to the redevelopment of the building.

Anthony Goodmaker
Author

Anthony Goodmaker

View profile
Katie Hibbs
Author

Katie Hibbs

View profile
Richard Spring
Author

Richard Spring

View profile
Charlotte Mashhoudy
Author

Charlotte Mashhoudy

View profile

Business rates reforms and the impact on the UK flexible office sector

Skyscrapers rise into a cloudy night sky, their windows glowing with interior lights. Nearby buildings reflect on the glass surface, creating an urban atmosphere.

Owen Spencer, Counsel in the commercial real estate team at Forsters, has been quoted in Bisnow regarding the impact of business rates reforms on the UK’s flexible office sector.

The industry is currently facing significant challenges caused by the shift in how flexible offices are assessed for business rates. The Valuation Office Agency has moved to treating serviced offices as single units of assessment, rather than on a desk-by-desk basis. This move to building-level assessments, coupled with the 2026 revaluation and higher multipliers for larger properties, has resulted in an increased tax burden for flex operators.

Owen observes that these rising costs put operators is a difficult situation – them must decide whether to pass this on to their customers or absorbed them. He highlights that the sector reliant on startups and small-to-medium sized enterprises (SMEs), which often operate with lean margins. Owen warns that if these tax rises are passed directly through to end users, these cost-sensitive businesses might find elsewhere to go.

While some may view these reforms as simply closing a loophole, Owen suggests the move could be “counterproductive” for tax authorities if the unintended consequences “strangle growth” and create a smaller market for the tax to apply to.

Read the full article in Bisnow here. (Paywall)

Shake-up of relationship rights: Forsters identifies key trends accelerating demand for cohabitation reform for couples

Three cyclists ride along a paved road at sunset, surrounded by grassy fields and distant hills under a vibrant sky.
  • New YouGov research highlights strong public appetite for clearer rights
  • Forsters records a 50% increase in cohabitation agreement requests, reflecting rising concern about legal gaps for unmarried couples
  • Government set to launch consultation on cohabitation reform imminently

As the number of cohabiting, unmarried couples in the UK continues to rise, the Family team at leading law firm Forsters has identified clear trends that are intensifying pressure for the long-awaited reform of cohabitation law for unmarried couples.

New YouGov data, commissioned by Forsters ahead of the government’s forthcoming consultation on cohabitation rights, reveals confusion over legal protections for cohabiting couples – Britain’s fastest‑growing family type[1]. Despite this uncertainty, the public strongly supports fair treatment of long‑term partners and clearer rules on rights and responsibilities when couples separate, including defined qualifying periods for gaining rights and protection where children are involved.

Key findings include:

  • Nearly two-thirds (60%) of those polled believe unmarried couples should be able to leave assets to each other free of inheritance tax. 
  • Those who are ‘living as married’ are more likely than other groups to think that unmarried couples should be able to leave money and assets to each other without paying inheritance tax (81%).
  • 52% say unmarried couples who have children should be eligible for rights within the first five years they live together, demonstrating strong public concern for family security. Women were more likely than men to hold this view (55% of women vs 49% of men).
  • Young adults are the least certain about their views: 68% of 18-24‑year‑olds ‘don’t know’ whether cohabitants should be able to make financial claims on separation, suggesting a need for greater education.
  • Over 65s were the group most likely to say an unmarried couple who live together should be able to make capital claims against the other if they split up (22%).
  • People with household incomes of £50,000 or more were more likely than other income groups to believe that cohabiting couples who separate should be able to make one‑off (capital) claims.

This uncertainty is already shaping behaviour: in the past year, Forsters has seen a 50% rise in couples requesting cohabitation agreements to clarify their rights and responsibilities on separation, underscoring the extent to which people feel they must create their own legal certainty in the face of a system widely criticised as complex and outdated.

Together, these findings demonstrate the need for cohabitation reform that reflects modern relationships, supports family stability, and delivers clarity for millions of people across the UK.

Jo Edwards, Partner and Head of Family at Forsters, commented: “For too long, families have been let down by laws that don’t reflect how people live. This new data, coupled with the 50% rise we’ve seen in cohabitation agreements, shows that people want fairness and clarity, while ensuring that the needs of children trump all else.

“The findings suggest the need for a modernised yet balanced reform approach: one that respects autonomy and possible concerns in some quarters about imposing automatic rights and responsibilities on unmarried couples, while ensuring that those in more vulnerable positions receive appropriate legal protection. Any new framework must strike that balance carefully and proportionately.”

As the Government prepares to launch its consultation, the need to clarify and modernise the rights of cohabitants has never been more significant. Policymakers are expected to consider a range of options, including qualifying periods to be eligible for rights, opt-out requirements, needs‑based mechanisms and enhanced safeguards for couples with children.  

Jo Edwards concluded: “Reform is on the horizon and most family lawyers would agree that it is long overdue.  Whilst we will be keen to look at the detail when the consultation comes out, and to engage with it as we look ahead to new legislation, for now it is a crucial moment for couples to understand both the current legal landscape and what future reform may look like. Couples should also take proactive steps. Reviewing or putting a cohabitation agreement in place, updating wills and estate planning documents, considering a nuptial agreement if marriage is on the cards, and understanding how property is owned, can all provide vital clarity and security as the law continues to evolve.”

[1] The number of cohabiting couples in the UK rose from 5.5 million in 2014 to 6.5 million in 2024.

Do you know your rights as a cohabiting couple?

Three cyclists ride along a paved road at sunset, surrounded by grassy fields and distant hills under a vibrant sky.

The Government is expected to launch a consultation on cohabitation law reform shortly. Do you know your rights currently as a cohabiting couple, if you split up? Did you know there is no such thing as a “common law marriage”?

Read on to find out more about how the law could be reformed and steps you can take to clarify your arrangements, whatever your situation. Please note this article and potential reform applies only to cohabitants who live as a couple.

The current legal position: If the relationship breaks down you will remain the sole owner and your partner will not be able to claim an interest. There are limited circumstances in which that will change under current legislation. 

Scenario 2: You live in a property owned solely by your partner and you are not married.

The current legal position: You would not have automatic rights to claim an interest in the property if the relationship breaks down. In practice, this means that even if you have been in a relationship for many years, if you separate you could be left with no interest in the property that has been your home for a long time.

