Uncategorized

Outline guide — UK sanctions, professional conduct and related considerations

Prepared by Svetlova LLP — 7 July 2026. This is a working outline, not a substitute for a full sanctions risk assessment or specific advice on any transaction. The regime changes frequently — always check OFSI/OTSI’s current guidance and the Consolidated List before acting.

1. The core distinction: sanctioned vs. merely Russian

The most common misconception is that all dealings involving Russia or Russian nationals are prohibited. They are not. UK sanctions law draws sharp distinctions between:

• Designated Persons (“DPs”): individuals and entities specifically named on the UK Sanctions List. An asset freeze applies — their funds and economic resources are frozen, and it is prohibited to make funds or economic resources available to them, directly or indirectly (Regulation 11 and 17A, Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, “the Russia Regulations”).
• Persons connected with Russia: a much broader category (Regulation 21) — essentially anyone ordinarily resident or located in Russia, and any entity incorporated or domiciled there (including a Russian subsidiary of a UK company). This category is not subject to an asset freeze, but is the trigger for the professional and business services ban (Regulation 54C) and related restrictions.
• Everyone else — a Russian national who is neither a DP nor connected with Russia (e.g. resident and ordinarily based outside Russia) is not, by virtue of nationality alone, subject to sanctions restrictions. Nationality/ethnicity is not itself a basis for refusing to act — doing so risks unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 (see XTX Markets Technologies Ltd v Mazars LLP [2025], concerning de-banking of non-sanctioned individuals).

Always check the actual and current UK Sanctions List (the single official list, OFSI’s Consolidated List having been folded into it) before assuming anything about a client or counterparty’s status.

2. What is absolutely prohibited (asset freeze — Designated Persons)

• Making funds or economic resources available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of a DP (Regulation 11/17A).
• This is strict liability civilly — OFSI can impose a monetary penalty even without knowledge, though actual/constructive knowledge and the standard expected of a regulated professional are aggravating or mitigating factors.
• Criminal liability attaches where there is knowledge or reasonable cause to suspect a breach.
• “Economic resources” is interpreted broadly — it can include intangible assets and services, not just cash (OFSI has taken enforcement action on this basis).
• A UK legal firm can act for a DP and be paid, but only within the terms of OFSI’s Legal Services General Licence (currently INT/2026/9512597, effective 29 April 2026 to 28 October 2026 — check for a successor licence if outside that window), which caps hourly rates and fee levels and requires reporting to OFSI.

3. Professional and business services ban (Regulation 54C)

Since 21 July 2022 (extended through 2022), it has been prohibited to provide, directly or indirectly, the following services to a person connected with Russia: accounting, advertising, architectural, auditing, business and management consulting, construction, engineering, IT consultancy and design, and public relations services (Schedule 3J).

Legal advisory services are not included in this list — they are governed by a separate, narrower regime (Regulation 54D, below). This is a frequent point of confusion.

Limited exceptions exist, including services provided to discharge a UK statutory/regulatory obligation not arising under contract, and certain pre-existing contracts (time-limited wind-down provisions, now expired for most categories).

4. The specific legal advisory services restriction (Regulation 54D)

Since 30 June 2023 (amended 6 September 2024), it is prohibited for a UK person, anywhere in the world, to provide legal advisory services to a non-UK person where the UK person knows the object or effect of the services is to enable or facilitate activity that would be prohibited under the Russia Regulations if it had the necessary UK links.

4.1 What counts as “legal advisory services” for this restriction

• Non-contentious advice on the application or interpretation of law.
• Acting on behalf of a client, or advising, in connection with a commercial transaction, negotiation, or other third-party dealing.
• Preparation, execution or verification of legal documents.

4.2 What is expressly carved out — and remains lawful

• Litigation and arbitration: representation or advice in proceedings before courts, arbitral tribunals or administrative agencies in any jurisdiction is not “legal advisory services” for these purposes. Acting for a Russian party (or a party connected with Russia) in contentious proceedings is not, of itself, restricted by Regulation 54D.
• Sanctions and compliance advice — advising on the Russia Regulations, other UK or non-UK sanctions, Russian counter-sanctions, or other criminal/compliance legislation (Regulation 60DB).
• Diplomatic/consular matters.
• (Re)insurance claims management.

The 2024 amendment added a knowledge requirement — the offence now requires the adviser to know the object or effect is to enable/facilitate prohibited activity, narrowing the earlier, broader “in relation to or in connection with” formulation.

5. Circumvention and facilitation (Regulations 19 and 55)

Separately from 54C/54D, it is an offence to intentionally participate in activities knowing their object or effect is, directly or indirectly, to circumvent any prohibition in the Russia Regulations, or to enable/facilitate a contravention. This is a general anti-avoidance provision that can catch legal (and other) services even outside the specific 54C/54D categories, if the underlying transaction being assisted is itself prohibited.

6. Worked example: can a UK company sell shares in its Russian subsidiary at nominal value simply to exit?

In principle, yes — exiting Russia (as opposed to investing into Russia) is generally the direction sanctions law does not restrict. But “nominal value, no sanctions involved” requires unpacking across several distinct checks, not one:

6.1 Check the counterparty

• Is the buyer, or anyone who ultimately owns or controls the buyer, a Designated Person? If so, selling an asset at an undervalue is capable of being characterised as making an economic resource available to that DP (i.e. the value transferred exceeds the price paid) — squarely within the asset freeze prohibition, regardless of how the transaction is documented.
• This is the single most important check, and the one most often missed in a rushed exit — ownership and control structures in Russia are frequently opaque, and the Court of Appeal’s decision in NBT v Mints [2023] EWCA Civ 1132 confirms that “control” for sanctions purposes can be found on a fact-specific basis even absent formal majority ownership.

6.2 Check Regulation 20 (dealing in transferable securities/money-market instruments)

• Regulation 20 restricts dealing in transferable securities and money-market instruments issued by, or on behalf of, certain Russian persons/entities, but this is principally targeted at capital markets instruments (bonds, listed securities) issued after specified dates, and at the Russian state and major state-linked entities — it is not a general prohibition on selling shares in an ordinary private Russian subsidiary. It should nonetheless be checked against the specific entity and instrument in question before assuming it is out of scope.

