Refine By
Clear all filter
About 90774 results for "*"
A tenancy agreement states that A is the landlord, however, both A and B state that B is the true landlord and A merely manages the property. The rent is received by B. The office copies also state that B owns the property. Whose name should be stated on a claim form and will it be an issue that B is the landlord but A is named on the tenancy agreement as the landlord?
Q&As
This Q&A appears to involve an undisclosed principal; that is, a principal who is not known by the third party to be connected with a particular transaction made between the third party and the principal’s agent. As between that principal and the agent: • they should have agreed to the existence of an agency relationship, and • in entering into the contract with the third party, the agent must have intended to do so on the principal’s behalf For the purpose of this Q&A it is assumed that: • the tenant did not know of B’s connection with the tenancy (although the payment
A tenancy deposit (received in 2015) was protected pursuant to section 213 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004). After the fixed term of 12 months, the tenancy became periodic and continued but the deposit scheme automatically unprotected the deposit and communicated it to the tenant. Three years later and having vacated the property, the tenant brought a claim pursuant to HA 2004, s 214. Can the landlord rely on HA 2004, s 215B(f) in these circumstances?
Q&As
By section 213 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004) (as amended) any person receiving a tenancy deposit must deal with it in accordance with an authorised scheme and the initial requirements of the scheme must be complied with within 30 days of receipt and the prescribed information be provided to the tenant within the same period. A failure to do so entitles the tenant to bring a claim under HA 2004, s 214 which among other things gives the court the power to order the repayment of the deposit and requires the court to order payment of compensation of between one and
A tenancy was solely in Party A’s name and has recently, via property adjustment order, been transferred solely into Party B’s name. Under the right to buy scheme, would Party B need to wait three years from the date of the property adjustment order, or three years from the date of the original tenancy agreement? Would the position change if the first year of the original tenancy was an introductory tenancy?
Q&As
The right to buy scheme enables most council tenants to buy their council home at a discount, provided they are a secure tenant, it is their only or main home, and the property is self-contained. The other key requirement is that the prospective purchaser must have been a public sector tenant for three years. The amount of discount the tenant receives will depend on how long they have been a tenant, the type of property that is being purchased, and the value of the property . If, in the scenario of this query, Party A’s tenancy was transferred from his or her sole name into joint
A tenant (A) proposes to take an assignment of a lease from the existing tenant (T). The lease entitles the landlord (L) to require a director’s guarantee from the assignee, where reasonable. L and A have agreed that A will provide a rent deposit instead of a guarantee, although the lease does not provide that L may require a deposit. L refuses to include a covenant in the rent deposit deed to procure a covenant from any new reversioner (R) to comply with L's covenants in the deed concerning the deposit and to transfer the deposit to R. Does A have any grounds to require that such a covenant is included?
Q&As
In answering this Q&A, we have assumed that the lease is a new tenancy (ie one granted on or after 1 January 1996), as referred to the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (LT(C)A 1995)—8 Procedure for seeking release from a covenant under section 6 or 7. The rent deposit deed Whether or not the rent deposit must be returned or not on the assignment of the reversion depends
A tenant (X) of commercial premises assigns its interest to Y. It gives an authorised guarantee agreement to the landlord. Several years later, Y gets in difficulty and fails to pay the rent. The landlord serves a section 17 notice on X who pays the arrears. X did not take a overriding lease but, in acknowledgment that Y was in financial difficulty, starts to pay the rent under the lease. That has continued for three years. Y remains in occupation and the rent demands are raised in the name of Y. However, X pays them and tries to recoup from Y. Y is in arrears to X. What is X's position?
Q&As
Where a former tenant of a new lease has given an authorised guarantee agreement (AGA), and the assignee defaults in payment of the rent, the former tenant may be liable to the landlord for the shortfall. The liability is subject to the landlord serving a notice under section 17 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (LT(C)A 1995) (a 'section 17 notice'). The section 17 notice must be
A tenant allowed an undertenant into occupation without consent, the landlord then forfeited the headlease for non-payment of rent, but accepted rent from the undertenant. The landlord has now requested that the undertenant bring the property into repair under the terms of the headlease (rather than the less onerous obligations in the underlease) and vacate as negotiations for a direct lease have broken down. Does the undertenant have to comply?
