The service of a section 42 notice (section 42 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993)) is the formal step required to obtain an extended lease of a flat. LRHUDA 1993, s 42(3) provides specific requirements that must be included in a notice. These are the full name of the tenant and the address of the property in respect of which he is claiming; sufficient particulars to identify the extent of the relevant flat; sufficient particulars of the lease and

Section 1(1)(a) of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) provides that a tenant of an assured tenancy must be an individual. Therefore, a letting to a company cannot be an assured shorthold tenancy (AST). HA 1988 sets out the categories of tenancy that cannot be ASTs, including business tenancies. Therefore, the tenancy will be either a common law tenancy (outside of the scope of the HA 1988 and governed by normal contractual rules) or, if the conditions are met, a business tenancy. A ‘business tenancy’ is one where property is occupied for the purposes of a trade or profession within the meaning of the Landlord

Subsection 25(8) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) provides that a notice under section 25 which states that the landlord is not opposed to the grant of a new tenancy to the tenant shall not have effect unless it sets out the landlord’s proposals as to the property to be comprised in the tenancy, the rent payable under the new tenancy, and the other terms of the new tenancy. In this Q&A it appears that the third of those obligations has been omitted (though notices may often simply state on their face that the terms are as set out in the original lease subject to necessary modernisation,

A proprietary estoppel action can found a cause of action and is used where a party (B) seeks to assert a proprietary right to land belonging to another party (A) in circumstances where B has been lead to believe, by a promise, words or conduct and/or by acquiescence from A, that they (B) have or can expect to acquire an interest in the land. Detriment and countervailing benefit Regarding the issue of detriment and countervailing benefit, in the case of Rawlings v Chapman, HHJ David Cooke in summarising the law on proprietary estoppel stated that: ‘In considering what detriment the claimant has suffered, the court must take into account any countervailing benefits that she has received, such as residing in the owner’s

See Practice Note: Planning obligations—key points. According to the commentary from Enforceability of planning obligations: Halsbury's Laws of England [337] (subject to Lexis®Library subscription): 'A planning obligation is enforceable by the authority identified as the authority by which the obligation is enforceable against the person entering into the obligation and against any person deriving title from that person. The instrument by which a planning obligation is entered into may, however, provide that a person shall not be bound by the obligation in respect of any period during which he no longer has an interest in the land.' [our

If the tenant remains in occupation at the end of a lease term, it may be inferred that it is remaining either as a: • tenant at will, or • tenant with a periodic tenancy If rent continues to be accepted and there are no active negotiations for the parties to enter into a new lease, this conduct is likely to amount to a periodic tenancy arising rather than a tenancy at will. Each case will turn on its facts. If a new periodic tenancy is deemed to have been created, it will be in the same or similar terms to that of the previous lease that has expired. A periodic tenancy is a tenancy that can be created either by express agreement or by inference. The period of the tenancy will usually be the period by reference to which rent is

Prior to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (STA 1994), it had been illegal to trade on a Sunday, save in certain excepted circumstances, pursuant to the Shops Act 1950. STA 1994 allowed for Sunday trading, but restricted large premises (those over 3,000 sq ft, or 280 sq m) to opening for a maximum of six hours between the hours of 10 am and 6 pm. STA 1994 prospectively enables Sunday trading, but it does not contain any provision revoking or altering any existing covenant not to trade on a Sunday contained within a lease. While some Acts (for example Part II of the Landlord and

The limitation period for claims under a lease (other than for rent) is 12 years if the lease is made by deed, otherwise (as is more likely in the case of an assured shorthold tenancy) six years. See Practice Note: Quick guide to common time limits for property disputes lawyers. The time will run from the date of the breach of the lease (unless an exception applies, such as fraud or concealment). If the claim is for disrepair, this is likely to accrue every day, where the breach is failure to keep in repair. A further breach is likely to occur at the end of the lease, assuming

To begin with, the terms of any relevant contract will dictate the remedies available to the tenant. Leases commonly provide that, where the interim (or advance) charges paid by a tenant exceed the annual sum due (ie once the final annual figure has been calculated), the excess due to the tenant shall be either: (i) reimbursed to the tenant; or, (ii) applied by the landlord as a credit towards the tenant’s service charge liabilities in the following year. The language of the lease which deals with

Where, before a tenancy is granted (or a tenancy has come to an end), the putative tenant goes into occupation and pays rent (or the former tenant remains in occupation and pays rent), and negotiations between the putative (or former) tenant and the landlord are ongoing, no tenancy (either fixed term or periodic) will arise. Instead, the court will treat the arrangement as a ‘tenancy at will’; a legal arrangement which will not bring the occupying putative (or former) tenant within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). See Practice Notes: Leases and licences of land—key features and differences and Periodic tenancies. Once

Can the landlord require the tenant to redeliver possession of the residential part? Whether a tenant has yielded up, with or without vacant possession, is a question of fact and degree. Most modern leases contain an express covenant on the part of the tenant to yield up possession of the premises on the determination of the term. However, in the absence of such an express covenant or other express stipulation, every tenant is nevertheless under an implied contractual obligation to restore possession to the landlord (see: Henderson

This Q&A assumes that the lease contains an absolute prohibition on carrying out alterations to the demised premises. An absolute covenant in relation to alterations is one which does not contain a qualification that the alterations can only be carried out with the consent of the landlord. As is identified in the Q&A, section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 (LTA 1927) does not apply to an absolute prohibition of this kind (see Woolworth & Co v Lambert. There is also an absolute covenant against making any planning application in relation to the works which the tenant wishes to carry out to the property. If, however, the tenancy is one to which LTA 1927, Pt I (LTA 1927, s 1) applies