6.3 Check for circumvention/facilitation

• If the nominal-value structure exists to disguise value passing to a DP, or to achieve indirectly what regulation 17A/11 would prohibit directly, this is a circumvention risk under Regulation 19/55 — independent of Regulation 20.

6.4 Russian counter-sanctions — a separate, non-UK regime that will govern the deal mechanics

• Presidential Decree No. 618 (and related Russian domestic legislation) imposes its own requirements on the Russian side for a divestment by a person from an “unfriendly” state: mandatory approval of a Russian Government Commission, a mandatory minimum discount to market value (historically around 50%, subject to change), and often an “exit contribution” payment to the Russian federal budget calculated as a percentage of the transaction value.
• This is Russian law, not a UK sanctions constraint — but it directly shapes why a nominal or heavily discounted price might be commercially unavoidable, and needs to be factored into the UK-side analysis (including on valuation and tax, below) rather than treated as a red flag in isolation.

6.5 UK company law and tax consequences (not sanctions, but frequently overlooked)

• Selling a company asset for nominal value engages ordinary UK director’s duties — principally the duty to promote the success of the company (Companies Act 2006, s.172) and to exercise reasonable care and skill (s.174). Directors should document the commercial rationale (including the Russian counter-sanctions constraints above) to justify why nominal consideration was the best reasonably available outcome, to protect against a future minority shareholder or liquidator challenge.
• For UK tax purposes, a disposal to a connected party is generally treated as being at market value regardless of the price actually paid (TCGA 1992, s.18/s.17, and equivalent corporation tax principles) — a nominal sale price does not achieve a nominal tax base cost or avoid a deemed market value gain/loss calculation. Specialist tax advice should run in parallel.

6.6 Practical conclusion on the example

A UK company can lawfully sell shares in a non-sanctioned Russian subsidiary, including at nominal value, without breaching UK sanctions, provided: the buyer is not a DP and not owned/controlled by one; the shares/instrument are not caught by Regulation 20; the structure is not designed to circumvent any prohibition; and the firm advising is not thereby providing prohibited legal advisory services to a non-UK person in relation to other restricted activity. The transaction will separately need to satisfy Russian counter-sanctions requirements (Decree 618 and related legislation) on the Russian side, and UK director’s duties and tax analysis on the UK side — none of which are “sanctions” issues but all of which will drive the real structure and price of the deal.

7. SRA / professional conduct obligations

• Firms must conduct a sanctions risk assessment for relevant clients and matters, and are expected to apply risk-based due diligence proportionate to their exposure (SRA guidance, drawing on OFSI’s risk indicators).
• The SRA has published “red flags” for attempted circumvention — e.g. unusual corporate structures, reluctance to disclose beneficial ownership, last-minute changes to payee details, and transactions that make commercial sense only if a sanctions prohibition is being avoided.
• Firms holding funds connected to designated persons, or who know/suspect a breach, are subject to reporting obligations to OFSI (and, where relevant, the NCA under POCA/AML legislation) — this can override the normal duty of confidentiality.
• Client and other professional privilege is not overridden by sanctions reporting obligations in the same way as under POCA disclosure requirements — the two regimes should be considered separately and carefully for any given piece of information.

8. Quick reference — what is and isn’t restricted

• Acting for a non-designated Russian national resident outside Russia: generally unrestricted (subject to ordinary conduct/AML checks).
• Litigation/arbitration for a Russian party or entity: not restricted by 54D, even where the counterparty or matter has Russian connections — always check the client/counterparty is not a DP for other reasons (asset freeze, payment mechanics).
• Non-contentious commercial/transactional advice to a person connected with Russia, on activity that would itself be prohibited if UK-linked: restricted under 54D.
• Advice on sanctions compliance itself, to anyone: permitted (Regulation 60DB).
• Receiving fees from a Designated Person: only within the current OFSI Legal Services General Licence.
• Selling/exiting non-sanctioned Russian assets: generally permitted, subject to the counterparty, securities-dealing, and circumvention checks set out in Section 6.
• New investment into Russia, or dealing in newly issued Russian securities: separately and more heavily restricted — not covered in detail in this note; take specific advice.

9. Sources and further reading

• Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, as amended — in particular Regulations 11, 17A, 19–21, 54C, 54D, 55, 60DB, and Schedule 3J.
• OFSI, “Russia sanctions: statutory guidance” (gov.uk, last updated 20 May 2026).
• OFSI/DBT, “Complying with professional and business services sanctions related to Russia” (gov.uk).
• SRA, “Sanctions: Legal services” guidance (sra.org.uk).
• NBT v Mints [2023] EWCA Civ 1132 (ownership and control test).
• Current OFSI Legal Services General Licence — check gov.uk/government/publications/legal-services-general-licence for the version currently in force.

This note reflects the position as understood as at 7 July 2026. The Russia sanctions regime changes frequently (OFSI reported 240 active enforcement investigations as at April 2025, and continues to issue and amend general licences on a rolling basis) — always verify the current position before relying on any point above in a live transaction.

Thousands of Russian nationals living legally in Britain — many of them British citizens, many of them critics of Putin — are being denied bank accounts, mortgages and professional services. None of them are sanctioned. Is this lawful?

Picture this: a woman who has lived in London for fifteen years, holds a British passport, pays her taxes, runs a business. She fled Russia a decade ago, in part because she wanted nothing to do with the government now making headlines. One morning she receives a letter from her bank. Her account is being closed. No explanation, no designation or indeed a court order. Just a polite letter and sixty days to find somewhere else for her money. She is also advised that the bank can send the funds by a cheque only.

The issue stems from just her surname, birthplace and her nationality of origin. At Svetlova LLP we have dealt with these kind of scenarios frequently enough to understand that this is not an isolated case. Client can and should take action to prevent any potential disruption to their affairs.

Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, lawyers across England have been fielding a growing wave of instructions from Russian nationals — many of them UK citizens or long-term residents — who have had banking services terminated, mortgage applications refused and professional relationships severed. Not because they are sanctioned or are suspected of money laundering, but because they are simply Russian.

Whilst the institutions doing this believe, or claim to believe, that they are complying with the law, they are unwittingly breaking it.