Your options: In certain circumstances it is possible for the non-owner to acquire an interest in a property if there was an intention to share the legal ownership and the non-owner relied on that intention to their financial detriment. Such claims can be made under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (‘TOLATA’), and are complex and based in trust and property law.

Aside from limited property claims, be aware that there are limited other claims that can be brought on separation unless you are married or have children e.g. there is no equivalent to spousal maintenance or pension sharing claims for cohabiting couples.

On death the non-owner may have rights as a dependent to make a claim against the legal owner’s estate. As an owner, you may want to consider making a will to provide for your cohabiting partner.

Scenario: You are buying a home with your partner. You are not married.

What to consider: If you are buying a home together with your partner and you are unmarried, it is important to consider at the outset how you will own the property. This is because if the relationship breaks down whilst you are unmarried, the legal ownership of the property is likely to be determinative of how the property is owned/divided on separation.

To avoid pitfalls, you should think carefully in advance and take property advice about how you intend to own the home (i.e. as joint tenants or tenants in common) and how this will be documented.

If you intend to own the home in unequal shares (e.g. if you are each putting different amounts in, and/or contributing unequally to any mortgage), consider owning the property as tenants in common and entering a declaration of trust to record the percentage split.  That way any contributions made are reflected in the legal ownership.

If a property is owned jointly and there is no declaration of trust, then the default is that on separation the value of the property will be divided equally.

Consider entering into a cohabitation agreement to ensure clarity as to the financial arrangements if you separate (and to minimise the prospects of potential claims being brought on separation).

Be aware that married couples have automatic rights to share property on divorce, unlike cohabiting couples (and regardless of the legal ownership). Therefore, irrespective of the legal status quo whilst cohabiting, you should consider entering a pre-nuptial agreement to protect your position on marriage.

Scenario: You and your partner are unmarried and have children together.

The current legal position: If you own a home together, property law determines how the property will be divided on sale in the event of a relationship breakdown. However, a parent’s legal entitlement (or not) to a share of a home they lived in as a family may not provide each parent with sufficient capital to re-house on separation (particularly if one parent never had a legal interest in the family home and has no power to compel a sale).

If a parent cannot meet their housing needs on separation, claims can be made against the other parent for housing and maintenance. Even if a child’s parents never cohabited, claims to house/maintain children can be made against the other parent. This is to ensure that children don’t have a marked disparity in standard of living with each parent.

Under current law, if the relationship breaks down there would not be the full range of financial remedies available to unmarried parents on separation as would be available to married couples on divorce.

However, a financially weaker parent may be able to make a claim against the other parent for financial provision (including housing) for the benefit of the child under Schedule 1 of the Children Act, but this is limited to claiming for property on trust (or other capital claims to meet housing needs) which reverts to the payer when the children reach their majority, i.e. (usually) when they finish university. No claims for outright housing provision can be made, unlike for married families. Additional claims can be brought to benefit a child such as child maintenance and lump sums (e.g. for furniture/school fees etc).

The financially stronger parent may be liable to make such provision, which could involve sale of property to ensure any children are properly housed. Housing arrangements under Schedule 1 of the Children Act can be complex, and may or may not involve the establishment of a trust to house the children. Taking advice early is key as certain structures are more cost effective than others.

Claims against non-legal parents: Very often, separated parents form new households and live with their new partner and the children of their new partner in a blended family. Be aware that limited claims can be made on separation against a non- legal parent unless a couple are married.

Scenario: You live with your partner and are currently unmarried, but intend to marry in the future.

The current legal position: Whilst you are unmarried cohabitees, your rights will be as above for cohabiting unmarried couples.

If you do decide to get married, bear in mind that seamless cohabitation before marriage blends into the length of the marriage which can have an impact on the financial outcome on divorce. This means that a 20-year cohabitation preceding a 2-year marriage would be treated by the court as a 22-year marriage (rather than a 2-year marriage), which would have implications for any financial settlement reached as a result of divorce, where the longer the marriage the greater the financial claims.

If your marital home is owned solely by one partner, and you have a cohabitation agreement, bear in mind that this is unlikely to be upheld if you later marry. Married couples have automatic rights to share property however the property is held, unlike cohabiting unmarried couples. A court has power to change the legal ownership of a home on divorce. If you are getting married, you should be aware that the legal landscape will change on marriage and may change again on divorce. You should therefore consider a pre-nuptial agreement to protect your position if the relationship ends.

Scenario: You and your partner are moving to the UK and will live together. You are an unmarried couple.

The current legal position: You should bear in mind that the law in respect of unmarried couples in other parts of the world can be very different from England and Wales. Whilst you may have protections / rights where you lived before, this will not be the case here.

If you have a cohabitation agreement already in a country outside of England and Wales, consider taking English family law advice before relocating as your previous cohabitation agreement may not be upheld here. Equally, if you did not have a cohabitation agreement, it may be worth having one in England and Wales to protect your position both now and if the law changes.

How might the law change in England and Wales?

The Government is going to consult in spring 2026 on how best to strengthen cohabitants’ rights. This might follow the models of other countries whereby if cohabitees meet certain criteria, financial remedies may be available on the breakdown of a relationship.

The eligibility criteria may be based on the length of the relationship.  When reform has been looked at previously in this country, it has been suggested that where a couple has a child there should be no minimum length of cohabitation to qualify for legal protections, and if no child they should cohabit for 2+ years to qualify.  In Ireland, unusually couples are required to live together for 2 years to be eligible to bring a claim even if they have children or 5+ years with no children.  Scotland has had its own framework of rights and responsibilities for unmarried couples since 2006 and the law there doesn’t focus on a minimum length of cohabitation to be eligible, but the nature of the relationship.

In terms of what rights should be available to anyone who meets the eligibility criteria, the Government may decide that any cohabitation remedies for unmarried couples should be different from those available to married couples on divorce, maintaining the difference between marriage and cohabiting relationships.

Alternatively, some countries such as Australia and New Zealand have a model whereby once a cohabitant satisfies certain criteria, they are treated as though they are a spouse and can bring the same claims at the end of the relationship.

In the future, cohabitants could be able to apply for maintenance to reflect any relationship-generated disadvantage.