Q&As
When the headlease is forfeited, that determines both the headlease itself and any sublease granted out of it, regardless of whether consent to the sublease was granted by the landlord. At that point, the subtenant has no legal right to remain in occupation. See Practice Notes: Forfeiture of a lease under the heading ‘Forfeiture of a lease—Effect of forfeiture’ and What happens to an underlease on termination of the lease? If the sub-tenant is allowed to remain by the landlord, then there are a number of possible bases on which the sub-tenant could then be said to occupy the premises. First, the sub-tenant could be a tolerated
A tenant applied for a lease extension under Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 but ultimately withdrew its application. The landlord has not advised the tenant of its costs. Is there a time limit which applies should the tenant wish to apply to the tribunal for a determination of the landlord’s reasonable costs?
Q&As
The starting point is that where a notice of claim is served, the tenant by whom it is given is liable for the reasonable costs incurred by the landlord in dealing with certain matters (section 60(1) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993)). They are: ‘(1) any investigation reasonably undertaken of the tenant’s right to make the claim, (2) any valuation of the flat undertaken for the purposes of fixing the premium or other amount payable by the tenant and (3) the grant of the lease (LRHUDA 1993, s 60(1))’ Although these costs may extend to
A tenant carries out works without landlord’s consent and then purports to assign the lease (also without consent). The landlord had said that a retrospective licence to assign could be granted if the works were removed and the tenant entered into an authorised guarantee agreement. However, the landlord is no longer prepared to consent to the assignment because of the tenant’s delay in executing the documents and carrying out the works. Is it reasonable for the landlord to withhold its consent?
Q&As
There does not appear to be any guidance or case law on this specific scenario. Section 1(3) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 makes it clear that where landlord's consent is required for an assignment, the landlord must give that consent except where it is reasonable to withhold it. This applies even where the covenant does not expressly provide that a landlord is not unreasonably to withhold consent. Section 19(1)(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 imports that requirement into any covenant that requires landlord’s consent for alienation, and applies ‘notwithstanding any express provision to the contrary’. Consent
A tenant ceased trading from a property during the term of the lease. The lease was not surrendered or forfeited and the tenant claimed empty property rates relief. The lease has now ended. Can the landlord claim further empty rates relief?
Q&As
Please see our Practice Note: Business rates—empty property, which states that empty property relief applies for the first three months that retail premises are unoccupied (six months in the case of industrial premises). This relief however, attaches to the property rather than the owner so a developer can sell or lease a qualifying property with the benefit of the remaining period of the relief. If the full period of relief has been claimed by the tenant, there is no scope for the landlord to claim further relief. For this reason, commercial leases often include provisions requiring the tenant to indemnify
A tenant charity has ceased to exist and been removed from the Charity Commission register. The lease is dated and does not contain a provision allowing forfeiture in these circumstances. However, the premises are now occupied by a successor charity and the covenants appear to be being observed by that charity, though the registered leasehold title remains in the name of the defunct charity. What remedy does the landlord have to terminate the lease and seek closure of the registered leasehold title?
Q&As
If a charity is removed from the charity register, its trust funds and assets would be transferred to a suitable charity with similar purposes. See Practice Note: Charity Commission regulatory and enforcement powers. We assume that the charity was not wound up due to insolvency, but if that is the case then see Practice Note: Distressed charities—insolvency. A landlord’s
A tenant company ('Company A') permits another company ('Company B') to occupy premises. Landlord’s consent has not been obtained, because Company B refuses to procure directors’ guarantees, as required by the lease in the case of an assignment. Company B trades from the premises and pays rent to the landlord. Which company is the tenant and on what terms?
Q&As
In this situation there has not been a formal assignment of the lease because Company B refuses to obtain directors' guarantees which is a requirement before the tenant can assign. It is not unusual for a lease to restrict the ability of the tenant to assign it. The range of possible restrictions runs from an absolute bar, to requiring the consent of the landlord, to requiring that consent and also complying with certain conditions, entry into guarantees being one of them. Where there is requirement to obtain consent, section 19(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (LTA 1927) imposes a requirement that it be not unreasonably withheld. An assignment following a failure to seek consent or comply with any conditions
A tenant company of commercial premises is in liquidation. The landlord served a notice to elect on the liquidators, requiring them to confirm whether they want to disclaim the lease. The liquidators inadvertently allowed the notice to lapse, meaning they can no longer disclaim. The liquidators do, however, now want to agree a surrender. What are the implications of the lease not having been disclaimed? Can the landlord only prove for the rent after it falls due each quarter until the company is dissolved or can the landlord agree a surrender and ask for a premium to reflect what it could have claimed had the lease been disclaimed?
Q&As
A power unique to liquidators and trustees is the power to disclaim onerous property. However, there are restrictions on the use of that power, including where a person interested in any property which could be disclaimed requires the liquidator to decide whether to disclaim that property by delivering an application to the liquidator in writing. Disclaimer can no longer be effected after the period of 28 days beginning with the day