“Being Russian is not a sanctionable offence. The law says so. Institutions that act as though it were should expect to be held to account.”

The UK’s Russia sanctions regime is one of the most extensive ever enacted. Under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, made under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, asset freezes and financial restrictions apply to specifically designated individuals and entities. As of mid-2026, roughly 1,600 people and 229 companies appear on the UK Consolidated Sanctions List: oligarchs, Kremlin insiders, Duma members, defence industry executives. The list is, of course, public.

The critical word is designated. The sanctions regime does not apply to Russian nationals as a class. It applies to named individuals or companies. A Russian citizen who lives in Kensington or Cheshire, Edinburgh or Whitstable, who is not on that list, is no more subject to financial sanctions than a German or an Australian. The Government’s own guidance makes this explicit. Holding a Russian passport — or even a British passport issued to someone born in Moscow — is not a criterion for sanction.

Banks and professional firms are, understandably, under enormous pressure. The sanctions regime has been amended almost continuously since February 2022 — seventeen rounds of amendment by mid-2023. Compliance teams are stretched and the penalties for a genuine sanctions breach are severe.

Whilst the anxiety is understandable – acting on it unlawfully is not and raises a serious question.

The law is clear about the four circumstances in which a bank may freeze or close an account: 1) the customer must be designated on the sanctions list; 2) the bank must have filed a Suspicious Activity Report with the National Crime Agency, triggering a lawful moratorium period of up to 38 days; 3) there must be a court order or 4) there must be specific, evidence-based grounds to suspect the funds are held for the benefit of a designated person.

When banks go beyond what the law requires, they do not merely over-comply. They discriminate. Section 29 of the Equality Act 2010 prohibits service providers from refusing to provide services because of a protected characteristic. Nationality is a protected characteristic. A bank that closes a non-sanctioned Russian national’s account on the basis of their nationality is committing unlawful direct discrimination.

This is not a theoretical argument. In XTX Markets Technologies Ltd v Mazars LLP, decided in 2025, a County Court found that refusing professional services to a company solely because its owner was Russian would have constituted direct discrimination under the Equality Act. The court also held that the sanctions regulations did not — and could not — justify such a blanket refusal, rejecting the argument that it was “reasonably necessary” for sanctions compliance. The claim failed on a procedural technicality, not on the substance.

“Among the most affected are Russians who came to Britain precisely because they opposed Putin. They are being punished for the identity they fled.”

The human consequences are acute. Those affected include families unable to access their savings during mortgage applications, small business owners who have seen payment infrastructure suddenly withdrawn, professionals who cannot receive client fees. In the most distressing cases, the affected individuals include Russians who left their home country precisely because of their opposition to the current regime — dissidents, journalists, academics, lawyers — who built lives in Britain only to find themselves subjected here to the very arbitrary exclusion from normal civic life that they escaped.

There is also a practical point that institutions seem to have overlooked. De-banking a non-sanctioned customer does not reduce sanctions risk. It increases legal risk. The affected customer has a breach of contract claim — most bank terms require reasonable notice and justification for account closure — and an Equality Act claim that must be brought within six months of the discriminatory act. Firms which have been closing accounts on nationality grounds are accumulating liability.

The regulatory picture is shifting too. The Financial Conduct Authority has been clear that firms must not apply blanket policies that result in the unlawful exclusion of customers, and the Consumer Duty requires firms to act to deliver good outcomes for retail clients. De-banking on nationality grounds is increasingly difficult to defend to a regulator, let alone a court.

None of this requires institutions to ignore the sanctions regime or to take undue risk. It requires only that they do what the law actually asks of them: check whether a customer is designated. The list is public and updated in real time.

The UK built its sanctions regime to punish those responsible for a war. That is a legitimate aim. Extending those consequences to every Russian who happens to live here — the dissident, the entrepreneur, the long-settled professional, the naturalised citizen — is not an extension of that policy – it is a perversion of it.

We are now seeing the second wave of unlawful closures since 2022, as banks and financial institutions review and review their policies.

So what remedies are available for the affected individuals?

An individual or entity subjected to unlawful de-banking or denial of services on nationality grounds has the following avenues of redress:

Breach of Contract

A claim for breach of contract may be brought in the County Court (for lower-value claims) or the High Court (for claims above £100,000). The limitation period is 6 years from the date of breach (Limitation Act 1980, s.5). Remedies include damages and, in appropriate cases, specific performance.

Equality Act 2010 Claim

A claim under section 29 of the Equality Act 2010 must be brought in the County Court within 6 months of the act of discrimination (Equality Act 2010, s.118). The County Court has power to award damages (including injury to feelings), make declarations, and grant injunctions. The 6-month limitation is strict and should not be allowed to run during pre-action correspondence.

FCA Complaint and Financial Ombudsman Service

A complaint may be made to the firm, escalated to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), and where appropriate referred to the FCA. The regulatory route tends to be slow and is rarely effective as a primary remedy where the issue is urgent access to funds. However, it generates a record and may support parallel legal proceedings.

Interim Injunction

Where funds are unlawfully frozen and the customer faces urgent financial hardship, an application for an interim mandatory injunction compelling the release of funds is available. The court will apply the American Cyanamid balance of convenience test. Where the frozen funds are needed for ordinary living expenses or to meet business obligations, the balance is likely to favour the applicant.

The Policy Context and Its Limits

It is important to acknowledge the environment in which this is occurring. Financial institutions face significant compliance pressure. The sanctions regime has been amended almost continuously since February 2022 — by mid-2023 it had been through seventeen rounds of amendment. Compliance teams are stretched, penalties for sanctions breaches are severe, and the reputational risk is acute.

But these pressures do not create new legal rights for institutions. The law does not permit over-compliance by discriminating against entire national groups. The Government has not instructed institutions to refuse services to all Russians. The risk appetite of a compliance team does not override the Equality Act. The inconvenience of individual assessment does not justify categorical exclusion.

There is also a deeper irony. Among the most severely affected are Russians who fled to the United Kingdom precisely because of their opposition to the Putin regime — journalists, activists, dissidents, professionals who built lives here. To subject them to financial exclusion on the basis of their nationality is to visit upon them the very form of arbitrary treatment from which this country purports to offer refuge.

