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

The Q&A is posed against a background of mismanagement of the tenant’s deposit by the letting agent who will have been acting as the landlord’s agent. This mismanagement culminates with the agent absconding with the deposit. The landlord reimburses the tenant for half of the deposit. The question does not explain why only half was returned, but one may assume the remainder was retained to account for disrepair

Section 214 of the Housing Act 2004 as amended provides that a tenant may bring a claim against the landlord under the modified Part 8 procedure for financial compensation where the landlord has failed to protect the deposit. This must be a sum between one and three times the amount of the deposit. Where the tenancy is continuing, the court can require the deposit to be paid into a relevant scheme. Section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that a claim must be brought within six years of the accrual of the cause of action. At present there

On dissolution, all property and rights vested in, or held on trust for the company, immediately before dissolution are deemed to be bona vacantia and vest in the Crown (or in the Duchy of Lancaster or Duke of Cornwall if the company’s registered office was in Lancaster or Cornwall respectively). This includes leasehold property, but not property held by the company on trust for any other person (section 1012(1) of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006)). The Crown is not obliged to deal with property vested in it as bona vacantia in any particular way. It has power to disclaim it and, in respect of onerous property, will usually

The Land Registry Practice guide 19A: restrictions and leasehold properties states at paragraph 3.3: ‘The registrar may cancel a restriction only where they are satisfied that it is no longer required. As an alternative you may be able to apply for the registrar to make an order to disapply the restriction under section 41(2) of the Land Registration Act 2002. It will not usually be possible to cancel (rather than to disapply) a restriction where, for example, the restrictioner cannot be traced or contacted or where it is claimed that a consent or certificate required under the terms of the restriction is being unreasonably withheld. You need to apply using form RX2 to disapply a restriction,