akhan

You can make an application to the court to Acquire the freehold under Section 33. If the court is satisfied that the freeholder cannot be found and you have taken reasonable steps to find him, they will usually grant an order enabling the leaseholder to acquire the freehold interest.

Purchase Absent freeholder indemnity insurance.... Read More

The Landlord would be the persons who would have ultimate control to grant a lease tenancy under the Act.
At all materials times the agent does not become a landlord as he does not have ultimate control to grant a lease in estate over the land.

In his authority he would require consent from the landlord and therefore acting in his capacity as mere agent of the principle Landlord.

Hope this help to clarify your concerns.

Please note, there is a lot of case law that you can obtain from Nexus lexis that will guide you to the correct answers.... Read More

Hi,
The most appropriate action would be to make an emergency application to your local high court for interim injunction permitting your surveyor access the property to carry out the survey on behalf of the lender. The application can be made with or without notice and once an application is lodge say on Monday it is usually heard within 3 working days. If the tenant refuses it would be contempt of court and he would be arrested by police.... Read More

https://www.property118.com/dangerous-fog-of-liability-to-full-rent-during-covid-19/

I wrote this article in response to my tenants reading fake information on face book and then demanding a payment holiday or in the alternative rent reduction.

I swiftly refused and updated them of the law including reference to High trees case detailed in the above article. I was fortunate as I have the necessary legal skills to be able to apply the law to complex legal problems.

The above article deals with most of the issues you have listed.

Thanks... Read More

I am not saying that!

I am stating that you must confirm to the tenant that they are still liable for the remaining balance and that you have not agreed to waive the remaining balance when then make these part-payments.

To avoid them running the argument of promise estoppel when you chase them for the outstanding monies !... Read More

Part rent payments are acceptable provided it is made clear to the tenant they will still be liable for the full outstanding balance for all shortfalls.

However , agreeing to part payment of rent that amounts to a promise to accept a smaller sum in discharge of a larger sum, if acted upon, is binding notwithstanding the absence of consideration under the concept of Promissory estoppel.

The lower rent despite the fact that the promise was unsupported by good consideration, would last until the tenants situation improved . In this scenario you could not recover the shortfall if you accepted 50% rent whilst the COVID was around as a waiver to encourage you tenant to pay.

The point I was making is it would be a dangerous road to travel, unless you can clearly spell out to your tenant that they are still responsible for the full rent whilst the Covid is around, and you have not agreed to accept part payments to discharge the full higher amount. It is only part payment of the months rents.
Hope this helps.... Read More

Tenants are able to apply for universal credit and ask for advance payment which includes the payment for rent usually within 7 days of submitting the application.

What I am stating is part payment or no payment of rent from tenants whilst they still are in occupation is not good consideration, and should not be accepted by the landlord. The law is very clear on this, if you refer to the High Trees case which is good law.... Read More

The Banks have only agreed to consolidate the missed payments over the remaining term of the Mortgage.

It would be sensible to have a professional body that provided clear guidance to landlords given that tenants have shelter as their trade body to advocate their needs.... Read More

The guidance is very clear regarding rental payments in relation to downturn. The case in Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947] KB 130 deals with this in issue which should be of great interest to all.
If the tenant is still in situ then past consideration is not good consideration, in effect that the tenant is already under obligation to make payment under their existing tenancy agreement and full rent is due as the tenant is able to claim relevant benefits and government subsidies.

On the other hand, if the the tenant has vacated then this can amount to new consideration as the property has become vacated and would allow the the landlord to re-let should the situation improve. Promissory estoppel would prevented landlord going back on their promise to accept vacant possession in lie of of the return of keys.

If the landlord agreed to allow the tenant to remain and they both agree to accept less rent during this period of COVID, then no doubt that a promise to accept a smaller sum in discharge of a larger sum, if acted upon, is binding notwithstanding the absence of consideration under the concept of Promissory estoppel. The lower rent despite the fact that the promise was unsupported by good consideration, was successfully argued as new consideration in the above case . This would last until the tenants situation improved .

