Articles

100 Years of the LPA 1925: A Case for Reform? 07 January 2026

 

Introduction

The Law of Property Act 1925 is widely recognised as a cornerstone of modern English land law. The preceding twelve articles in this series have illustrated how, a century on, its impact continues to be felt across diverse areas, from domestic co-ownership to corporate dissolution and even public recreation. As the Act enters its second century, the question arises: should the Act remain as it is, or is there room for reform?

The Residential Sector: Subjective ‘Ownership’ of Land

One natural starting point is the 1925 Act’s arguably most fundamental reform: the establishment of two, and only two, forms of tenure. This binary distinction, clear and unambiguous from a legal practitioner’s standpoint, has arguably become blurred from the perspective of the general public and may not reflect modern notions of ‘ownership’. By way of a number of examples:

1. Despite the purchase of a property being the most significant financial investment many people will make in their lives, knowledge and understanding of the difference in forms of tenure is apparently lacking. Many long residential leaseholders do not understand the fundamental legal nature of what they have purchased, leading in many cases to buyer’s remorse.[1]
2. The so-called ‘fleecehold’ scandal, which concerns freehold properties subject to management and estate charges, has highlighted issues in the freehold sector similar to those known in the leasehold sector, often without comparable statutory protection.[2]
3. Although the creation of new leasehold houses will largely be curtailed under the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, over a million such properties [3] remain extant.
4. The Renters’ Rights Act 2025 will bring significant changes to the private rental sector. However, it does not alter the essential nature of private rental tenancies, under which all tenants are joint tenants at law. This can conflict with the practical realities of commonplace flatsharing arrangements, in which occupiers may be effectively strangers to each other and perceive liability for one another’s obligations as unfair (to say nothing of the complications that can be created with respect to, for example, tenancy deposits).[4]
5. Shared ownership schemes, increasingly common in recent years, blur the lines between private rental and long residential leasehold ownership.

Arguments could be made for reforming the two-tenure system to reflect contemporary understandings of residential ‘ownership’ – for example, a statutory distinction between ‘owner-occupiers’ and private renters. This might go some way towards greater public clarity about the different types of possible relationship between people and land.

But is fundamental tenure reform truly necessary? Many of the issues outlined above can be addressed in other ways. For example, following significant press attention given to issues caused to leaseholders by escalating ground rents (such as leases no longer being mortgageable), the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 precludes ground rents above a peppercorn for most new long residential leasehold properties. Perhaps more controversial – at least for landlords – are the changes to enfranchisement regimes brought about by the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, recently the subject of judicial review.[5] Given the intricacy of existing statutory overlay on the two forms of tenure as established by the 1925 Act, perhaps introduction of additional forms of tenure would lead only to further complexity rather than simplicity. It ought also to be noted that despite the establishment of commonhold structures in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2022, very few commonholds have been formed; it may be that there is simply a lack of public appetite for fundamental structural reform.

Technology and E-Conveyancing

The rise of modern technology presents another potential impetus for reform. The draftsperson of the 1925 Act could hardly have anticipated questions such as whether a typed name on an email meant it was ‘signed’.[6] A case might be made that requirements such as that in s.52, which requires all conveyances to be executed by deed, are anachronistic in an era where significant commercial transactions can be carried out at the touch of a button.

Yet again, the question arises: does the aim of ‘making conveyancing fit for the modern era’, or similar, really require reform to the 1925 Act itself? The Land Registration Act 2002 provides a detailed framework for electronic conveyancing without altering the foundations of the 1925 Act, and also, notably, not a system which has yet led to the abolition of conventional forms of conveyancing.

Evolution, not abolition

Numerous other statutory interventions point towards a model of evolution rather than wholesale replacement. For example, as recently as 1995, the issue of transmissibility of landlord and tenant covenants – a technical matter of considerable importance, although potentially lacking headline-grabbing public appeal – received detailed attention in the form of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995, demonstrating that targeted intervention can resolve specific issues without destabilising the entire statutory framework.

Other possible significant reforms in the property sector that could be implemented would not necessarily require wholesale amendment of the 1925 Act. For instance, as long ago as 1985, the Law Commission recommended reforms to the law of forfeiture;[7] perhaps such proposals for reform in an area identified as unsatisfactory ought to be revisited sooner than reform to the 1925 Act simply on the basis that its provisions have been in force for a long time.

Conclusion

Overall, a century on from the passing of the 1925 Act, the case for wholesale reform is far from straightforward. While aspects of its language and structure may appear dated—few modern practitioners routinely concern themselves with views of frankpledge, to say nothing of amerciaments, waifs and estrays—it was designed as a framework and a foundation, and the last hundred years have largely proved it to be a solid one.

The benefits of conceptual tidiness, political appeal, and modernised drafting must be weighed against the value of a settled and well-understood system that continues to function tolerably well in practice. Where reform is needed, it can often be addressed through specialised legislation tailored to contemporary conditions. As we enter the second century of the Act, the real question may not be whether it needs reform, but whether we should exercise caution in altering what continues to work reliably for practitioners and the wider property market.

---

• Caroline Shea KC
• Fern Schofield

Download: 100 Years of the LPA 1925: A Case for Reform?

---

Back to articles