How we can help cohabiting couples

While we don’t yet know exactly what any reform will look like, our Family team can help you protect your position now in anticipation of future changes:

A cohabitation agreement can help clarify the arrangements between you as an unmarried couple. If you already have a cohabitation agreement, you may need further advice if the law is changed in this area.

If you plan to get married, a pre-nuptial agreement can provide clarity and protection for both parties avoiding potential disputes later down the line.

If a cohabiting relationship with your partner has broken down, seeking advice early is key. We can advise you in relation to cohabitation disputes including TOLATA claims and, if you have children, Schedule 1 claims.

If the law is changed so that any new scheme automatically changes the rights you expected to have unless you “opt out” of the new legislation, we will be able to advise you as to how changes in the law may affect you and how to protect your position.

In addition to providing family law advice, our residential property team can advise you in relation to how a property you may be buying is owned. Our private client team can assist you with making a will (especially important given the lack of legal status unmarried couples have, meaning that the estate would bypass the surviving partner completely if the deceased partner hadn’t provided for them under a will; it is also important to consider aspects like rights under the deceased’s pension, nominations in respect of death in service benefits, life insurance etc).

Amanda Sandys
Author

Amanda Sandys

View profile
Emily Kilner
Author

Emily Kilner

View profile

Is it time for QR-verified probate in the UK? Lessons from Singapore

A modern building with sleek black columns supports a white structure overlooking a vast, calm ocean under a clear, blue sky.

The UK has moved to an almost entirely digital probate process and more than halved waiting times, thanks to widespread online filing and digital data sharing between HMRC and HMCTS Probate – but key limitations remain. Emma Jones (Forsters) and Yue-En Chong (Bethel Chambers) explore the benefits of the integrated model adopted by Singapore, and ask what the UK can learn from the country’s digital infrastructure.

Singapore’s adoption of QR‑enabled digital death certificates highlights the potential benefits of digitally integrated public services when compared with the UK’s continued reliance on physical paper and PDF documents. By enabling secure, real‑time verification and linking identity management, automatic death registration and elements of the probate process, Singapore demonstrates how a digitally native infrastructure can reduce administrative burden and operational risk across the probate process.

While the Singaporean probate process has yet to be fully digitised end-to-end, it provides a credible comparator for the UK when considering potential digital reform.

UK death certification: Modernised but still missing the digital leap

The UK’s overhaul of its death certification framework in September 2024 marked the most significant reform in more than 50 years. Mandatory electronic certification and the introduction of statutory medical examiners fundamentally reshaped the former GP‑led model, ensuring that all non‑coronial deaths are subject to independent scrutiny before registration.

However, the UK still does not issue QR‑coded digital death certificates. There is no instant verification mechanism or single national portal through which institutions can confirm validity. While recent reforms have modernised the certification process itself, the continued reliance on paper death certificates at the point of registration and use highlights how far full end‑to‑end digitisation has to go.

Singapore: A fully digital death certificate system built for verification and speed

In Singapore, since May 2022 all death certificates are issued in a digital only format and are accessed through the MyLegacy@LifeSG platform. Every certificate carries a QR code linking directly to the immigration authority’s official records, enabling immediate, secure verification by institutions, government bodies and solicitors, including those requiring sight of the death certificate overseas.

The impact is significant: there are no paper certificates to issue, store or replace; there is instant, authoritative verification; the risk of fraud has been significantly reduced.

Probate: Strong progress, but a hybrid system remains

While death certification remains only partly digitised, probate has emerged as one of the UK’s digital front-runner services. Since its phased rollout in 2018, the online probate platform has transformed the application process. By late 2024 most applications were being made digitally. This has been supported by automated data sharing between HMCTS and HMRC as part of the inheritance tax and probate workflow.

However, not all grant applications can be lodged online, including applications relating to individuals who died domiciled outside the UK.

Grants continue to be issued as physical paper documents, even where the application itself is made digitally. Since March 2019, grants have incorporated several enhanced security features, including a digital seal in place of an embossed seal, a digital signature rather than a wet signature, a high‑security hologram, and a validation telephone number for fraud checking purposes. A corresponding record of the grant typically appears on the official GOV.UK Probate Search register within around 14 days of the grant issuing, providing a secondary means of verification.

Despite these developments, the grant is not issued as a verified electronic or digitally certified document. It continues to be printed centrally and sent in paper form.

Centuries-old requirements at odds with a digital system

Under the non‑contentious probate rules, the Probate Registry is still required to inspect the original will, including the wet‑ink signatures and physical evidence of due execution. The rules continue to mandate the submission and exhibition of the physical will itself, together with any affidavits or witness statements needed to prove its validity.

Even within an increasingly digital probate system, the original paper will remains central to the grant making process. The Wills Act 1837 continues to require a valid will to be in writing and executed with wet in signatures.

Nevertheless, the question of whether the law should recognise electronic wills has moved steadily up the reform agenda in recent years. The Law Commission published a supplementary consultation in October 2023 reflecting changing social expectations, technological developments and the experience of remote execution during the pandemic. This culminated in the Law Commission publishing its final report and draft bill in May 2025, with the government issuing its initial response the same day.

While the Law Commission’s review was welcomed, a bill to reform the Wills Act 1837 has not yet been introduced to Parliament. The government has indicated that it will give the report detailed consideration, with further announcements expected later this spring.

Although HMCTS has moved towards digital grant applications, a government consultation launched in December 2023 on whether historic wills should be digitised and the paper originals destroyed was abandoned by the Ministry of Justice in January 2025. Ministers confirmed that all original wills would continue to be preserved indefinitely.

Singapore’s probate system: Digital foundation, paper where legally necessary

Singapore’s probate process is not yet fully digitised end-to-end and continues to rely on paper processes at key points, including the inspection of original wills and the issuing of certified true copies of grants. However, unlike the UK, original wills are returned once examined, removing the need for long‑term court storage.

All probate cases are filed digitally, including complex, high‑value and multi‑executor estates. A simplified e‑probate platform is available for straightforward cases. Where an estate does not qualify for the simplified e‑probate process, the application is still filed digitally albeit through the eLitigation system. It is important to note that the absence of inheritance tax removes an administrative step.

