For anyone who has signed a commercial lease in England, the reality soon becomes clear: the system is overwhelmingly designed to favor landlords. What begins as a contractual agreement between two seemingly equal parties quickly reveals itself to be an arrangement where the tenant bears all the risk while the landlord retains all the power. This imbalance is not accidental—it is baked into the very structure of commercial leasing, a relic of England’s property-obsessed past, leaving tenants with little recourse when circumstances change or business conditions shift.
A One-Sided Contract Disguised as a Mutual Agreement
Commercial leases are often framed as negotiated agreements between willing participants. In theory, both landlord and tenant enter the deal with an understanding of their obligations. In practice, however, landlords set the terms, and tenants have little room for maneuver. Unlike residential tenants, who benefit from legal protections such as eviction safeguards and fair rent assessment, commercial tenants are left to fend for themselves. The law assumes that businesses are sophisticated enough to negotiate favorable terms, but this ignores the economic realities of most small business owners—like the café owner who pours their life savings into a dream, only to find themselves shackled to a lease they can’t afford when foot traffic dries up. These tenants lack the leverage to demand fairer conditions, yet the system offers them no mercy.
No Right to Leave, No Right to Flexibility
Once a tenant signs a lease, they are effectively locked in for the entire term unless the landlord chooses to release them. There is no automatic right to surrender a lease early. Even if the tenant’s business collapses—a family-run shop shuttered by a recession, say—they remain liable for rent until the end of the contract. Meanwhile, landlords have the power to terminate a lease if a tenant breaches their obligations, such as missing a rent payment. This asymmetry means that while landlords can remove tenants who no longer serve their financial interests, tenants have no equivalent right to walk away if the space no longer serves theirs.
The Hidden Trap of Dilapidations
If the lack of exit options weren’t bad enough, many tenants face a final sting at the end of their lease: dilapidations. This is a legal obligation requiring tenants to restore the property to its original condition—often at an excessive cost. Landlords frequently interpret these clauses aggressively, using them as a tool to extract additional money from tenants, even when no significant damage has occurred. Picture a retailer, already reeling from a tough year, handed a £50,000 bill for “repairs” to a worn carpet and chipped paint—demands that feel less like maintenance and more like punishment. What should be a simple handover of premises turns into a legal battle over what constitutes “reasonable” repair work, with the scales once again tipped in the landlord’s favor.
Landlords Can Say No—For Any Reason
For those tenants who try to escape their lease obligations through assignment or subletting, another roadblock appears. Many leases allow landlords to approve or reject potential new tenants, and often, landlords will refuse assignments for vague or strategic reasons. Even if a tenant finds someone willing to take over the lease, the landlord has no obligation to accept them. This further cements the landlord’s position of control, ensuring that the tenant remains trapped unless they can find a solution that aligns perfectly with the landlord’s interests—interests rooted in seeing property as a stable, low-risk asset to be fiercely protected, not a shared resource for economic growth.
An Outdated System in Need of Reform
This imbalance is not just unfair—it is detrimental to the broader economy. A rigid, landlord-controlled system discourages entrepreneurship, stifles innovation, and creates unnecessary financial burdens on small businesses. The pandemic exposed just how inflexible and unforgiving the commercial leasing model is, yet little has changed in its wake. For a system that plays such a crucial role in economic activity, its rules remain outdated, tied to a property culture born in feudal times when land ownership was power and tenants were disposable. Landlords cling to this setup not just for profit, but because it reinforces a legacy mindset: property as their unassailable domain, a safe haven in an uncertain world. Meanwhile, modern businesses— nimble, adaptive, and vital to progress—are left to suffer under its weight.
Conclusion: Fighting for Fairness
It is time to challenge the outdated assumptions that underpin commercial leasing in England. Tenants should have greater flexibility, clearer exit options, and protection from exploitative dilapidation claims. A fairer system would recognize that businesses—especially small ones—operate in a rapidly changing landscape where the ability to adapt is essential. Until these changes are made, commercial tenants will remain at the mercy of landlords who hold all the power, with little recourse to fight back.
Writing this is an act of defiance against a system that sees tenants as disposable and landlords as untouchable—a system that grinds down the likes of that café owner or retailer, while landlords sit secure in their inherited privilege. Perhaps if enough voices join together, we can begin to shift the conversation and demand a structure that treats both parties with equal fairness and respect.