Conclusion

The legal position is not uncertain. Unless an individual is designated on the UK Consolidated Sanctions List, subject to a valid SAR-based moratorium, bound by a court order, or objectively connected to a transaction benefiting a designated person, there is no lawful basis for freezing, restricting or terminating their banking or financial services. Doing so on the basis of Russian nationality alone is direct discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, a breach of contract, and potentially a violation of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Affected individuals should act promptly, particularly given the 6-month limitation period under the Equality Act. Correspondence setting out the legal basis of the complaint, demanding reversal of the restriction, and reserving the right to bring proceedings is the appropriate first step. Where the position is not resolved, the courts remain available.

Please contact Svetlova LLP for a confidential discussion on +44 (0)207 129 129 6

The Renters’ Rights Bill became law on 27 October 2025, after completing its passage through Parliament on 22 October 2025. The Act applies to England. Crucially, many measures are not yet in force: the Government says it will publish a separate timetable setting out when each part starts. Until then, the current rules continue to apply.

The core reforms

The Act reshapes private renting around a single, clearer model. Section 21 “no-fault” evictions are abolished, so landlords seeking possession must rely on statutory grounds (for example, serious arrears, anti-social behaviour, genuine sale, or moving in). Alongside this, assured shorthold tenancies and fixed terms end: all private tenancies will become open-ended periodic assured tenancies, with tenants able to leave on two months’ notice aligned to the rent period, and landlords using the reworked Section 8 grounds with strengthened safeguards (such as longer notice and protection against misuse of “sell” or “move-in” grounds).

On rents, the Act channels increases through a single route: the Section 13 statutory process. Tenants may challenge above-market proposals at the First-tier Tribunal; the Government reiterates it is not introducing rent controls but expects increases to reflect market levels. The Act also limits rent in advance so landlords cannot require payment before the rent period it relates to (tenants remain free to pay early if they wish).

Accountability and standards step up. A new Private Rented Sector Landlord Ombudsman will deliver quick, binding redress; a national PRS Database will register landlords and underpin enforcement (with links to use of certain possession grounds). The Decent Homes Standard will apply to the private sector for the first time, and Awaab’s Law style deadlines will require hazards such as damp and mould to be remedied within set timeframes to be defined in secondary legislation. The Act also bans rental bidding (soliciting offers above the advertised rent) and prohibits discrimination against renters with children or those in receipt of benefits. Detailed guidance and secondary legislation will follow.

When will the changes take effect?

The Act is on the statute book, but most measures await commencement regulations. The Government has confirmed it will introduce the new tenancy system in one stage for all private tenancies (avoiding a two-tier market) and will give the sector sufficient notice before switch-over. As of November 2025, no dates have been published. Until commencement, landlords may still use Section 21 where otherwise valid under current law.

What happens to existing tenancies?

On the commencement date for tenancy reform, existing ASTs and other assured fixed-term tenancies will convert automatically to the new open-ended periodic model. Fixed-term clauses that conflict with the new regime will cease to have effect from that date. Transitional provisions will explain how steps taken under the old rules (for example, a pre-commencement rent-increase notice) are treated, but the intention is a clean, one-stage conversion with clear guidance for both parties.

Practical implications now

For landlords and agents:

• review portfolios and any planned possession or rent-review activity in light of the Section 8/Section 13 framework;
• prepare policies that reflect the bans on rental bidding and advertising discrimination;
• plan for Ombudsman membership and PRS Database registration; and
• check properties against the forthcoming Decent Homes and Awaab’s Law timeframes once published.

For tenants: expect greater security when commencement happens (no Section 21, open-ended tenancies), a clear process to challenge above-market rent increases, access to a binding Ombudsman, and enforceable standards on hazards once the detailed rules go live. In the meantime, your current agreement and rules still apply until the Government starts the new system.

If you need help with your existing or new tenancy arrangements, our specialist landlord & tenant and conveyancing teams can help you chart the right course through a fast moving legal landscape. Call us now on tel. 02033759040 or send us an email enquiry at tsvetlova@svetlovallp.com or yelda@svetlovallp.com.

Automatic renewal clauses—commonly referred to as “evergreen clauses”—are widely used in contracts for services, subscriptions, and commercial leases. These clauses automatically renew a contract unless the customer provides written notice of cancellation within a specific period—often 60 to 90 days before expiry. While such clauses are legally permitted, their enforceability is increasingly being challenged under UK contract law and regulatory guidance when they are applied unfairly, without transparency, or without reasonable opportunity for customers to cancel. This article explores the legal and regulatory context surrounding these clauses and provides real-world examples involving LexisNexis and Regus.

The Legal and Regulatory Framework in the UK

Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, contract terms must be fair, transparent, and not cause a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties. While these laws apply primarily to consumer contracts, they influence the treatment of small business contracts—especially where there is an imbalance in bargaining power.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has issued guidance that automatic renewal clauses may be unfair if:
– Customers are not clearly informed of the renewal process.
– The cancellation window is unduly long or unreasonable.
– The customer does not receive a timely reminder before renewal.

CMA Enforcement and Supporting Case Law

In recent years, the CMA has taken enforcement action against companies such as Norton and McAfee for unfair auto-renewal practices. These companies were required to provide clearer cancellation options and refund mechanisms. This regulatory pressure reflects growing concern about the impact of these clauses on both consumers and small businesses.

Legal precedent also supports the argument that such clauses may be unenforceable. In Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court held that contractual penalties must be proportionate to the legitimate interests of the party relying on them. This case is especially relevant where a service provider seeks to enforce an entire year’s fee for a minor technical non-compliance with a notice deadline.

The LexisNexis Case: A Disputed Renewal Based on a 10-Day Shortfall

In 2022, a London law firm, a small UK law firm, entered into a two-year subscription with LexisNexis for legal research services. The agreement contained a clause requiring cancellation no later than 90 days before the contract’s expiration. The firm gave notice 80 days prior—only 10 days short of the required notice period.

