This issue raised in this Q&A is the effect of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) ceasing to apply to a tenancy after a section 25 or 26 notice has been served and an application made for a new lease. By LTA 1954, s 24 a tenancy to which the Act applies will not come to an end unless terminated by an approved method, and either party may apply to court for a new tenancy to be granted. By LTA 1954, s 64,

Statutory compensation under section 30(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) sets out the grounds on which a landlord can oppose the granting of a new tenancy to the tenant who occupies the premises demised for the purposes of a business carried out by them. The fact that a business tenancy to which LTA 1954 applies has expired by effluxion of time does not in fact bring that tenancy to an end. It continues until determined by the service of a section 25 notice by the landlord, a section 26 request for a new tenancy or section 27 notice by the tenant. If the landlord chooses to serve a section 25 notice and wishes to oppose the grant of a new tenancy, the landlord must set out in the notice the ground or grounds on which it is opposed. One of those grounds is ground (f), ie that on the termination

It is a somewhat underappreciated aspect to possession proceedings under CPR 55 that claims under that part do not have to be confined to possession. CPR PD 55A para 1.7 reads: ‘1.7 A claim which is not a possession claim may be brought under the procedure set out in Section I of Part 55 if it is started in the same claim form as a possession claim which, by virtue of rule 55.2(1) must be brought in accordance with that Section. (Rule 7.3 provides that a claimant may use a single claim form to start all claims which can be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings).’ This

Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) provides a procedure for a landlord to terminate an assured shorthold tenancy. The grounds for obtaining possession are contained within HA 1988, Sch 2. This scenario considers ground 1 of the HA 1988 which provides as follows: Not later than the beginning of the tenancy the landlord gave notice in writing to the tenant that possession might be recovered on this ground or the court is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to dispense with the requirement of notice and (in either case)— • at some time before the beginning of the tenancy, the landlord who is seeking possession or, in the case of joint landlords seeking possession, at least

For the purpose of this Q&A we have assumed that the property is registered and the sale is either of the freehold or a long leasehold interest. There does not seem to be anything in the Housing Act 1988 (HA 1988) to prevent a purchaser from bringing possession proceedings against the tenant notwithstanding the fact that the previous owner served the section 8 notice. HA 1988, s 8 requires the landlord to have given the section 8 notice

Rather than defeating the landlord’s claim, a sale of the property in this scenario will provide some evidence of the landlord’s loss. Damages for disrepair, if the landlord does not intend to carry out the work, may be measured by the diminution in the value of the landlord’s reversion. See Commentary: Damages: Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant [3602]. A sale of the property will provide some evidence of the value of the landlord’s

Where a tenant occupies premises for the purpose of carrying out a business, it is likely that, unless the provisions of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) have been expressly excluded in the manner required by LTA 1954, the tenant will have security of tenure. LTA 1954, s 24 provides that a tenancy that falls within LTA 1954, Pt II will not terminate by effluxion of time but will continue on a statutory basis until terminated by the landlord or tenant in accordance with the provisions of LTA 1954, Pt II. A landlord may, pursuant to LTA 1954, s 25, gives to the tenant a notice terminating the tenancy. However, the landlord must state whether or

We have assumed that the question relates to a break option in a commercial lease. The House of Lords case of Mannai Investments v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd established the ‘reasonable recipient’ test in determining whether a mistake in a contractual notice will affect its validity. The objective test, is how a reasonable recipient would understand a notice, taking into account ‘the relevant objective contextual scene’. However, the Mannai test will not ‘save’ a notice which fails to comply with an absolute requirement in a lease regarding the form or content of a break notice. The example given in Mannai, was that if a break

A qualifying tenant of a long leasehold flat is entitled to serve notice requiring that his landlord grant him a 90–year extension to his existing lease by way of a grant of a new lease, at a ground rent of a peppercorn. The tenant must serve notice on the competent landlord (ie the landlord who has the ability to grant the increased term). The notice is served pursuant to section 42 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (LRHUDA 1993) and must specify the proposed premium that the tenant wishes to pay to acquire the lease extension. When a section 42 notice is served, the landlord is

One of the grounds upon which a landlord may oppose the grant of a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) is ground (f): 'that on the termination of the current tenancy the landlord intends to demolish or reconstruct the premises comprised

Section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (LTA 1987) gives qualifying tenants of flats a right of first refusal enabling them to purchase (among other things) the landlord’s freehold interest when he proposes to dispose of it. These rights only apply to buildings within the definition of LTA 1987, s 1. For more information, see Practice Note: Tenants' right of first refusal—Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Selling the freehold interest in the premises which are subject to rights of first refusal requires the landlord to serve a notice under LTA 1987, s 5. In this case, the landlord is serving the notice by auction and so has served

For the purposes of this Q&A it is assumed that: • the breaches of lease are remediable (it is not known what the original breaches of the lease were) • the lease specifies that the landlord’s costs are recoverable for service of the section 146 notice • the section 146 notice is valid and has been correctly served This Q&A deals with the remedies available to a landlord where, following a section 146 notice, the tenant does not allow access for inspection to take place and, further, if the costs associated with the notice are not paid. Inspection While most leases contain a clause which permits a landlord to enter the premises