In the High Trees case, this arose during the war and the facts are very similar to COVID. High Trees leased a block of flats from CLP(landlords) at a ground rent of £2,500 per month. It was a new block of flats at the time the lease was taken out in 1937. The defendant had difficulty in getting tenants for all the flats and the ground rent left High Trees with no profit.
In 1940 many of the flats were still unoccupied and with the conditions of the war prevailing, it did not look as if there was to be any change to this situation in the near future.
CLP (Landlords) agreed to reduce the rent to £1,250 during the down turn years. The agreement was put in writing and High Trees paid the reduced rent from 1941.

Just before the war was over the flats became fully occupied and the claimant sought to return to the originally agreed rent as tenants circumstances recovered.

The rent would be returned to the originally agreed price for the future only when the occupancy returned to normal.

CLP could not claim back the arrears accrued during the war years when the flats were half vacant but the tenants were held liable when they became fully occupied and the conditions for them had recovered even though they failed to inform the landlord CLP.

Once the fog had lifted (COVID) the full liability was due once the tenants came out of difficulty.

Given most tenants qualify for government support I cannot see how you could argue that there is this difficulty with payments of rent and therefore full liability should be requested, all be it with some lag on payments being made.... Read More

The guidance is very clear regarding rental payments in relation to downturn. The case in Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947] KB 130 deals with this in issue which should be of great interest to all.
If the tenant is still in situ then past consideration is not good consideration, in effect that the tenant is already under obligation to make payment under their existing tenancy agreement and full rent is due as the tenant is able to claim relevant benefits and government subsidies.

On the other hand, if the the tenant has vacated then this can amount to new consideration as the property has become vacated and would allow the the landlord to re-let should the situation improve. Promissory estoppel would prevented landlord going back on their promise to accept vacant possession in lie of of the return of keys.

If the landlord agreed to allow the tenant to remain and they both agree to accept less rent during this period of COVID, then no doubt that a promise to accept a smaller sum in discharge of a larger sum, if acted upon, is binding notwithstanding the absence of consideration under the concept of Promissory estoppel. The lower rent despite the fact that the promise was unsupported by good consideration, was successfully argued as new consideration in the above case . This would last until the tenants situation improved .

In the High Trees case, this arose during the war and the facts are very similar to COVID. High Trees leased a block of flats from CLP(landlords) at a ground rent of £2,500 per month. It was a new block of flats at the time the lease was taken out in 1937. The defendant had difficulty in getting tenants for all the flats and the ground rent left High Trees with no profit.
In 1940 many of the flats were still unoccupied and with the conditions of the war prevailing, it did not look as if there was to be any change to this situation in the near future.
CLP (Landlords) agreed to reduce the rent to £1,250 during the down turn years. The agreement was put in writing and High Trees paid the reduced rent from 1941.

Just before the war was over the flats became fully occupied and the claimant sought to return to the originally agreed rent as tenants circumstances recovered.

The rent would be returned to the originally agreed price for the future only when the occupancy returned to normal.

CLP could not claim back the arrears accrued during the war years when the flats were half vacant but the tenants were held liable when they became fully occupied and the conditions for them had recovered even though they failed to inform the landlord CLP.

Once the fog had lifted (COVID) the full liability was due once the tenants came out of difficulty.

Given most tenants qualify for government support I cannot see how you could argue that there is this difficulty with payments of rent and therefore full liability should be requested, all be it with some lag on payments being made.... Read More

The guidance is very clear regarding rental payments in relation to downturn. The case in Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947] KB 130 deals with this in issue which should be of great interest to all.
If the tenant is still in situ then past consideration is not good consideration, in effect that the tenant is already under obligation to make payment under their existing tenancy agreement and full rent is due as the tenant is able to claim relevant benefits and government subsidies.

On the other hand, if the the tenant has vacated then this can amount to new consideration as the property has become vacated and would allow the the landlord to re-let should the situation improve. Promissory estoppel would prevented landlord going back on their promise to accept vacant possession in lie of of the return of keys.