National digital identity frameworks, automatic retrieval of death information and close integration across government platforms substantially reduce friction even where paper-based steps remain. With this digital infrastructure in place, there is scope for further reform in Singapore, including the future recognition of digitally lodged ‘original’ wills and the development of secure, template‑based wills supported by verified identity data and biometric safeguards.  While such innovations may reduce administrative burden and litigation risk, their effectiveness in protecting vulnerable individuals remains an open question.

The UK’s digital pathway: Future considerations

Looking to Singapore, the UK could explore the use of digitally verifiable death certificates and grants, such as QR‑enabled credentials, to support secure, real‑time authentication and reduce reliance on static paper documents. There may also be scope to consider a more unified digital verification mechanism, accessible across courts, government and regulated private‑sector bodies, to reduce duplication, delay and fraud risk in the estate administration process.

Statutory and procedural requirements could be reviewed to ensure that digitally native records are able to meet evidential standards without routine conversion into physical form, except where additional safeguards are clearly justified. Building on existing reforms, digital probate services might also be extended beyond straightforward cases, while retaining appropriate judicial oversight and maintaining strong protections for vulnerable testators and beneficiaries.

Takeaways

Future reform is likely to be most effective where it combines the UK’s emphasis on legal certainty and protection with the efficiencies enabled by digitally integrated infrastructure. Singapore’s experience demonstrates that meaningful reductions in friction and risk are achievable even where elements of traditional process remain, provided that trust, verification and interoperability are designed into the system from the outset.

Published in Today’s Wills and Probate on 21 April 2026. Click here to read.

Forsters shortlisted in six categories at the Legal Cheek Awards 2026

Two young lawyers sitting at a desk both looking at the same laptop

We’re pleased to share that Forsters has been longlisted for six Legal Cheek Awards 2026:

  • Best law firm for quality of work 2026
  • Best law firm for peer support 2026
  • Best law firm for work/life balance 2026
  • Best law firm office 2026
  • Best law firm for social life 2026
  • Best law firm for eco‑friendliness 2026

These longlistings reflect the culture we continue to build at Forsters and the value we place on the experience of our people alongside the quality of our work.

This year’s awards ceremony will take place in London on the evening of Thursday 14 May 2026. Read Legal Cheek’s profile of Forsters here.

Learn more about early careers at Forsters here.

Residential SDLT – I am a private rental tenant, do I have to pay stamp duty land tax?

A row of modern townhouses features large glass doors and brick façades. The buildings have balconies above the ground floor, and the symmetrical design is set in a suburban environment.

Most people are aware of the need to pay stamp duty land tax (SDLT) when buying a house for a high enough purchase price.

With its myriad of rules (additional property surcharge, non-resident surcharge, flat rates for companies), SDLT has become increasingly complicated, however one group who rarely have to consider the Byzantine depths of the Finance Act 2003 are private renters. But is this something they should be thinking about?

Update April 2026

Following the passing of the Renters Rights Act 2025 there was significant concern for private residential tenants that leases would automatically be brought inside SDLT due to changes turning most private tenancies to individuals (excluding those with rents above £100k per annum and those with significantly low value rents) into leases of an indefinite term, meaning that each year was automatically “linked” to each other by virtue of being a “growing” lease for SDLT purposes.

However, on 22 April 2026, HM Treasury announced that it would include legislation in Finance Bill 2027 (with effect from 1 May 2026) to prevent the net present value of rents under assured tenancies under the Housing Act 1988 (as amended by the Renters’ Rights Act 2025) being subject to SDLT.

 Section 1 of the RRA 2025 amends the Housing Act 1988, so that new assured tenancies will be periodic, can no longer have fixed terms, and are for the same duration as the period for which rent is paid. Section 2 of the RRA 2025 abolishes assured shorthold tenancies. For more information see here.

SDLT is charged on rents under leases with indefinite terms (including periodic leases) by treating the lease as initial a lease for a fixed term of a year, which will grow to 2 years when the term reaches 1 year and 1 and so on requiring recalculation each year as the net present value of the rents over the term continues to determine whether there is an SDLT charge or reporting obligation. Concerns were raised that this could result in the net present value of rents under assured periodic tenancies being subject to SDLT as the term continued to grow over time as the tenancy continued. The government promised action to ensure that tenants were not brought into SDLT by the RRA 2025 changes. Read more here.

The recent statement confirms:

  • The government’s intention to provide in the next Finance Bill that there will be no SDLT charge on the net present value of rents under residential leases considered assured tenancies as a result of the RRA 2025 changes. No details of the mechanism for this were announced; these are to follow at or before the next Budget, possibly including anti-avoidance measures.
  • That the new legislation will apply retrospectively from 1 May 2026, being the date on which existing tenancies become assured periodic tenancies (see here).
  • That HMRC will not collect any SDLT on the rent element of assured periodic tenancies from 1 May 2026 until the date the new legislation takes overriding effect.

Although the statement refers to the interaction between the RRA 2025 and SDLT legislation as being “technical”, this had caused genuine concern that tenants may inadvertently become subject to the SDLT regime. This announcement will provide reassurance and should assist in the smoother implementation of the RRA 2025. Assured periodic tenants therefore should not be concerned that their tenancy will become taxable to SDLT by virtue of the RRA 2025.

The below article was correct at time of publication in 2023 but now should not apply to assured periodic tenants.

What is SDLT?

SDLT is a transfer tax on the acquisition of property interests in England and Northern Ireland. Wales and Scotland have similar but slightly different regimes (Land Transfer Tax and Land and Building Transfer Tax respectively). SDLT is due whenever a relevant land interest is transferred, be that by sale or by grant of a lease, and chargeable consideration above the nil rate threshold is paid for this transfer. SDLT is taxed in a progressive banded system, much like income tax, such that the value of the chargeable consideration that falls into each band is taxed at the relevant rate for that band, for example the first £250,000 of a purchase price (assuming neither the additional property surcharge or non-resident surcharge applies) will always be taxed at 0%, regardless of whether the total purchase price is £300,000 or £2 million.

There is no difference for SDLT purposes between a “tenant” and a “leaseholder”. SDLT applies to any freehold or leasehold transfer (it does not apply to licences) subject to certain transactions that are exempt from the tax (primarily for being low in value). SDLT as a tax looks at the substance of a transaction, not the way it is described. One cannot define oneself out of an SDLT charge, for example by labelling a lease as a licence.

