This Practice Note looks at the various forms of lease covenants that either prohibit, or require landlord’s consent for, alterations. It includes consideration of when it may be reasonable to withhold consent, granting conditional consent and practical matters to take into account. Without some express or implied permission, a tenant is not permitted to make alterations outside of the demised premises: such access or works will constitute a trespass—see Practice Note: Alterations outside the demise. The guidance below applies to works within the demised premises. For guidance on negotiating an alteration clause in a commercial lease, see Practice Note: Negotiation guide—alterations clause—commercial leases. For guidance on granting a licence for alterations, see: Practice Note: A practical guide to dealing with licences for alterations. See also: Licence for alterations—acting for landlord—checklist and Licence for alterations—acting for tenant—checklist. For commentary on the various duties under the Equality Act 2010, see Practice Note: Equality Act 2010—premises. Form of covenant The tenant’s ability to alter the premises will depend on the form of covenant in the lease. It is important to properly

Property analysis: When will a landlord be able to recover the cost of party wall proceedings via the service charge?

Counter-notice under section 26(6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 To: [name of tenant] of [address] (the Tenant) From: [name of landlord] of [address]

Claim No. [insert claim number]. [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY DIVISION]] [Specify specialist court, list or sub-list and venue as appropriate] OR ]THE COUNTY COURT AT [insert location]] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY WORK]] ] between: [insert name]        Claimant and [insert name]        Defendant _______________________________________ Defence _______________________________________ 1 [The Defendant opposes the grant of a new tenancy on the following grounds stated in its notice under section 25 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (‘the Act’): [ground or grounds plus full details]. OR The Defendant opposes the grant of a new tenancy on the following grounds stated in its notice under section 26(6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (‘the Act’): [ground or grounds plus full details].]

Local Government analysis: In this appeal, the Upper Tribunal reiterated the very high standard to which landlord’s must establish, on evidence, that they have a defence of ‘reasonable excuse’ to successfully appeal against a financial penalty for offences under section 95 of the Housing Act 2004 (HA 2004), imposed by a local authority pursuant to HA 2004, s 249A. The burden on a landlord as a professional person is a personal one which will not be discharged by simply saying they, however reasonably, expected another professional person to tell them of the existence of a selective licensing regime. The Upper Tribunal further reiterated that, as a matter of statute, an appeal to the tribunal is dealt with as a reconsideration of the local authority’s decision to impose a financial penalty. There is no scope, therefore, for the tribunal to ‘review’ the decision of the local authority to impose a penalty in the first place and arguments from appellant landlords that the local authority has acted inappropriately and/or fettered its discretion are irrelevant. Written by Thomas Parsons Munns, barrister at Dere Street Barristers Chambers.

Property analysis: Stephen Gorman, consultant, and Sally Stansfield, senior associate, of DAC Beachcroft LLP, examine a High Court decision that the respondent landlord had only been obliged under the lease to insure against risk of damage to the applicant tenant’s premises rather than the entire building which contained those premises and therefore the respondent was not precluded from making claims against the applicant for loss and damage caused to the rest of the building by a fire in the applicant’s premises.

Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, section 40 and Schedule 11, paragraph 7 NOTICE OF SEPARATE REPRESENTATION To [name of competent landlord] (the Competent Landlord) of [address] and to [name of tenant] (the Tenant of the Flat) of [address] From [insert name of the other landlord intending to act independently], an ‘other landlord’ within the meaning of Leasehold Reform, Housing and

Property Disputes analysis: The High Court ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was not breached by a landlord’s opposition to the grant of a new tenancy on ground (g) of section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). The judge rejected the tenant’s suggestion that the landlord’s intention to carry on ‘essentially the same business’ would have the result of appropriating to the landlord the tenant’s goodwill (which had become attached to the premises) in contravention of the tenant’s right to property under ECHR Article 1, Protocol 1’s human right to property. Written by Daniel Black, barrister at Falcon Chambers (junior counsel for MVL Properties (2017) Ltd—‘MVL 2017’).

[Definitions warning: This Precedent clause uses the following defined terms: 'Annual Rent’, ‘Insurance Rent’, ‘Property’, ‘Rents’, ‘Service Charge’ and ‘VAT’. These are all defined terms in the Lexis+® UK Precedent leases (see, eg, Precedent: Lease of part (office)). When using this Precedent clause, these defined terms should be adapted or amended as appropriate to reflect the defined terms in the relevant lease.]

This Practice Note explains the remedies a landlord can seek when a tenant has made unauthorised alterations: forfeiture, an injunction and/or damages. For guidance on the usual forms of covenant against alteration, and on whether consent has been reasonably withheld, see Practice Note: Landlord’s consent to alterations. Forfeiture Altering the demised premises without consent, where that consent is required, is a breach which (on usual lease terms) gives rise to a right to forfeit the lease.

For guidance on the usual forms of covenant against assigning and underletting, and on whether consent has been reasonably withheld, see Practice Note: Landlord's consent to assign or underlet. If a breach has occurred, the following remedies are available to a landlord. Forfeiture Assigning or underletting without consent, where that consent is required, is a breach which (on usual lease terms) gives rise to a right to forfeit the lease. The tenant may seek relief from forfeiture in the usual way. If there is no application for relief, though, forfeiture will end the lease and any sublease granted out of it. For more information in respect of forfeiture, see Practice Note: Forfeiture of a lease. Injunction In a falling or weak market, the landlord may be reluctant to forfeit, especially if they think the tenant would not apply for relief. Ending the lease in circumstances where reletting is likely to prove difficult leaves the landlord without

This Practice Note explains the remedies a landlord can seek when a tenant is breaching a covenant about the use of the property: forfeiture, an injunction and/or damages. For guidance on covenants restricting use and when consent to a change can be reasonably withheld, see Practice Note: Permitted use, change of use and preventing a competing use — leases. Forfeiture Using the demised premises for a prohibited purpose without consent is a breach which (on usual lease terms) gives rise to a right to forfeit the lease.