Call us for free on 0800 1777 522
Info Articles

NA Legal

Solicitors for small & medium business.

What can you do when your commercial tenant breaches their lease?

What steps you can take to remedy a breach depends on the type of breach, what the lease says and what your aims are, in relation to the property. By your aims in relation to the property, what we mean is whether, for example, you want to get the tenant out of the property or you just want your tenant to put the breach right and then remain.

Forfeiture

Forfeiture is the process whereby the landlord re-enters the property, takes possession of it back from the tenant and brings the lease to an end. Your lease should set out the circumstances in which the landlord is allowed to forfeit the lease. However, there are a number of limitations to the landlord’s right to forfeit and it is very important to always take legal advice before you take any steps to repossess the property. If you get the forfeiture wrong and it is deemed unlawful then you could face a claim for very substantial damages from your tenant.

For all breaches of the lease, apart from the non-payment of rent, an essential first step is to serve on the tenant what is called a Section 146 Notice. The Section 146 Notice warns the tenant about the alleged breaches of the lease and tells them that the breaches must be remedied.

If a Section 146 Notice has been served and your tenant has failed to comply with it, then this strengthens your potential right to forfeit the lease. However, you should always take legal advice before taking any steps due to the potential consequences of getting it wrong.

Even if you have lawfully forfeited a lease, your tenant still has a right to apply to Court for what is called “relief against forfeiture”. This is where your tenant can make an application for the Court to use a discretion to order the lease to be reinstated.

One thing you have to be careful about when considering forfeiture of the lease is not to do anything which could be interpreted as you waiving.

Waiving of the breach can happen inadvertently when you do something that implies that you are happy for the lease to continue, even though it has been breached. One example of this would be to continue to collect rent whilst the lease has been breached. It would be advisable to stop the collection of rent as soon as you have identified any breach on the part of the tenant which could potentially result in you forfeiting the lease.

Breach of repair covenant

In nearly all commercial leases there is a covenant/condition in there that the tenant has to repair the premises. Most leases also have a clause where the tenant is in breach of their duty to repair, the landlord has the right to go into the property, carry out the repairs themselves and then recover the costs from the tenant.

If the clause in the lease that has been breached relates to repairs, then you usually have the option of entering and doing the repairs yourself.

Damages

This is where the tenant has breached the lease and, as a result, you, as landlord, have suffered some kind of loss. An example of this might be if a tenant breaches their lease in such a way that the value of the premises was diminished or if they caused another tenant in the building to leave due to their actions. In this case, you would have the right to make a claim to the Court that the tenant has to pay you damages to make good what you have lost.

Injunctions

Where there is a continuing breach of the lease, for example, the premises are being used for an unauthorised use, then you have the option of applying to Court for an injunction against the tenant to bring the breach to an end.

If you are to apply for an injunction, it is usually good practice to serve a Section 146 Notice at the same time.
Modern v Traditional Property Auctions
What the difference between a share sale and an as...

Call us for free on 0800 1777 522


Get In Touch Call or fill out the form below

Please let us know your name.
Please let us know your email address.
Please write a subject for your message.
Please let us know your message.
Invalid Input

 


We advise and represent transport businesses throughout the whole of the UK in all parts of England, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland

Uk





Latest Blogs

We were approached by an operator who had received public inquiry paper several weeks earlier. The Operator instructed us to represent him at his inquiry listed for a hearing before the Traffic Commis...
We recently represented two companies who were both called to the same public inquiry. Although separate entities, the companies were closely connected because of having the same set of directors. One...
We were approached by a small business owner to represent them at the a public inquiry which had been called to consider their application for a new passenger vehicle operator’s licence.The person app...

IF YOU NEED HELP OR ADVICE WITH A TRANSPORT LAW ISSUE

Call us today for free on 0800 1777 522
Send us an enquiry online via our contact form HERE
Email us on contact@nalegal.co.uk

Latest Transport Law

Transport Law
We were approached by an operator who had received public inquiry paper several weeks earlier. The Operator instructed us to represent him at his inquiry listed for a hearing before the Traffic Commissioner’s (TC) only two weeks in advance.