Chargeable consideration is the price paid for the transfer. For a purchase this is simply the price you pay. For rent it is the net present value (NPV) of all the rent across the term of the lease. This uses a discount value (3.5%) so future rent is not valued as highly as rent due immediately. For leases longer than five years it is only rent in the first five years that is used for the SDLT calculation, with the highest year’s rent in that five-year period being taken as the rent for every year above five; thus rental increases after the first five years are ignored. As such, the NPV will be less than just simply adding up all the rent over the term of the lease.

Does this apply to private rental tenants?

The short answer is “it can do”. The slightly longer answer is “it’s very unlikely that the average tenant will need to pay SDLT or file an SDLT return”.

For a lease of under seven years an SDLT return only needs to be filed if the chargeable consideration is above the nil rate threshold. This is currently set at £250,000, raised from £125,000 in 2022 by Liz Truss, although due to be cut back to £125,000 in March 2025.

It is highly unlikely that most residential rental leaseholders will be taking leases with a rental NPV above £250,000.

What if I renew my lease?

Some tenants may fear that by renewing their lease several times they may reach a stage where SDLT is due. This will, however, only be the case if the renewals are “linked” for SDLT purposes.
Linking is a grey area for SDLT, primarily designed to stop transactions being split to minimise tax, e.g rather than buying a house for £500,000, you buy the house for £250,000 and the garden for £250,000, and pay no tax as you have two transactions each under the nil rate threshold.

Renewing a lease is not traditional transaction splitting, however if it is done with an option to renew within the lease itself then this will be linked, i.e. if the lease includes a provision allowing the tenant to renew the lease at the end of the current term, and the tenant does so, the renewal will be deemed to be linked.

On the other hand, if, around the time of expiry of the term of the lease, the tenant and landlord agree they both want the tenancy to continue for a further term, with no requirement that both or either must agree to this, (probably with some degree of negotiation over any rental increase), then it is likely that the leases will not be linked.

Even if leases are linked, at the current nil rate threshold, a lease with a rental value of £2,000 a month will need to be renewed for an occupation of 14 years before SDLT is due on the rent. On that basis, even London renters are unlikely to be triggering SDLT obligations.

If a lease is renewed such that it lasts for over seven years, and each renewal is linked, then an SDLT return is likely to be required even if no SDLT is due.

What if I am non-resident?

For SDLT purposes you are generally non-resident at the time of a transaction if you have not spent 183 days in the UK in the 364 days before the transaction.

Unlike the “additional property” 3% surcharge, which only applies to the premium, the 2% non-resident surcharge can apply to rent in some circumstances, namely:

  1. If there is also a premium value worth more than £40,000. This will trigger the non-resident surcharge, making the nil rate threshold for rent a 2% band, such that any level of rent will result in tax
  2. Where the lease is for more than seven years and the annual rent is more than £1,000

If you are UK non-resident, then you may pay SDLT on your rent if you take a lease for seven years or your lease renews to be, in total, over seven years in length (and the renewal(s) are linked as above) or you pay a premium over £40,000 alongside your rent.

What if I am doing something unusual?

The risk of an average private rental tenant having to file an SDLT return or pay SDLT is low. The tax is most likely to be paid by someone doing something unexpected such as:

  1. Paying a very high level of rent – the exact level will depend on the length of the lease but for a one-year lease, rent of over £21,000 a month would be needed to go over the current nil rate threshold
  2. Renting where there was always an agreement that the leases would renew, especially to take the total term to over seven years
  3. Renting from family on a non-arm’s length basis – this would make it more likely that renewal leases are linked (however the most obvious non-arm’s length basis is for under market rent which would mean the nil rate threshold would be less likely to be triggered!)

For the average renter, who has taken a lease from a third party landlord, even London rental rates will not trigger SDLT liabilities for a short term AST (assured shorthold tenancy) unless the lease contains an option to renew and this is triggered several times.

Summary

SDLT can apply to private rental tenancies, but typically only applies where rent values are very high or if something unusual is taking place. For the vast majority of renters, SDLT is not a tax that they will need to consider.

That said, renters should be careful if:<?p>

  1. Their lease is granted for a term of seven years or more
  2. Their lease contains an option to renew, and they take up this option (and the renewed lease has a further option to renew, etc.) such that the total length they occupy the property exceeds seven years (in which case an SDLT return will be due in the seventh year although depending on levels of rent there may still be no tax)
  3. Their lease does not contain an option to renew but it was always intended that the lease would last more than seven years (in which case an SDLT return will be due in the seventh year although depending on levels of rent there may still be no tax)
  4. They are non-resident for SDLT purposes and either pay a premium worth £40,000 or occupy for over seven years (with any renewals treated as linked)
  5. Their lease has a very high level of rent

Disclaimer

This note reflects the law as at 11 July 2023. The circumstances of each case vary and this note should not be relied upon in place of specific legal advice.

Renters’ Rights Act hub

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (the Act) received Royal Assent on 27 October 2025 and fundamentally changes the law relating to residential tenancies.

Find out more

Decorative key

More on the act

Adult bird feeding babies in a nest
Tenancy agreements and rent
Red crab emerging from its shell
Possession
Bee sitting on a white flower
PRS database, Ombudsman and more
Barn owl
Agricultural workers
Swarm of bees
Students

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 explained

Decorative key

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (the Act) received Royal Assent on 27 October 2025 and fundamentally changes the law relating to residential tenancies.

For now, landlords can continue to recover possession using section 21 notices and current grounds of possession but we strongly advise landlords to seek advice before granting new Assured Shorthold Tenancies (ASTs). Landlords should take care to ensure that all the relevant requirements are complied with so that any section 21 notice is valid.

The Act will be brought into force in phases. The first phase will be the implementation of the new tenancy regime on 1 May 2026. The second phase, from late 2026, will see the creation of a landlord’s database and ombudsman. The final phase, for which dates are to be confirmed, will see the introduction of Awaab’s Law and the Decent Homes Standard.

Download as a PDF


Tenancy agreements

What is the impact of the Act on ASTs?

From 1 May 2026, ASTs will be abolished and will become assured periodic tenancies, with rental periods not permitted to exceed one month. Any terms in an existing tenancy that provide for either a fixed term or longer rent periods will have no effect.

