Tenant’s break notice Commentators consider that a tenant’s break notice should be treated as a 'notice to quit' for the purposes of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). This is on the basis that s 69 states that it relates not just to periodic tenancies, but also to tenancies for a term of year's certain. Accordingly, a notice to quit in that context must be a break notice. See commentary from Ross: Commercial Leases, Division N, Chapter 2, paragraph 57. Service of a tenant’s notice to quit is a valid method of terminating a business tenancy, ie: • LTA 1954, s 24(1) provides that a tenancy protected under the LTA 1954 will not come to an end unless terminated

On balance, the tenant should serve a notice to state what modifications are to be made to the terms of the lease under section 15 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (LRA 1967). Under LRA 1967, s 15(1), …the new tenancy to be granted under section 14 above shall be a tenancy on the same terms as the existing tenancy as those terms apply at the relevant time, but with such modifications as may be required or appropriate to take account: • of the omission from the new tenancy of property comprised in the existing tenancy, or,

The wording of section 60 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) suggests that the trigger for liability for payment of the landlord’s fees is the service of the tenant’s section 42 notice (as opposed to service of the section 45 counter-notice) and so, as the tenant has served the section 42 notice, strictly speaking, it is liable

The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) allows inter alia a tenant to serve notice pursuant to LRHUDA 1993, s 42 to exercise the right to acquire a new lease with an additional term of 90 years and at a peppercorn rent. The LRHUDA 1993, s 42 notice must be given to the landlord and contain specified particulars, including the date by which the

In answering this Q&A, it is assumed that the tenancy in question is a residential tenancy, rather than a commercial lease. It is further assumed that the nature of the residential tenancy is an assured shorthold tenancy. Such a tenancy amounts to a contract at common law, but is also subject to various statutory enactments, including the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) and the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (PEA 1977). A fixed-term tenancy cannot be terminated at common law by either party unless there is a break clause or surrender is accepted by the landlord. A tenant seeking to terminate a fixed-term tenancy early will still be liable to pay the rent due

See Practice Note: Guide to lease extensions of flats under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which provides: ‘If the landlord fails to serve a counter-notice, or fails to state whether the claim is admitted or denied, or fails to deal with the tenant’s proposals, the

The entitlement to determine a lease by the service of a break notice is an option to determine and so will be construed strictly. Service even one day late (or early) will invalidate the notice. The position is quite different in relation to rent review provisions. The general principle in relation to whether time is of the essence of service in rent review provisions is that it is not unless: (a) the clause

Requirements for a valid section 42 notice 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 they are claiming—sufficient particulars to identify the extent of the relevant flat, sufficient particulars of the lease and its commencement date and term, the proposed premium and terms of acquisition, the date by which the landlord must give any counter-notice and at LRHUDA 1993, s 42(3)(e), the particulars if any [emphasis added] of the person appointed by the tenant to act for

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