As this is a CPR Part 7 claim and there is no provision within CPR Part 56 specifically preventing parties from seeking default judgment in respect of an opposed lease renewal, it would appear that it is possible to apply for default judgment in this situation. For more information in respect of default judgements, see Practice Notes:

This Q&A considers whether or not the section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) accelerated possession procedure can be used in respect of assured shorthold tenancies beginning on or after 1 October 2015 where a gas safety certificate has not been provided to the tenant prior to the tenancy commencing. HA 1988, s 21A states that: ‘1. A notice under subsection (1) or (4) of section 21 may not be given in relation to an assured shorthold tenancy of a dwelling-house in England at a time when the landlord is in breach of a prescribed requirement.’ A prescribed requirement is defined in HA 1988, s 45 as follows: ‘“prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument’ The requirement in relation to gas safety certificates is prescribed by the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Notices and

Section 45(1) of Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) places an obligation on a landlord who is served with a section 42 request for a new lease to serve a counternotice by the date specified in the notice. The landlord can, in their counternotice, either admit the claim but dispute the terms proposed by the tenant, admit the claim and the proposed terms, deny the claim, or raise an intention to redevelop. If the landlord fails to serve a counternotice at all then, so long as they are entitled to a new lease, the tenant will become entitled to the same on the terms proposed in the section 42 notice. The court has no discretion in this regard. Once a section 42 notice is given, the tenant serving it becomes liable to pay the reasonable

A contract (including a lease) may be frustrated where an unforeseen event occurs after the contract is formed and, as a result of that event, the contract becomes impossible to perform and/or the obligations under the contract are transformed into something radically different. For a full explanation of the elements to be considered, see Practice Note: Discharge by frustration. In the context of potential flooding, note, in particular, that an event that is actually foreseen cannot ordinarily found a claim of frustration: Armchair Answercall v People in Mind

This question raises the issue of the effect of a transfer of an assured tenancy to a local authority at a time when there are arrears of rent, and the entitlement to collect the arrears. A local authority cannot be a landlord of an assured tenancy: paragraph 12, Schedule 1 Part I to the Housing Act 1988. Therefore, the tenancy ceases to be assured when the local authority steps into the reversion. The Court of Appeal has held that section 79 of the Housing Act 1985 (which sets out the conditions for a secure tenancy) has an ‘ambulatory effect’: ‘Occupiers...may be liable to

We have not been able to find any specific guidance dealing with this situation. However, one approach may be to send a letter to the court to be placed on the file with the claim form explaining the situation, setting out the relevant

Street v Mountford is the principal authority on what constitutes a tenancy. The case established that for an occupier of property to be a tenant, they must have exclusive possession of the demised premises they occupy for a term and at a rent. Subject to some exceptions, if these conditions are fulfilled, then the occupier will be a tenant. This can be particularly important if the tenant is a business or residential occupier with some form of statutory security of tenure. This Q&A is concerned with a residential property (ie the occupier is said to ‘reside’ there) and it is apparent that there

Where a landlord has previously accepted a tenant’s notice that did not comply with the terms of a lease, the landlord will not be bound to accept subsequent notices which fail to comply. However, the tenant may have an argument that the landlord should be estopped from challenging the validity of the notice. Alternatively, there may be an argument that the landlord has waived the requirement for the notice to be served in the manner specified in the lease. This will depend on the circumstances of the case. Estoppel by representation or convention Practice Note: Estoppel by representation and estoppel by convention explains that estoppel by representation arises where one person (A) makes, by words or conduct, a unilateral representation of fact or law to another (B), which was made by A with the intention of inducing B to rely upon it (or

By section 24(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954), the Act (LTA 1954) preserves certain common law methods of terminating a business lease (tenant's notice to quit or exercise of break clause, surrender and forfeiture); a landlord exercise of a break clause is not included. Accordingly, service by a landlord of a valid break notice takes effect only as a determination of the contractual term on the date specified in the notice. If the tenancy is one to which the LTA

In answering this Q&A, our research is focused on business tenancies pursuant to Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). This Q&A envisages the scenario where the existing tenant has served a notice under LTA 1954, s 26, which sets out the terms the tenant seeks to be included in the new lease. Prior to 2004, the landlord was obliged to serve a counter notice but this requirement has now been abolished. A landlord is only obliged to serve a counter notice where he opposes the grant of a new tenancy and the counter notice must set out the grounds of opposition relied upon. This is not the case here. If

Form of notice The Practice Note: Guide to lease extensions of flats under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 discusses the landlord’s counter-notice and how it must be served in order to ensure its validity. There is no prescribed form for the counter-notice, but section 45 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) does require the landlord to deal with certain matters. In particular, the counter-notice must: • admit the tenant’s claim in principle (in which case the counter-notice must state which of the tenant’s proposals as to the terms of the new lease are accepted, or make counter-proposals as to those which are

Section 5 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987) requires landlords to give notice of relevant disposals of interests or estates in land to qualifying tenants, in order that they may exercise the right of first refusal and purchase that interest or estate themselves. A failure to comply with the requirements of LTA 1987, s 5 can have serious consequences; it is a criminal offence, and the tenants can compel the transfer of the land to them. LTA 1987, s 54 provides that any notice