Despite this, LexisNexis refused to cancel the renewal and demanded payment of over £3,000 for the new annual term. No reminder of the approaching cancellation deadline was issued, nor was the clause highlighted during onboarding. This enforcement of a strict technicality has been challenged as unfair and disproportionate under UK contract principles and CMA guidance.

The Regus Example: Automatic Renewals in Office Leases

Similar issues have arisen with Regus, the global serviced office provider. Regus contracts often include automatic renewal clauses with 90-day cancellation periods. Customers have complained that cancellation notices sent even a few days late have resulted in enforced annual renewals and aggressive collection efforts. These terms are rarely emphasised at the time of signing, and reminder notices are not consistently issued.

In some instances, small firms have alleged that Regus failed to process cancellation requests correctly or failed to acknowledge written notices. This has triggered complaints to trading standards and legal challenges on the grounds that the renewal terms are unfair, not transparent, and commercially unreasonable.

Legal Analysis: When Are Automatic Renewal Clauses Unfair?

Based on CMA guidance and UK case law, automatic renewal clauses may be unenforceable when they:
– Are not clearly disclosed or explained at the time of contract.
– Require unreasonably early notice (e.g., 90 days for a 12-month contract).
– Are enforced without a reminder being sent to the customer.
– Result in substantial financial penalties for minor or technical failures.

In both the LexisNexis and Regus examples, customers acted in good faith and gave substantial notice.
The rigid enforcement of these clauses, without reminders or grace periods, creates an unfair imbalance and may be legally challenged.

Conclusion: Pushback Against Unfair Practices

The UK legal landscape offers growing support for those challenging automatic renewal clauses. Regulatory action by the CMA and Supreme Court rulings reinforce the need for fairness, proportionality, and transparency. Businesses relying on rigid or unfair renewal clauses risk not only reputational damage but also legal defeat.

Customers—including small firms—should feel empowered to dispute auto-renewals that result in disproportionate loss or were not clearly explained. Legal advice, formal complaints, and regulatory escalation remain powerful tools against such practices.

UK law imposes no legal restrictions on non‑UK citizens purchasing residential property. However, foreign buyers must manage tighter regulatory, financial, and tax-related requirements than UK residents.

Legal and Regulatory Requirements

• While not a legal requirement, retaining a solicitor or licensed conveyancer is essential—particularly for foreign purchasers. They conduct searches, review title, draft contracts, verify property legality, and manage international funds transfers.
• Anti‑Money Laundering (AML) regulations require proof of identity (e.g. passport) and overseas address, plus detailed source‑of‑funds documentation (e.g. bank statements, tax returns or sale receipts).

Mortgage Financing for Foreign Buyers

• Mortgages are available to foreign nationals, but lenders typically require:
  • A higher deposit (often 20%–40%)
  • Evidence of stable employment or sufficient income
  • UK or international credit history, in some cases
  • A relatively long visa/residency tenure (e.g. at least 1‑year remaining).
• Using a specialist mortgage broker is strongly recommended to navigate lender restrictions and source products suited to overseas clients.

Stamp Duty & Tax Implications

Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT)

• Non‑UK residents must pay an extra 2% SDLT surcharge, in addition to normal SDLT bands (0–12%).
• If you already own a home abroad, a further additional surcharge (now 5%) may apply.

Income Tax (Rental Income)

• Renting your UK property triggers UK income tax obligations under the Non-Resident Landlord Scheme, regardless of your residence status.

Capital Gains Tax (CGT)

• Gains on the sale of a UK residential property are taxable. Non-resident CGT rates can range up to 28%, depending on gain and tax status.

Inheritance Tax (IHT)

• UK property owned by foreign nationals is subject to UK inheritance tax, potentially at rates up to 40%, and is liability‑triggering regardless of where you reside.

Typical Costs & Fees

Foreign buyers should budget for:

• Conveyancing fees: £600–2,400 (often higher for international cases)
• Survey and valuation costs: £250–1,500 depending on property value and type.
• Mortgage arrangement & valuation fees, if borrowing: £995–2,000 + valuation costs.
• Exchange costs when transferring foreign currency—typically 1–3% of the transaction amount.

Ownership Structures & Planning

• Purchases can be made individually, jointly, or via corporate entities.
• Companies face different tax rates: for instance, SDLT up to 17% for non-resident companies owning residential property over £500,000, plus ongoing corporation tax, ATED, and register of overseas entities obligations.

Practical Considerations

• Visa validity matters: lenders may decline applications if your UK visa expires within 12 months—or you lack sufficient UK residency history.
• Gifted funds: cash gifts for purchase are allowed, though solicitors will require AML documentation; the funds may need to be in UK bank for a certain period before completion.
• Property management: Non‑residents often appoint a UK‑based manager to handle tenants, compliance, tax filings, and maintenance.

Why Choose Svetlova LLP

Our experienced international and property law team offers:

• Tailored end‑to‑end support from funds verification and AML compliance through to completion and registration.
• Co‑ordinated advice on tax structuring, mortgage strategy, and inheritance/investment planning.
• Liaison with global clients, brokers, estate agents, and financial institutions to ensure a seamless transaction.

Key Checklist for Foreign Buyers

Buying residential property in the UK as a foreign national is entirely feasible—but requires expert legal guidance to navigate complex tax and regulatory hurdles. Stamp duty surcharges, AML checks, mortgage eligibility constraints, and tax obligations demand early coordination and careful planning.

At Svetlova LLP, our cross-border team is on hand to provide dedicated legal advice and deliver a smooth, compliant, and successful property acquisition.

Status date: 30 July 2025. Legislation is still before Parliament and subject to change. Always obtain tailored advice before taking action.

Section 21 is still available today (subject to all validity requirements) but is set to be abolished when the Renters’ Rights Bill becomes law. This is expected to happen in third quarter of 2025 or first quarter of 2026 with the transitional provisions yet to be confirmed. The Bill replaces Assured Shorthold Tenancies and fixed terms with a single periodic assured tenancy model; landlords will need a statutory ground (largely via re‑tooled Section 8) to recover possession.

New Ground 1A (sale) and Ground 1B (landlord move‑in) will carry longer notice (currently 4 months in the Bill drafts) and an initial 12‑month protected period when notice cannot be served; proposals also restrict how soon a property can be re‑let after using the sale ground (12 months in the Bill as introduced; under debate to be reduced to 6 months).

