Section 26 Notices and Phone Masts: The Law, the Cases and the 2026 Changes

Updated September 2026. This article was first published in June 2020. It has been rewritten to reflect the Supreme Court's decision in Compton Beauchamp, the Upper Tribunal's decision in Clocktower, the new rent rules for telecoms renewals that took effect on 7 April 2026, and the move of these renewals to the tribunals on 30 July 2026. For the step-by-step timetable, see our Section 26 notice guide.

In short

• A Section 26 notice is a tenant's request for a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. On a phone mast site, the tenant is the operator or tower company.
• Operators use it because many leases granted before 28 December 2017 are protected by the 1954 Act, so they cannot be renewed under the Electronic Communications Code.
• You have two months from the request to serve a counter-notice if you want to oppose the renewal on a ground in Section 30.
• Missing that deadline loses your right to oppose. It does not mean you must accept the operator's rent or terms.
• Since 7 April 2026, renewal rent for most of these leases is assessed on a no-network basis under the new Section 34A. Since 30 July 2026, new renewal proceedings go to the First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal instead of the courts.

Why phone mast operators serve Section 26 notices

When the Electronic Communications Code was rewritten in 2017, the transitional rules in Schedule 2 to the Digital Economy Act 2017 kept many older leases outside Part 5 of the new Code. A lease granted before 28 December 2017 that is protected by Part 2 of the 1954 Act, and was not contracted out, is renewed under the 1954 Act.

For an operator with that kind of lease, the Section 26 request is the formal way to ask for a new one. The request must be in the prescribed form, set out the operator's proposed property, rent and terms, and give a start date for the new tenancy between 6 and 12 months after the request.

What the courts have decided

Ashloch: a 1954 Act tenant cannot renew through the Code

In Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Ashloch Ltd and AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd [2019] UKUT 338 (LC), the operator tried to obtain a new agreement under Part 4 of the Code instead of renewing its protected lease. The Upper Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to impose a Code agreement in those circumstances, and that the operator must first apply for a new tenancy under the 1954 Act. The Court of Appeal dismissed the operator's appeal in [2021] EWCA Civ 90.

The Supreme Court confirmed the point, with one qualification

The Supreme Court heard Ashloch together with Compton Beauchamp in Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd [2022] UKSC 18, a case The Phone Mast Advice Company instigated and advised on. The Court said the operator "must therefore use its rights under Part 2 of the 1954 Act to renew its lease".

The qualification matters. The Court also said an operator in that position can still apply for additional code rights under Part 4 of the Code, but it cannot use Part 4 to bypass its right to renew the tenancy it already has.

The Court also explained what happens next. Once the lease is renewed, the new tenancy is outside the 1954 Act where its primary purpose is to confer code rights, so when that new lease expires, renewal moves to Part 5 of the Code.

Clocktower: rights over a structure can bring a lease within the 1954 Act

In EE Ltd and Hutchison 3G UK Ltd v Clocktower Investments Ltd [2026] UKUT 163 (LC), the operators had not occupied the small plot of land let to them, but had used rights under the lease to fix apparatus to a clocktower. The Upper Tribunal dismissed the operators' appeal. It held that the rights were easements capable of being occupied for the purposes of the 1954 Act, so the tenancy was protected and the operators "are not entitled to seek new Code rights under Part 5".

The Tribunal added a warning for both sides: unless the facts change, the operators "may have the benefit of continuation without the opportunity of renewal", because there may be no land that can be renewed. The drafting of each lease matters.

The law is still developing

In EE v London Borough of Wandsworth [2026] UKUT 299 (LC), decided in August 2026, the Upper Tribunal indicated, in an alternative finding, that an operator holding an unwritten periodic tenancy protected by the 1954 Act could apply for a Code agreement to be imposed. Which route applies to a particular site depends on the documents and the facts, and it is worth checking before any notice is answered.

Five common misunderstandings

"If I do not reply, the operator gets its proposed terms." Not so. Under Sections 32 to 35 of the 1954 Act, the property, duration, rent and other terms are fixed by agreement or, failing agreement, by the court or tribunal. What you lose by missing the two-month window is the right to oppose the renewal.

"The operator can get a possession order against me." No. A Section 26 request can lead to an order for a new tenancy or, if the landlord proves a ground of opposition, to the tenancy ending. Nothing in these provisions gives the tenant possession against the landlord.

"A Paragraph 31 notice is the operator's alternative to Section 26." No. A Paragraph 31 notice is the landowner's notice to end a Code agreement. An operator seeking new terms under the Code uses Paragraph 33, and that route is not available for a lease protected by the 1954 Act.

"1954 Act renewals are still valued at open market rent." Not any more for most telecoms leases. Since 7 April 2026, Section 34A applies where the current tenancy is a pre-2017 "subsisting agreement" whose primary purpose is to confer code rights. Rent on renewal is then assessed on the assumption that the rights do not relate to an electronic communications network, mirroring the Code. The old rules still apply where the start date in a Section 26 request, or the termination date in a Section 25 notice, fell before 7 April 2026.

"The operator always pays my fees." Operators often offer a capped fee undertaking during negotiations, but that is a matter of agreement. Paragraph 84 of the Code does not apply to 1954 Act renewals. The 1954 Act now allows compensation under Sections 34B and 34C, which can include reasonable legal and valuation expenses, and since 30 July 2026 the First-tier Tribunal has a general power to award costs in these proceedings.

What to do if you receive a Section 26 notice

1. Write down the date the request was made and work out the two-month deadline straight away.
2. Check when the lease was granted and whether it is protected by the 1954 Act or was contracted out.
3. Do not agree a rent or sign heads of terms until the site has been valued on the correct basis.
4. Decide, with advice, whether you have a genuine ground to oppose under Section 30, such as demolition or reconstruction, or your own occupation.
5. Ask the operator to confirm in writing what it will contribute to your professional fees.
6. Instruct a specialist surveyor for the valuation and negotiation, and a solicitor for the counter-notice and any proceedings.

Our Section 26 notice guide sets out the full timetable, interim rent and the grounds of opposition. For the wider legal background, read our Electronic Communications Code guide.

This article is general guidance for landowners in England and Wales and does not constitute legal advice. Every lease is different, and the deadlines that apply to your site depend on its documents and history.

Related Services

• Phone Mast Lease Renewals
• Phone Mast Solicitors or Surveyors?
• Free Lease Check

Call us on 01691 791543 or contact us online for a free initial review.

Sources

• Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Section 26
• Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Section 34A
• SI 2025/1326: commencement on 7 April 2026
• SI 2026/569: tribunal jurisdiction from 30 July 2026
• Ashloch, Upper Tribunal [2019] UKUT 338 (LC)
• Ashloch, Court of Appeal [2021] EWCA Civ 90
• Compton Beauchamp, Supreme Court [2022] UKSC 18
• Clocktower, Upper Tribunal [2026] UKUT 163 (LC)
• EE v London Borough of Wandsworth [2026] UKUT 299 (LC)