The conversion of all ASTs to periodic assured tenancies means that tenants will be able to stay in their homes until they decide to end the tenancy by giving two months’ notice.

Is this the end of notices under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (S.21 Notice)?

Yes. Any S.21 Notice served after 30 April 2026 will not be valid.

What if a lease prohibits subletting otherwise than pursuant to an AST?

These will be read to allow subletting by way of an assured tenancy. This means that, from 1 May 2026, a superior landlord will not be able to withhold consent to a subletting pursuant to an assured tenancy, and such a subletting will not give rise to a breach of the lease.

Possession

What happens if a landlord has already served a S.21 Notice?

Where a landlord has served a valid S.21 Notice on or before 30 April 2026, the landlord will still be able to rely on that notice. However, the landlord must issue possession proceedings within a set timeframe, depending on when the notice was served.

What happens if a landlord has already issued possession proceedings based on a S.21 Notice?

Those proceedings can progress and, provided a landlord is able to prove that the S.21 Notice is valid and they are entitled to possession, a possession order will be made.

How can a landlord recover possession after 1 May 2026?

A landlord will need to serve notice under the revised section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 (a S.8 Notice) by specifying which ground or grounds it is relying on to end the tenancy.

What if a landlord wants to recover possession in order to live in the property?

The Act will allow a landlord to terminate a tenancy where the landlord, their spouse, civil partner or other close family member (i.e. parent, grandparent, sibling, child or grandchild) wants to live in the property as their only or principal home. Certain requirements will need to be met though.

What if a landlord wants to recover possession in order to sell the property?

The Act will allow a landlord to serve a notice terminating a tenancy where they intend to sell the property (or grant a lease for a term of 21 years or more). Certain requirements will need to be met though.

What if a landlord wants to redevelop the property?

A landlord will be able to rely on amended ground 6. The landlord must show that the redevelopment cannot reasonably be carried out with the tenant in occupation. This is likely to be similar to proving Ground (f) for the 1954 Act.

Can a landlord still recover possession if the tenant has not paid the rent?

Yes. The Act will still allow a landlord to serve a S.8 Notice where the tenant is in rent arrears. However, four weeks’ notice will be required (and a landlord will need to evidence that the tenant has accrued three months’ rent arrears as at the date of the S.8 Notice).

Are there any other grounds for possession?

Yes. There are several more, including some relating to student accommodation, employment and breach of the tenancy. A full list can be provided on request.

Will a landlord need to provide an EPC, Gas Safety Certificate and How to Rent Guide to serve a valid S.8 Notice?

No. However, the obligations to ensure service of these documents are governed by other legislation, with their own penalties for breach.

Will a landlord still need to register a deposit to serve a valid S.8 Notice?

Yes. It will still be necessary for a landlord to protect a deposit paid by a tenant and serve the prescribed information on the tenant within 30 days. If a landlord fails to register the deposit on time, it will still be able to recover possession if the requirements are met before the possession hearing, but there may be financial penalties.

Rents and rent reviews

What does the Act say about rents?

Landlords will only be permitted to advertise with a specific proposed rent, and, if they accept an offer that exceeds the proposed rent, they can be fined.

How will the Act change rent reviews?

From 1 May 2026, rent increases must follow a statutory notice process; contractual terms will be of no effect. Landlords will only be able to propose a rent increase once every 12 months, giving at least two months’ notice.

Tenants will be able to challenge the proposed rent by applying to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). The FTT will then determine the open‑market rent. The new rent amount will be the lower of the open‑market rent and the proposed rent.

What else do I need to know?

Will every tenant be able to request a pet, and will the landlord have to agree?

The Act will imply a term into every assured tenancy that a landlord cannot unreasonably refuse consent if a tenant asks to keep a pet, even if strictly prohibited in the agreement.

It will be reasonable for a landlord to refuse consent in the following two situations, although it will not be limited:

  • if an agreement between the landlord and a superior landlord prohibits the keeping of a pet without consent of the superior landlord, and the landlord has taken reasonable steps to obtain consent, but that consent has not been given; or
  • if the pet being kept at the property would cause the landlord to be in breach of an agreement with a superior landlord, e.g. a superior lease simply states that pets are not allowed in the building.

Rent Repayment Orders

Landlords (and superior landlords) will be liable for Rent Repayment Orders if they fail to comply with parts of the Act.

Anti-discrimination provisions

From 1 May 2026, it will be illegal for landlords and agents to discriminate against prospective tenants in receipt of benefits or with children.

Register of PRS landlords

In the second implementation phase, expected to start in late 2026, a ‘private rented sector database’ will be created to help landlords understand their legal obligations and demonstrate compliance (giving good landlords confidence in their position), alongside providing better information to tenants to make informed decisions when entering into a tenancy agreement. Landlords will need to be registered on the database in order to use certain possession grounds.

Ombudsman to help resolve disputes

Also in late 2026, an ombudsman will be set up. All private landlords will be required to join this service once it is up and running (which it is expected to be in 2028) and may have to pay a small annual fee per property. The ombudsman will aim to provide quick, fair, impartial and binding resolution for tenants’ complaints about their landlords.

Awaab’s Law and the Decent Homes Standard

Awaab’s Law, which requires landlords to fix damp, mould, and other emergency hazards within strict timeframes, will be extended to apply to the private sector. The Act also envisages that a Decent Homes Standard will be extended to apply to the private sector. The date on which these measures will be brought into force will be announced after a government consultation has taken place.

Renters’ Rights Act hub

The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 (the Act) received Royal Assent on 27 October 2025 and fundamentally changes the law relating to residential tenancies.

Find out more

Decorative key

More on the act

Adult bird feeding babies in a nest
Tenancy agreements and rent
Red crab emerging from its shell
Possession
Bee sitting on a white flower
PRS database, Ombudsman and more
Barn owl
Agricultural workers
Swarm of bees
Students

11 Forsters lawyers recognised on the 2026 Pro Bono Recognition List

Two blurred figures walk in an office, featuring a circular staircase and modern furniture. Glass walls partition a conference room, enhancing the open, contemporary workspace design.

11 Forsters lawyers have been named on the 2026 Pro Bono Recognition List, published this week, in recognition of their commitment to providing pro bono legal support.

