Search results

This legal update examines recent decisions on the security of tenure given by Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to business tenants, and asks whether it is time to revisit or remove a piece of legislation that was drafted to deal with the consequences of war damage and short supply of commercial premises during the 1950s. It highlights the narrow, technical rules and distinctions that make little sense to commercial parties. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The paper considers recent court rulings in the light of the original purpose of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, focusing on provisions that were reformed in 1969-reflect changes in market conditions since the immediate post-Second World War period.

Narrow, technical rules and exceptions carry considerable risks for commercial landlords and may not be appropriate or necessary in current market conditions.

The paper examines only a recent selection of court rulings, but highlights the potentially harsh impact on commercial landlords of legislation designed to protect tenant interests in market conditions radically different from those prevailing some 60 years after its enactment.

With no immediate prospect of reform, the paper highlights the need for landlords to adhere closely to the precise technical requirements of the Act.

The paper is based on the author’s reading and analysis of recent Court of Appeal rulings.

Looks (in depth) at the Act brought in on 20 July 1993 affecting Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development, and which has received Royal Assent. Sets out the principal elements of the two schemes and attempts to point out possible difficulties and hazards.

The continuing lack of vacant sites for development in prime city areas has meant that property owners are looking increasingly at their existing property stocks with a view to redevelopment or refurbishment. The purpose of this article is to examine in some detail the forward planning needed, and the obstacles that have to be overcome, by property owners wishing to obtain possession from tenants protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Part II, so that such schemes can be carried out. Distinction will be drawn between major redevelopment involving total demolition or very substantial reconstruction of existing buildings, and less comprehensive schemes such as internal refurbishments. The 1954 Act effectively distinguishes between these two types of redevelopment and this can give rise to a number of problems for property owners.

Difficult economic and trading conditions make lease break options a point of significant legal tension between commercial landlords and tenants. For a tenant, the ability to break a lease provides a means of controlling costs and an exit from liabilities. For landlords, the loss of a tenant's covenant means an immediate adverse effect on the reversionary value of the property. The purpose of this paper is to examine recent English court rulings to highlight the need for strict compliance with break conditions if a tenant is to succeed in ending its liabilities.

The paper discusses recent rulings to assess the extent to which judicial interpretation of break clauses continues to favour landlords, and whether landlords' conduct in negotiations or correspondence leading up to the exercise of a tenant's break option might engage concepts such as estoppel to bind the landlord to a particular level of compliance or breach.

The paper concludes that the English court continues to apply a strict approach to compliance with break conditions, and that it remains the tenant's responsibility both to determine what needs to be done by way of compliance and to ensure that those steps are taken.

The authors place the most recent rulings on the perennially vexed issue of compliance with break conditions into a broader context, demonstrating that the judicial approach remains firmly based on the principle that a break option is negotiated for the tenant's benefit, and that any conditions precedent to exercise are highly likely to be construed against the tenant who agreed to a break conditional on anything other than service of notice.

This legal update examines the implications for commercial landlords of regulations required to be made under Energy Act 2011, and to come into force by 1 April 2018. Under those regulations, a landlord “may not let” commercial premises falling below a specified energy performance rating (likely to be E). The sanction of market deprivation arguably represents a significant shift in the balance between incentive and compulsion as the key policy tool adopted by the UK Government in seeking to improve the energy performance of commercial buildings. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The paper sets out and reflects a practitioner's concerns relating to the proposed new sanction of market deprivation. It identifies and highlights practical difficulties likely to be encountered when considering the interaction of the proposed regulations with existing statute (e.g. Landlord and Tenant Act 1954) and contractual provisions such as tenant break clauses.

The prospect of being unable to let commercial premises that fall below a specified energy efficiency rating must focus landlord attention on rights to enter to carry out improvement works. The paper identifies a potentially significant trap for landlords in the model green lease clauses issued by the Better Buildings Partnership where tenant consent is required.

The paper does not reflect extensive or exhaustive academic research. Consistently with its purpose a legal update, it identifies key issues likely to be encountered by practitioners.

The principal practical implication is the need for landlords and their professional advisors to consider as part of any current lease negotiations the need to secure rights of entry for landlords to carry out improvement works where premises are at risk of falling below the energy performance rating likely to be specified in regulations to be made under Energy Act 2011, s 49.

The paper reflects a practitioner's views, developed through client matters and also through designing and delivering professional training sessions, on the likely implications of the requirement for regulations under Energy Act 2011.

This paper aims to analyse the extent to which recent changes in the law, most notably the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 and proposals for changes in tenant redress, will help tenants living in the private rented sector (PRS) with issues of disrepair and poor living conditions.

It applies theoretical scholarship on procedural justice, to two proposals for reform, namely, compulsory membership of redress schemes and a new housing court or use of the first-Tier Tribunal for claims relating to disrepair.

The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 will not provide decent private rented homes without increased security of tenure and a requirement for inspection prior to letting. Tenants should have the right to a fit home at the time of moving in and a cheap and relatively fast method of redress when things go wrong. A combination of compulsory licencing, membership of an ombudsman scheme and either the transfer of disrepair cases to the first-tier tribunal or a new housing court would provide the best overall solution for tenants with regard to repair and condition.

This study contributes to the important scholarship on procedural justice and applies it to ongoing current debates regarding disrepair in the PRS.

Based on a request by a local authority to advise it as to the means of avoiding Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 and the effect of the methods it used, examines the various options for avoidance, the provisions of the Act, the relevant case law, and the traps which may beset landlords hoping to avoid the Act. Also examines how parties may inadvertently fall within the Act and how this can be avoided. Recommends appropriate means of avoidance according to circumstances, and indicates what avoidance devices are not safe to use. Aims to assist landlords and their agents who wish to grant commercial occupation rights outside the Act, and to tenants and their agents who wish to know the effect of the various avoidance measures.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.