Commercial rent arrears recovery (CRAR)

The Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery (CRAR) regime, set out in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007) and related regulations allows landlords of commercial premises where there is a written lease to seize their tenant’s goods to recover rent arrears. It does not apply to residential or mixed-use premises.

CRAR is a 'self help' remedy and does not generally require the involvement of the courts. It is initiated by a landlord's instruction to 'enforcement agents' (bailiffs) to collect the rent or take control of goods. The court retains power to intervene if the tenant applies for an order.

As the use of the CRAR procedure will waive any right to forfeit which exists, the landlord should consider the position carefully before taking such action. Consideration should also be given to whether the tenant is

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property Disputes News

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

View Property Disputes by content type :

Popular documents