More contested, evidence‑based possession work and pressure on already stretched courts is expected once no‑fault evictions go. We as professionals already see a pre‑ban spike in Section 21 claims. Do you also ask yourself if it is now the time to serve your tenant with Section 21 Notice?

If you plan to sell with vacant possession (especially to an owner‑occupier) or to restructure an unviable letting, you should review whether to start the Section 21 process before abolition — but only after a compliance audit because invalid notices waste time and money.

Why Timing Matters: Strategic Considerations Around Serving Section 21 Now

With abolition approaching, landlords weighing a disposal or restructuring decision face a tactical question: serve a Section 21 notice now under current rules, or wait for the new regime? Factors below should inform that decision.

1. Certainty of Route vs Future Evidential Burden

Today’s valid Section 21 provides a relatively predictable path (accelerated route available where no defence and paperwork in order). Post‑Bill, every claim will be grounded and often contested, adding cost, evidence gathering and potential hearing delays.

2. Court Capacity & Delay Risk

Removal of the accelerated possession procedure is expected to push more cases into full hearings. Practitioners and commentators warn that the civil courts are already under strain; backlog growth could slow recoveries and deter re‑letting.

3. If You Plan to Sell – Vacant Possession Premium

Owner‑occupier buyers almost always require vacant possession; even many investor buyers will discount for an unknown tenancy, rent level mis‑match, or nearing protected period under new law. Serving notice in time to complete a sale before the new 4‑month notice / protected period / re‑let restriction rules bite may preserve sale agility.

4. Protected Period Trap

Under the Bill, you cannot use the sale or move‑in grounds in the first 12 months. Landlords taking on new tenants now could unintentionally lock themselves out of flexibility next year unless they price that risk.

5. Longer Notice & Re‑Letting Moratorium

Moving from 2‑month to 4‑month landlord notice (plus prohibition on early service) lengthens hold times and may collide with mortgage deadlines or sale chains; additionally, the draft 12‑month (amended to 6‑month) re‑let restriction after using Ground 1A could create costly voids if a sale falls through.

6 Portfolio Risk / Cashflow Stress

NRLA flags increased financial risk: longer void exposure, delayed rent increases (annual cap), higher compliance costs and penalties. Some landlords may decide leasing is no longer viable and opt to exit ahead of the new regime

When Serving Section 21 May Be Sensible

Consider acting now if:

1. You intend to sell to an owner‑occupier within the next 6‑12 months and need contractual certainty over vacant possession. Vacant possession typically attracts the broadest buyer pool (owner‑occupiers) and can achieve a cleaner conveyancing path; however, it produces rent voids and may trigger tax timing issues.
2. The rental model is no longer financially viable (e.g., mortgage refix, compliance capex looming, rent review constraints) and you are likely to exit anyway.
3. You have a tenancy you would not choose to renew but where provable Section 8 breach is weak or contested; Section 21 offers a cleaner path while still lawful.
4. You need to de‑risk ahead of court congestion expected once all cases require grounds.

When Waiting (or Negotiating) Might Be Better

You might not rush to serve if:

1. You have a high‑performing, compliant tenant paying market rent; turnover creates cost and void risk.
2. The property is likely to be sold to another landlord happy to retain the tenancy, avoiding eviction costs and voids.
3. You are mid‑tenancy within four months of grant, where any Section 21 would be invalid (current law) and might strain relations; exploring a consensual surrender could be preferable.

What To Do Now

1. Portfolio Review: Identify which lets you would happily carry into the new periodic regime and which you may wish to end.
2. Compliance Health‑Check: Ensure deposit protection, licensing, safety certs, and documents are all in order so you retain the option to serve a valid Section 21 while it is still available.
3. Decide on Exit vs Hold: For marginal or loss‑making properties, model cashflow under annual rent review limits and higher compliance costs before committing to renewals.
4. Map Critical Dates: Work backwards from any intended sale completion or refinancing date to build in notice, court lead times, and conveyancing. Account for uncooperative tenants and court delays.
5. Take Early Legal Advice: The window to use Section 21 may close quickly once Commencement Regulations are laid; early instruction allows for defect cure.

Speak To Us

If you are considering serving notice, negotiating a surrender, or selling (with or without vacant possession), our specialist landlord & tenant and conveyancing teams can help you chart the right course through a fast‑moving legal landscape. Call us now for a fixed‑fee initial review on tel. 02033759040 or send us an email enquiry at tsvetlova@svetlovallp.com or yelda@svetlovallp.com .

In July 2025, England is poised to enact the landmark Renters’ Rights Bill, a sweeping overhaul of private residential tenancies that significantly recalibrates the balance between landlords and tenants. While tenants gain greater security and rights, landlords must adapt to new legal standards and stricter enforcement measures. This article breaks down the Bill’s key provisions and what they mean for landlords operating in England.

Mandatory Written Tenancy Terms

• Legal requirement: All landlords must provide tenants with a written “statement of terms” before the tenancy begins.
• Required content: The statement will include specific mandatory information and future regulations may prescribe standard tenancy clauses.

Abolition of Fixed-Term ASTs & Section 21 Evictions

• Fixed-term assured shorthold tenancies (ASTs) will be abolished. All tenancies become periodic, effectively rolling tenancies.
• Section 21 (no-fault eviction) notices will be eliminated. Landlords can only regain possession under defined Section 8 grounds.
• These changes apply immediately upon Royal Assent to all existing and new tenancies.

Expanded Grounds for Possession

• Grounds increased: The Bill outlines up to 36 grounds for possession (25 mandatory, 11 discretionary), replacing the previous 17 under ASTs.
• Notice requirements:
  • Selling or moving in? Requires 4 months’ notice, with protections in a tenant’s first year.
  • Non-payment or lease breaches follow updated Section 8 provisions.

Rent Increases & “Bidding Wars” Banned

• Periodic rent reviews only: Landlords may increase rent once per year via a Section 13 notice, with no automatic or contractually pre-defined increases allowed.
• Market-based only: Rents must reflect market rates. Tenants can appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal without risk of back-dating or supra-requested increases.
• No more bidding wars: Higher bids over the advertised rent are prohibited—any such solicitations void and unenforceable.