The Pro Bono Recognition List celebrates lawyers across England and Wales who have volunteered 25 hours or more of pro bono legal assistance over the past year to support charities, community organisations and individuals in need.

The Forsters lawyers recognised this year are:

At Forsters, pro bono work is a core part of how we practise. We work closely with legal advice centres and referral organisations to support charities and vulnerable individuals, and we are proud to play our part in widening access to justice.

Commenting on the recognition, Connor Rutherford, Associate in the Employment team, said:

“I am very grateful for the opportunity to contribute to our pro bono offering at Forsters and to extend our legal support to so many clients. It has been very rewarding to provide pro bono advice over the last year, and I look forward to continuing to do so this year.”

The Pro Bono Recognition List is supported by its patron, The Lady Chief Justice of England & Wales, with the sponsorship of the Attorney General’s Pro Bono Committee and the support of the Law Society, Bar Council and major pro bono legal organisations.

View the full Pro Bono Recognition List here and learn more about our pro bono work in our Responsible Business Review 2024/25 here.

Home Office sponsor guidance update: understand your additional HR duties

Grey, cushioned chairs surround a glass coffee table in a modern office lounge. Wooden blocks serve as side tables. Large windows offer a view of greenery, adding natural light.

On Friday 6 March 2026, the Home Office published updated sponsor guidance (version 03/26), introducing several important changes for employers holding a sponsor licence.

Sponsors are now expressly required to review the guidance in full, reinforcing an ongoing obligation to remain up to date with all relevant provisions.

Key immediate actions for sponsors

  • Develop and roll out a programme to ensure sponsored workers (including existing sponsored workers) understand their UK employment rights.
  • Update HR processes and record-keeping to ensure evidence is retained showing that sponsored workers have been informed of their employment rights.
  • Review contractual pay periods and payroll arrangements to ensure salary thresholds are met within the relevant payment periods.

New ‘eligible role’ requirement

A significant change is the replacement of the ‘genuine vacancy’ test with a new ‘eligible role’ requirement. Sponsors must ensure that any role they sponsor:

  • genuinely exists or is expected to exist when the Certificate of Sponsorship (CoS) is assigned
  • accurately reflects the duties, hours and job description recorded on the CoS
  • meets all relevant immigration requirements, including skill level and salary thresholds and
  • is appropriate for the size and nature of the business.

In practice, this requires sponsors to ensure roles are clearly evidenced, accurately described and genuinely needed at the point a CoS is assigned. The Home Office is likely to scrutinise alignment between job duties, occupation codes, salary and business need, particularly during compliance checks.

Sponsoring a role that does not meet the ‘eligible role’ definition may result in licence revocation.

Greater emphasis on compliance and discretion

The updated guidance places increased emphasis on compliance and the Home Office’s discretion. Enforcement action may now be taken where there is a “reasonable suspicion” of non-compliance, rather than waiting for a proven breach.

Sponsors are also explicitly required to read all relevant parts of the guidance, including appendices, glossaries and route-specific sections.

Recommended actions:

  • Ensure familiarity with all relevant sections of the sponsor guidance for applicable routes.
  • Assign responsibility to an individual or team to monitor updates and track changes.

Sponsor compliance should be treated as an ongoing governance obligation rather than a one-off administrative task. Sponsors should:

  • Download and circulate the latest guidance and remove outdated internal materials.
  • Audit Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) against actual roles and reporting lines.
  • Review HR, payroll and record-keeping systems through a compliance lens.
  • Consider undertaking proactive internal compliance reviews ahead of any Home Office audit.

Stronger expectations around HR processes

The guidance reinforces the importance of accurate and consistent HR practices:

  • Job descriptions and duties on the CoS must reflect the actual work carried out.
  • Any permitted changes to roles must be properly reported via the Sponsorship Management System.
  • Right to work checks now explicitly extend to certain non-direct workers engaged by the sponsor (e.g. some contractors and consultants, or temporary workers).

Sponsors must also ensure that sponsored workers understand their employment rights. The Home Office guidance provides an expressly non-exhaustive list of relevant employment rights:

  • National Minimum Wage entitlements
  • Working Time Regulations compliance
  • Pension auto-enrolment and opt-out rights
  • Statutory leave and pay
  • Health and safety obligations
  • Trade union information
  • Equality Act protections
  • Grievance procedures

Other core employment rights that employers may wish to cover off include rights connected with termination of employment (including notice, redundancy pay and unfair dismissal rights), whistleblower protections, sick leave and sick pay and rights in connection with disciplinary processes. The guidance expressly refers to ACAS as a source of relevant information, and sponsors may wish to refer workers to this service.

Sponsors must retain evidence that this information has been provided. While much of this information may be covered off in existing employment documentation (e.g. contracts, handbooks and relevant policies), other information may not. It would be advisable for sponsors to issue specific information sheets to sponsored workers (cross-referring to existing documentation as appropriate) to ensure that the necessary information is provided, and to keep counter-signed copies of these information sheets on the relevant worker’s file to evidence compliance.

Recommended actions:

  • Create or source information sheet, cross-referring to existing employment documentation as appropriate.
  • Ensure systems are in place to retain and easily access this evidence in the event of a compliance check.

Salary compliance

The updated guidance introduces a new mandatory ground for licence refusal or revocation where a worker’s salary has been artificially inflated to meet immigration thresholds.

Sponsors must ensure that:

  • The salary stated on the CoS is paid in practice and on an ongoing basis.
  • Payments meet required levels within the relevant pay periods.
  • Payroll practices align with Home Office expectations, particularly given increased data-sharing with HMRC.

Additional considerations:

  • Review pay structures to ensure thresholds are met within defined pay periods.
  • Note that flexibility to average salary across time periods is limited.
  • Sectors with irregular work patterns may need to adjust payroll cycles accordingly.

Why these changes matter

These updates reflect a stricter compliance environment. The Home Office has made clear that:

  • the sponsorship system operates at its discretion; and
  • enforcement action, including suspension or revocation, may be taken based on reasonable suspicion of non-compliance.

For sponsors, this means:

  • Increased scrutiny of whether roles genuinely reflect actual work.
  • Higher expectations for HR systems and record-keeping.
  • Expanded obligations to inform workers of their rights.

Employers should review and, where necessary, strengthen internal processes to ensure continued compliance.

