Law Commission consultation on business tenancies: modernising security of tenure

We provisionally propose that periodic tenancies (both express and implied) granted to new tenants be excluded from the scope of the 1954 Act. Do consultees agree?

Please explain why.

If express written periodic tenancies continue to be within the scope of the 1954 Act (contrary to our provisional proposal in Consultation Question 1 above), we provisionally propose that it should be possible for the parties to contract out. Do consultees agree?

Please explain why.

We provisionally propose that any fixed-term tenancy, or express periodic tenancy (whether written or oral), granted to an existing protected tenant should be within the scope of the 1954 Act. Do consultees agree?

Please explain why.

For any such fixed-term or express written periodic tenancy that is within the scope of the 1954 Act, we provisionally propose that it should be possible for the parties to contract out. Do consultees agree?

Please explain why. 

If the chaining provision is retained, we provisionally propose that its trigger point should match the duration threshold (which we provisionally propose should be 1 or 2 years). Do consultees agree?

Please explain why.

If the chaining provision is retained, we provisionally propose that it should be triggered if the tenant will have been in occupation for the specified period by the expiry of that tenancy (rather than at the commencement of the tenancy). Do consultees agree?

Please explain why.

If the chaining provision is retained, we provisionally propose that only occupation by the tenant should be taken into account, and occupation by the tenant’s predecessor should be irrelevant. Do consultees agree?

Please explain why.

We provisionally propose that all express and implied periodic tenancies granted to existing (unprotected) tenants and other occupiers should be excluded from the scope of the 1954 Act. Do consultees agree?

Please explain why.

We provisionally propose that the duration threshold and chaining provision be reformed as follows. Either:

1. the duration threshold should be set at 2 years and the chaining provision should be retained (“Option A”); or
2. the duration threshold should be set at 1 year and the chaining provision should be abolished (“Option B”).

We invite consultees to tell us which option they prefer and the reasons for their choice.

If consultees do not agree with either Option A or Option B, we invite consultees to explain what combination of reforms to the duration threshold and the chaining provision they would prefer (if any) and their reasons.

Please explain why.