If the landlord agreed to allow the tenant to remain and they both agree to accept less rent during this period of COVID, then no doubt that a promise to accept a smaller sum in discharge of a larger sum, if acted upon, is binding notwithstanding the absence of consideration under the concept of Promissory estoppel. The lower rent despite the fact that the promise was unsupported by good consideration, was successfully argued as new consideration in the above case . This would last until the tenants situation improved .

In the High Trees case, this arose during the war and the facts are very similar to COVID. High Trees leased a block of flats from CLP(landlords) at a ground rent of £2,500 per month. It was a new block of flats at the time the lease was taken out in 1937. The defendant had difficulty in getting tenants for all the flats and the ground rent left High Trees with no profit.
In 1940 many of the flats were still unoccupied and with the conditions of the war prevailing, it did not look as if there was to be any change to this situation in the near future.
CLP (Landlords) agreed to reduce the rent to £1,250 during the down turn years. The agreement was put in writing and High Trees paid the reduced rent from 1941.

Just before the war was over the flats became fully occupied and the claimant sought to return to the originally agreed rent as tenants circumstances recovered.

The rent would be returned to the originally agreed price for the future only when the occupancy returned to normal.

CLP could not claim back the arrears accrued during the war years when the flats were half vacant but the tenants were held liable when they became fully occupied and the conditions for them had recovered even though they failed to inform the landlord CLP.

Once the fog had lifted (COVID) the full liability was due once the tenants came out of difficulty.

Given most tenants qualify for government support I cannot see how you could argue that there is this difficulty with payments of rent and therefore full liability should be requested, all be it with some lag on payments being made.... Read More

The guidance is very clear regarding rental payments in relation to downturn. The case in Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947] KB 130 deals with this in issue which should be of great interest to all.

If the tenant is still in situ then past consideration is not good consideration, in effect that the tenant is already under obligation to make payment under their existing tenancy agreement and full rent is due as the tenant is able to claim relevant benefits and government subsidies.

On the other hand, if the the tenant has vacated then this can amount to new consideration as the property has become vacated and would allow the the landlord to re-let should the situation improve. Promissory estoppel would prevented landlord going back on their promise to accept vacant possession in lie of of the return of keys.

If the landlord agreed to allow the tenant to remain and they both agree to accept less rent during this period of COVID, then no doubt that a promise to accept a smaller sum in discharge of a larger sum, if acted upon, is binding notwithstanding the absence of consideration under the concept of Promissory estoppel. The lower rent despite the fact that the promise was unsupported by good consideration, was successfully argued as new consideration in the above case . This would last until the tenants situation improved .

In the High Trees case, this arose during the war and the facts are very similar to COVID. High Trees leased a block of flats from CLP(landlords) at a ground rent of £2,500 per month. It was a new block of flats at the time the lease was taken out in 1937. The defendant had difficulty in getting tenants for all the flats and the ground rent left High Trees with no profit.
In 1940 many of the flats were still unoccupied and with the conditions of the war prevailing, it did not look as if there was to be any change to this situation in the near future.
CLP (Landlords) agreed to reduce the rent to £1,250 during the down turn years. The agreement was put in writing and High Trees paid the reduced rent from 1941.

Just before the war was over the flats became fully occupied and the claimant sought to return to the originally agreed rent as tenants circumstances recovered.

The rent would be returned to the originally agreed price for the future only when the occupancy returned to normal.

CLP could not claim back the arrears accrued during the war years when the flats were half vacant but the tenants were held liable when they became fully occupied and the conditions for them had recovered even though they failed to inform the landlord CLP.

Once the fog had lifted (COVID) the full liability was due once the tenants came out of difficulty.

Given most tenants qualify for government support I cannot see how you could argue that there is this difficulty with payments of rent and therefore full liability should be requested, all be it with some lag on payments being made.

Hope this clarifies.... Read More