There were several serious issues that the TC indicated he wanted to examine at the hearing and was threatening regulatory action against the Operator Company. The Operator had approached another firm of solicitors, who informed him that the likely outcome of the hearing would be loss of repute and licence revocation.

We provided the Operator with advice about immediate steps to be taken in preparation for the hearing. We requested the operator send us a number of documents critical to the success of his inquiry. A consideration of those document showed significant—but not insurmountable—shortfalls in maintenance standards and legal requirements.

The operator had recently appointed a new Transport Manager (TM) with an excellent reputation in his field. The TM worked along with us in analysing the Company’s compliance systems to create better compliance systems and improve the of the Company’s mindset about such.

We prepared extensive written representations and sent these to the TC in advance of the hearing along with supporting documentation.

We recommended that both the Operator (Director) and his Transport Manager attend the hearing. As expected the TC questioned the Operator and TM extensively about the various issued raised. We guided and advised the Operator and TM throughout the hearing. Following our final submissions, the TC decided not to revoke the licence or disqualify the Operator Company. The Operator was issued with a warning and a very short suspension of one vehicle until it had a further maintenance inspection and remedial work done. The Operator was allowed to keep the rest of his fleet working with minimal disruption to the business. The Operator was thrilled with our services and has since instructed us at least one other transport matter.
Transport Law
We recently represented two companies who were both called to the same public inquiry. Although separate entities, the companies were closely connected because of having the same set of directors. One of the companies (the Operator) had years previously been issued with a restricted goods vehicle operator’s licence. The other company had recently applied for the same kind of licence (the Applicant).

Over the previous year, the directors had decided to progressively move most of the Operator’s business interests to its sister company the Applicant. Without understanding the potential consequences, and before being granted its operator’s licence, the Applicant began using the Operator’s heavy goods vehicle. The Operator company had not informed the Traffic Commissioner (TC) of its change in business arrangements and of the apparent change of entity (though the companies were actually wholly owned subsidiaries of another company – see below).

The Public Inquiry was convened because of changes at this business group and a fundamental misunderstanding of the operator’s licence regime, and that there had been what appeared to be a change of entity involving the companies.

The TC needed to be satisfied as to whether the companies were not unfit to hold an operator’s licence due to relevant activities and convictions, and about the events relating to a change in the circumstances of the licence holder. The Operator risked revocation of its licence. The Applicant was at risk of not having its licence granted.

In advance of the inquiry, and to start building their case, we obtained as much information as we could about the businesses and provided each company comprehensive legal advice. We examined the companies’ compliance systems and made recommendations about immediate and longer-term changes that needed to be implemented. On our recommendations, the companies invested time and resources into their maintenance and other systems

As a result of our preliminary work and advice, the companies were fully prepared for the public inquiry hearing. In particular, to answer questions and provide evidence about the apparent change of entity.

At the hearing we demonstrated that the companies were running professional and competent businesses. With specific reference to the issue of the apparent change of entity, the TC accepted that Section 3(4) of the Goods vehicle (licencing of operators) Act 1995 was relevant and that this was not a typical “change of entity” case – because of the companies being subsidiaries. We were able to persuade the TC that the issues that lead to the inquiry arose out of ignorance rather than an attempt to mislead or gain financial advantage

The TC granted the new licence to the Applicant with the Operator company voluntarily surrendering its licence. The directors were delighted with the outcome of the public inquiry hearing and that they managed to avoid the damaging consequences they feared.
Transport Law

We were approached by a small business owner to represent them at the a public inquiry which had been called to consider their application for a new passenger vehicle operator’s licence.

The person applying for the licence had a long background of work in the transport industry as a driver but had never before operated his own transport business. One of the key issues was that the nominated transport manager was also nominated some other licences and the Traffic Commissioner was concerned whether this meant that the transport manager would be able to properly carry out their duties on so many licences at once.