Stronger Property Standards & Tenant Health

• Awaab’s Law (fixing hazards like damp and mould promptly) now applies to the private rented sector.
• Decent Homes Standard extended: landlords must meet defined minimum quality standards.

Landlord Registration & Ombudsman

• Private Rented Sector Database: All landlords must be registered.
• Mandatory Ombudsman: A dedicated, binding disputes service. Failure to join may result in local authority penalties of £7,000–£40,000 or criminal prosecution. Rent repayment orders may be issued against non-compliant landlords.

Enhanced Penalties & Rent Repayment Orders

• Civil fines raised: Up to £40,000 for serious breaches; landlords can be fined up to £7,000 per hazard issuance by councils.
• Rent Repayment Orders (RROs) extended throughout rental chains and can exceed previous caps, particularly for repeat offenders.

Implications for Landlords

1. Administration and Compliance
   • Review and update tenancy documentation to include mandated terms.
   • Implement robust tenant referencing, credit checks, and evidence-based record-keeping for Section 8-related evictions (totallandlordinsurance.co.uk, totallandlordinsurance.co.uk).
2. Financial Planning
   • With potential court delays and one-year rent cycle limits, landlords should recalibrate investment and cash flow strategies .
3. Property Maintenance
   • Be proactive in addressing hazards—especially mould and damp—to avoid hefty fines and tenant claims .
4. Dispute Resolution
   • Join the Ombudsman, and prepare for a more formal complaints process. Document all communications.
5. Market Dynamics
   • Some landlords may exit the market, potentially reducing supply and increasing rents. Others might shift to long-term or corporate lettings .

Legal Insight from Svetlova LLP

At Svetlova LLP, we believe regulation should ensure fairness without undermining viability. The Renters’ Rights Bill presents a significant shift, and commercial landlords must respond proactively:

- Draft and implement compliant tenancy agreements.
- Strengthen tenant screening and dispute documentation.
- Upgrade property quality to meet new standards.
- Ensure full registration and ombudsman compliance.

Our experienced legal team can assist with:

• Drafting and reviewing updated tenancy documents
• Strategic planning for landlord compliance
• Case management under Section 8 and Section 13 procedures
• Ombudsman and tribunal representation

Let us help you stay ahead of these reforms—secure your investments while navigating this new rental landscape.

A new legal proposal published by the UK Law Commission could mark one of the most significant transformations in company law in recent years. The suggested reform aims to bring greater clarity and accountability to the way company directors consider the broader impact of their decisions—beyond just shareholder profits. At Svetlova LLP, we’re following these developments closely, as the implications for corporate governance and compliance could be far-reaching.

The Core Proposal: Reframing Directors’ Duties

Under current UK law, directors are required to promote the success of the company “for the benefit of its members as a whole,” while also having regard to other factors such as employees, the environment, and suppliers. This is codified in Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006.

The Law Commission is now proposing a change that would clarify—and arguably elevate—the importance of these “stakeholder” interests. While it stops short of suggesting a radical shift to a stakeholder primacy model (where directors must balance all interests equally), it does recommend making stakeholder considerations more explicit and meaningful in corporate decision-making.

Why Now?

The move comes amid increasing public and regulatory pressure for businesses to demonstrate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) responsibility. From climate risk to labour practices, companies are expected to be more transparent about how they impact society and the planet.

A growing chorus of voices—including investors, regulators, and NGOs—are calling for corporate decision-making to reflect broader societal values. The Law Commission’s proposal responds to this momentum, aiming to reduce ambiguity and ensure directors understand and fulfil their responsibilities in a way that aligns with evolving expectations.

What Could This Mean for Your Business?

If adopted, these reforms would not impose an entirely new duty on directors but could:

• Clarify the weight that should be given to stakeholder interests in key decisions
• Lead to greater scrutiny of board-level choices
• Encourage more comprehensive reporting on ESG factors
• Potentially shift the culture of corporate governance toward more inclusive practices

For many companies, especially SMEs, these changes could feel like an added layer of complexity. However, they also present an opportunity to future-proof your governance practices and demonstrate genuine commitment to sustainability and stakeholder engagement.

How Svetlova LLP Can Help

Whether you’re a business owner, director, or investor, understanding the potential impact of these reforms is critical. At Svetlova LLP, we offer bespoke legal advice on corporate governance, directors’ duties, and compliance matters.

Our team can help you:

• Interpret how the proposed changes may affect your obligations
• Review your current corporate governance framework
• Develop ESG strategies that align with legal and stakeholder expectations
• Provide training for directors and senior management

As this proposal moves through the consultation and legislative process, we will continue to monitor developments and update our clients accordingly.

Stay Ahead of the Curve

This is a pivotal moment in the evolution of UK company law. By engaging with these changes proactively, companies can not only mitigate risk but also position themselves as leaders in responsible business.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to reshape professional practices across numerous sectors, including legal services, healthcare, finance, and consultancy. While the advantages of integrating AI into professional workflows are significant—enhancing productivity, accuracy, and innovation—the legal implications surrounding responsibility and liability require careful consideration by both individuals and corporate entities.

Understanding the Legal Framework

In the UK, responsibility and liability in the use of AI are governed by existing legal principles, including negligence, contractual obligations, data protection laws (such as GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018), and specific sectoral regulations. However, the unique nature of AI complicates traditional liability assessments.

Individual Responsibility and Liability

Professionals leveraging AI tools remain accountable for their outcomes, particularly where professional standards and duties of care are mandated by regulatory bodies. Key considerations include:

• Duty of Care: Professionals must ensure AI systems are suitable, reliable, and used within their intended scope. They should verify AI-generated outputs, especially in critical decision-making contexts such as legal advice, medical diagnoses, or financial recommendations.
• Competence and Due Diligence: Professionals are expected to understand the capabilities and limitations of AI tools they use. Lack of knowledge or reliance on AI without sufficient oversight can lead to personal liability claims under professional negligence.
• Ethical Obligations: Practitioners must adhere to ethical guidelines set by professional bodies, ensuring transparency with clients regarding the use of AI and obtaining informed consent where applicable.

