The tenant of the ground floor flat who has put a sign up on the balcony area of the property, outside of their demise, in breach of their lease, which has been present for ten years does not have any property right which can be asserted in order to retain the sign if the matter is challenged by his landlord and/or brought before a court. Possession . The concept of possession was considered by the House of Lords in J. A. Pye Limited v Graham at paragraph 40: 'To be pedantic, the problem can be avoided by saying there are two elements necessary

Although the right to forfeit a lease for breach of a provision contained therein is primarily contractual, such that the absence of a forfeiture clause will ordinarily mean that the landlord has no right to forfeit in the event of non-payment, there are various statutory provisions that limit this right. In respect of a breach relating to non-payment of ground rent, service charges and/or administration charges, section 167 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002) provides that notwithstanding a contractual right to forfeit, the remedy will only arise where the amount unpaid is either over £350 or has remained

The first step is to establish the terms of the lease concerning subletting the relevant part. This may be prohibited entirely, or may be permitted only with the landlord's consent (in which case a proviso will be implied that consent is not to be unreasonably withheld: section 19(1) of the

It is implicit in this Q&A that an election has not been made for stamp duty land tax (SDLT) to be charged on the market value of the lease at the time of its grant (under paragraph 2 or 4 of Schedule 9 to the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003)). If it had been made, no SDLT would be chargeable on the final staircasing transaction. If that is right, subject to the below, SDLT will be chargeable on the (35%) acquisition made by the tenant on the

This Q&A assumes that the tenancy is not a tenancy of social housing or long lease but a residential assured shorthold tenancy (AST) in England to which the Tenant Fees Act 2019 (TFA 2019) applies. A landlord should only expect the tenants to clean the property to the standard that it was in when they moved into the property, while accounting for general wear and tear. Coronavirus (COVID-19) does not change that requirement. The relationship between a landlord and tenant is governed by the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement between them. However, it is possible for statute to impose implied terms into tenancy agreements and to render the inclusion of certain clauses into tenancy agreements unenforceable. How are the tenancy deposit schemes likely to deal with this? Some tenancy agreements contain a clause that asks for professional deep clean at the end of the tenancy.

On assignment of a lease, consideration needs to be given to a number of factors. The landlord is likely to require a guarantor for the assignment, whether by way of an authorised guarantee agreement under the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 (LT(C)A 1995) or otherwise. Consideration also needs to be given to the covenants contained in the lease and whether those covenants continue to bind the assignee or whether they bind the successor-in-title. This will depend both on whether the covenants are personal and whether the lease is an old or a new lease within the meaning of LT(C)A 1995. A

Alteration and addition clauses are common in commercial leases, as the landlord will usually wish to ensure that upon expiration of the term or earlier determination, the premises will be in a fit state to let swiftly, so as to minimise the void period. To this end, landlords will often require

Forfeiture is the landlord’s express right to re-enter premises and bring a lease to an end, due to a breach of covenant or the occurrence of a specific event detailed in the lease. The lease must contain an express forfeiture clause which allows the landlord to terminate the lease for the alleged breach, and the breach must not have been waived. In the absence of an express provision in the lease, a landlord may only forfeit if there has been a breach by the

Quiet enjoyment So fundamental is it to the relationship of landlord and tenant that in the absence of an express obligation for quiet enjoyment, one will readily be implied into the lease. Such a covenant is not limited to peace and quiet. The covenant extends to any activity which substantially interferes with the title to or possession of the demised premises or the ordinary and lawful enjoyment of those premises by the tenant. The acts of which complaint is made need not amount to a physical interference: Kenny v Preen. The express covenant for quiet enjoyment

Has the break notice been validly exercised by the tenant? The extent to which a pre-condition to the exercise of a break clause will affect the validity of a break notice depends on whether they are absolute or qualified (eg reasonable, material or substantial). If conditions are not fulfilled, the break clause may not operate and the lease could then continue for the remainder of the term or at least until the next break date. However, although not binding on landlords, note that the Code of Practice for Leasing Business Premises in England and Wales 2007 states that the only pre-conditions to tenants exercising any break clauses should be that they are up to date with the main rent, give up occupation and leave behind no continuing subleases/underleases and that disputes about the state of the premises, or what has been left behind or removed, should be settled later

This Q&A will refer to the tenant as the immediate tenant and the proposed subtenant as the proposed tenant. Any subtenants of the proposed tenant will be referred to as potential subtenants. We are not aware of the precise wording of the lease covenants. We have therefore assumed that the wording of the prohibition covenant is similar to that in Nemcova v Fairfield Rents, where the

Any encroachments by a tenant onto land belonging to a third party which is located next to the demised land is treated as taken for the benefit of the tenant’s landlord. In Tower Hamlets LBC v Barrett [2006] P&CR 132 (not reported by LexisNexis®), Neuberger LJ stated (at para [26] onwards): ‘The doctrine [has been] clearly stated … in the following terms: “It is laid down in all the cases — whether the inclosed land is part of the waste, or belongs to the landlord or a third person — that the presumption is, that the tenant has inclosed it for the benefit of his landlord unless he has done some act disclaiming the landlord's title. … The encroachment