How we can help

Forsters’ Immigration and Employment team provide tailored advice and practical solutions to support employers manage their sponsorship responsibilities. Get in touch with one of our team to discuss how these changes may impact your organisation and to receive bespoke support for your immigration and employment needs.

Blue and white bird symbolising immigration

Home Office sponsor guidance update: understand your additional HR duties

On Friday 6 March 2026, the Home Office published updated sponsor guidance (version 03/26), introducing several important changes for employers holding a sponsor licence.

Download our PDF factsheet

Game fishing in England and Wales: stewardship, regulation and shared responsibility

Rolling green hills are adorned with scattered trees and stone walls, creating a peaceful rural landscape. In the distance, soft hills rise under a clear, bright sky.

Game fishing has long occupied a distinctive place in the countryside of England and Wales. As John Buchan observed, “the charm of fishing is that it is the pursuit of what is elusive but attainable.” That balance between challenge and restraint has shaped how rivers are managed for generations, and continues to inform the role played by riparian owners, clubs and fishery managers today.

For many involved in game fishing, the activity is not simply recreational. It is closely bound up with wider responsibilities of land management and environmental stewardship, supporting long‑term investment in river habitats, water quality and catchment health. Increasingly, however, that stewardship is exercised within an exceptionally dense regulatory framework, raising important questions about proportionality, effectiveness and where responsibility for river recovery should properly lie.

Regulation at the riverbank

There is broad consensus that river health across England and Wales is under significant pressure. Only a small proportion of rivers achieve good ecological status, and many are affected by declining water quality, altered flows, physical modification and habitat degradation. Fish populations – whether salmonids, coarse species or migratory fish – reflect these wider pressures.

Those who manage river fisheries operate within one of the most restrictive regulatory regimes affecting freshwater activity. Licensing requirements, seasonal restrictions, limits on methods and mandatory controls designed to protect fish stocks and habitats are now well‑established. In many cases, catch‑and‑release is strongly encouraged or required, and historic exploitation has been substantially reduced or removed altogether.

Alongside these formal controls sits substantial voluntary investment by landowners, angling clubs and managers: habitat restoration, bank stabilisation, in‑stream works, invasive species control and sustained engagement with regulators on abstraction, flow and fish passage. This is not resistance to regulation – it reflects a collaborative approach that is already delivering positive stewardship and real opportunities for improvement.

Stewardship as a regulatory asset

On non‑tidal rivers, fishing rights are private rights, typically held by riparian owners or managed collectively through clubs and associations. Historically, those rights have provided a strong incentive to invest in rivers over the long term. Where fishing remains viable, even within tight regulatory constraints, owners and managers are more likely to commit time, resources and expertise to improving river condition.

From a regulatory perspective, this engagement has tangible value. Those managing fisheries are often among the first to identify pollution incidents, falling flows or physical obstructions, and frequently act as an informal early‑warning system for wider environmental failure. Effective stewardship therefore depends not only on the existence of regulation, but on maintaining the confidence and capacity of those closest to the river to act constructively within it.

There is a risk that regulation which focuses narrowly on fishing activity, without corresponding progress elsewhere, weakens that incentive. Controls which deliver limited additional environmental benefit may instead undermine the very stewardship on which long‑term river recovery depends.

Wider scrutiny of river pollution

In recent years, public and regulatory attention has increasingly focused on the condition of rivers in England and Wales beyond the context of fishing activity. High‑profile television coverage has played a significant role in that shift.

Channel 4’s 2026 docudrama Dirty Business examined long‑running sewage discharges into English rivers and the difficulties faced by individuals seeking accountability from water companies and regulators. Similarly, the BBC’s Our Troubled Rivers, presented by Paul Whitehouse, documented the cumulative impacts of sewage discharges, agricultural run‑off and abstraction across England and Wales, highlighting the extent to which even ecologically sensitive waters are affected.

This coverage has sharpened public understanding of the fact that many of the most significant pressures on rivers – and on fish populations more generally – originate well beyond the riverbank.

Regulatory reform beyond fisheries

That scrutiny is now being reflected in legal and regulatory change. In January 2026, new statutory duties were introduced requiring water companies to publish mandatory Pollution Incident Reduction Plans. These plans must set out how pollution incidents will be reduced, and failure to comply is now a criminal offence for both companies and their chief executives. The reforms are supported by enhanced enforcement powers for the Environment Agency, alongside increased transparency through public reporting.

These measures represent a significant shift in regulatory emphasis. While they do not resolve all issues affecting river health, they acknowledge that pollution from wastewater infrastructure is a systemic problem requiring direct and robust regulation. Importantly, they place greater responsibility on those activities with the most widespread and demonstrable impact on rivers.

For those involved in managing river fisheries, this recalibration matters. It reinforces the reality that recovery of fish populations and river ecosystems cannot be achieved through regulation of fishing alone.

Proportionate responsibility and recovery

Controls on fishing activity remain an important part of river management. Few would dispute that angling must continue to operate within strict limits where rivers are under pressure. However, the marginal gains from ever‑tighter restrictions on fishing are increasingly limited when set against the scale of pollution, abstraction and infrastructure pressures affecting rivers at catchment level.

A regulatory framework that is perceived as disproportionate risks eroding the partnership on which effective river management depends. Conversely, a framework that recognises and supports existing stewardship, while addressing wider environmental pressures with equal rigour, offers a more credible route to recovery.

Encouragingly, recent regulatory developments suggest growing recognition that river recovery requires a genuinely catchment‑wide approach, with proportionate responsibility shared across all contributors to river health.

A constructive path forward

As Izaak Walton wrote, “Rivers and the inhabitants of the watery element were made for wise men to contemplate.” Today, that reflection is increasingly being matched by practical, coordinated action to improve river health.

Those who own and manage river fisheries are not peripheral to that effort. They are central to it. With sustained collaboration between regulators, landowners, angling organisations and those responsible for wider environmental pressures, fishing can remain not only compatible with conservation objectives, but an integral part of their delivery.

Game fishing in England and Wales will continue to evolve. The challenge now is to ensure that regulation supports, rather than undermines, the stewardship on which healthy rivers ultimately depend.

From city to country

Helping you navigate the perks and quirks of buying a home.

Read our feature

City to country report front cover