Corporate Responsibility and Liability

Companies implementing AI in service delivery bear significant liability and responsibility under UK law, including:

• Vicarious Liability: Corporations can be held accountable for wrongful actions by employees who negligently rely on AI or misuse it during professional service delivery.
• Product Liability: Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, companies offering AI-powered products or services may face liability for harm resulting from defective or unsafe AI systems.
• Data Protection and Privacy: Organisations must comply rigorously with data privacy laws, ensuring AI systems handle personal data securely and transparently. Breaches could result in substantial fines and reputational damage.
• Contractual Obligations: Service contracts should explicitly define the role and limitations of AI usage, clearly delineating liability and remedies available in cases of AI-induced errors or failures.

Risk Mitigation Strategies

To effectively manage risks associated with AI:

• Establish robust AI governance frameworks, clearly defining responsibilities at individual and corporate levels.
• Implement rigorous training programs to ensure professionals understand AI capabilities and limitations.
• Regularly audit and review AI systems, maintaining compliance with evolving regulations and standards.
• Maintain transparency with clients and stakeholders regarding AI integration, clearly communicating potential risks and mitigation measures.

Conclusion

While AI presents transformative potential for professional services, clarity around responsibility and liability is crucial. Individuals and corporate entities must proactively manage legal and ethical implications, ensuring compliance, accountability, and trust in their use of AI.

By establishing comprehensive governance and adhering to rigorous professional and legal standards, professionals and corporations can confidently harness AI’s full potential.

If you need legal help for ensuring you are well covered when using AI in your professional capacity or you have a claim against professionals inappropriately using AI, the highly experienced team at Svetlova LLP can help. Call us for a confidential chat on tel. 02033759040 or send us an email enquiry at tsvetlova@svetlovallp.com

The UK Data (Use and Access) Bill 2025 is a significant piece of legislation set to reshape the data landscape and, by extension, the development and deployment of Artificial Intelligence in the UK. Having received parliamentary approval on June 11, 2025, and now awaiting Royal Assent (after which it will officially become the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025), this Bill introduces crucial changes that AI users must understand to ensure ongoing compliance.

What is the UK Data (Use and Access) Bill 2025?

The Data (Use and Access) Bill is the culmination of years of discussion and aims to modernise the UK’s data governance framework, building upon the foundations of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the UK GDPR. Its core objectives include unlocking the secure and effective use of data for public interest, promoting economic growth, and enhancing public services. While initially focused on broader data issues, its journey through Parliament saw significant debate regarding its implications for AI and copyright.

Key provisions of the Bill include:

* Smart Data Schemes: This is a central pillar, providing a legal framework to facilitate the secure sharing of customer data held by service providers (e.g., in finance, energy, and telecoms) with authorised third parties, upon customer request. This aims to foster competition and innovation by enabling new products and services.

* Digital Verification Services: The Bill establishes a statutory framework for digital identity providers, bringing them under government oversight.

  * Reforms to UK GDPR: While retaining the core principles of the UK GDPR, the Bill introduces some notable adjustments:

    – Clarification on Legitimate Interests: It sets out a limited number of processing activities for which “recognised legitimate interests” can serve as a lawful basis, reducing the need for a full legitimate interests assessment (LIA) in certain cases (e.g., direct marketing, intra-group data sharing, network security).

    – Streamlined Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs): Organisations’ obligations to conduct searches for information in response to DSARs are clarified as being “reasonable and proportionate.”

– Automated Decision-Making (ADM): The rules around solely automated decision-making are relaxed, offering more flexibility for AI systems, though a stricter regime will apply to special category data, and new terminology like “significant decision” and “meaningful human involvement” are introduced.

* Data Transfers: The Bill introduces subtle changes to the UK data transfer regime, which the European Commission is currently assessing to determine its impact on the UK’s adequacy decision.

* Enhanced Enforcement Powers for the ICO: The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) will have increased maximum fines under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR) and generally enhanced enforcement capabilities.

  * New Offences for Deepfakes: Notably, Parliament used the Bill to add new offences in respect of sexually explicit images created without consent, a direct response to the rise of malicious deepfake technology.

* AI and Copyright: While the Bill itself does not introduce comprehensive AI-specific copyright protections as some had advocated, the government has committed to publishing reports on its AI and copyright proposals, including on enforcement and AI models trained abroad, within nine months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.

Advice for AI Users: Staying Compliant

For any organisation leveraging AI, compliance with the new Data (Use and Access) Act will be paramount. Here’s practical advice to keep you compliant:

1. Re-evaluate Your Lawful Bases for Data Processing: Leverage Recognised Legitimate Interests, Conduct Thorough LIAs Where Required. If you rely on consent, ensure it remains freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous, particularly when personal data is used to train or operate AI models.
2. Review and Update Your Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs):
3. Pay close attention to potential biases in your AI models and how you plan to mitigate them.
4. Be transparent with individuals when automated decision-making is in play, explaining the logic involved, its significance, and potential consequences. Ensure individuals have a right to contest such decisions.
5. Ensure Data Minimisation and Accuracy:
6. Strengthen Data Governance and Accountability:
7. Stay Abreast of AI and Copyright Developments: While the Bill itself did not enshrine specific AI copyright protections, the government’s commitment to further reports and potential legislation means this area is still evolving. Be mindful of the data used to train your AI models, particularly if it includes copyrighted material. The issue of copyright infringement in AI training data remains a hot topic and a potential area of legal risk.
8. Consider Cross-Border Data Transfers: If your AI operations involve data transfers to or from the EU, closely monitor developments in this area and be prepared to implement alternative transfer mechanisms if adequacy is withdrawn or modified.

The UK Data (Use and Access) Bill 2025 marks a significant step in the evolution of data governance in the UK. For AI users, it presents both opportunities for innovation through increased data access and a reinforced imperative for robust data protection compliance. By proactively understanding and adapting to these changes, AI users can navigate the new legal landscape successfully and continue to harness the transformative power of artificial intelligence responsibly.

The highly experienced team at Svetlova LLP can help you navigate the changes in data regulations. Call us for a confidential chat on tel. 02033759040 or send us an email enquiry at tsvetlova@svetlovallp.com