Call us for free on 0800 1777 522
Info Articles

NA Legal

Solicitors for small & medium business.

Assigning a Lease

What does it mean to assign a lease? 

Assignment is the term used to describe the process where a tenant under a lease transfers the lease to someone else (called the “assignee”). When the assignment has taken place, the original tenant ceases to be a tenant under the lease and the assignee becomes the tenant. If you think of the lease as being something that is owned by a tenant, then the lease is effectively sold to a new tenant.

The new tenant then takes over all the rights, obligations and liabilities under the lease and is accountable to the landlord.

Can all leases be assigned?

The question of whether a lease can be assigned and on what conditions will be contained within the lease. In other words, the lease itself will say whether the lease is assignable and if it is, then what conditions must be met as part of the process. Some leases prohibit assignment altogether, others allow an assignment but only on strict conditions.

In most cases, one of the conditions is that the landlord has to give legally binding written consent to an assignment. Usually, the landlord will also want to have vetted the new tenant/assignee in advance and approve them as a condition of the assignment.

The licence to assign

There will normally be a legally binding document in the form of a deed called the “licence to assign”. This is a three-party document which will ultimately be signed by the old tenant, the new tenant and the landlord. The licence to assign gives the landlord’s formal consent to the assignment and also sets out the conditions. It will also ensure that the new tenant has legally binding obligations to the landlord to comply fully with the terms of the lease.
Old tenant acting as guarantor

Most modern commercial leases state that one of the conditions of the landlord agreeing to an assignment is that the old tenant must continue to act as a guarantor until the lease comes to an end. Tenants are often surprised to find that this is the case and acting as a guarantor to the end of the term of the lease can be quite an onerous obligation.

What this means in practice is that even if you sell your lease to someone else, you could still be called upon to pay the rent if the new tenant defaults, or pay for other losses of the landlord if the new tenant breaches other obligations under the lease.

One consequence of this is that if you are a tenant wanting to assign the lease to someone else, you need to make sure that the new tenant is someone who can be trusted and has the financial standing to make sure that the rent and other obligations are complied with.

Summary

The nature of modern business practice is that leases often change hands between tenants. Businesses of all sizes are regularly expanding or downsizing and when they do, they often need to move premises. Having the legal option of assigning a lease or purchasing a lease from someone else is therefore an important feature. Also, of course, if you are buying or selling a business you want to ensure that the lease is properly assigned.

It is important when assigning or taking an assignment to the lease that you are fully appraised of all the legal implications that come with it.

Modern v Traditional Property Auctions
Introduction to the Construction, Design and Manag...

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

Applying for an Operator’s Licence (O Licence) is more than just completing a form—it's a demonstration of trustworthiness. The Traffic Commissioner (TC) will only grant a licence if satisfied that th...
Being called to a Public Inquiry is a serious matter for any operator. But facing two inquiries within a year can put an operator’s very survival at risk. In this case, our client—a licensed operator—...
Recently, we were instructed well in advance—approximately five weeks before the hearing—to represent a client facing serious regulatory challenges. This lead time was crucial, allowing us to prepare ...

IF YOU NEED HELP OR ADVICE

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
Applying for an Operator’s Licence (O Licence) is more than just completing a form—it's a demonstration of trustworthiness. The Traffic Commissioner (TC) will only grant a licence if satisfied that the applicant can be relied upon to comply with the responsibilities that come with it. That trust starts with the application.

The Application Form – A Critical First Impression

For new applicants, the first and most important step is completing the application form correctly. Done properly, a licence can often be granted within the target timeframe of six weeks or less. Done incorrectly, and the process can stall or even result in a proposed refusal and a call to attend a public inquiry (PI).

One of our clients experienced exactly that.

The Issue: An Honest Mistake with Serious Consequences

Our client had submitted an application which, on its face, appeared to be incomplete. Specifically, it failed to declare a historic association with a previous O Licence application. While the omission was a genuine mistake, it raised a red flag for the TC.

The Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC) treated the matter seriously. The failure to declare past associations can suggest negligence—or worse—and it called into question the applicant’s reliability.

Our Approach: Full Disclosure and Positive Evidence

We assisted our client in preparing a comprehensive written submission to the TC's office in advance of the hearing. This included:

  • A clear explanation of how the error occurred.

  • Evidence showing that there was no intent to mislead.

  • Detailed information about the client’s proposed compliance systems.

  • Supporting documentation showing that the error had brought no advantage—only the disadvantage of triggering a PI.

The Outcome: Licence Granted with Conditions

At the public inquiry, the client gave open and honest answers about the error and demonstrated an up-to-date understanding of the maintenance and compliance obligations expected of O Licence holders.

The TC was ultimately satisfied that the application had been made in good faith. The licence was granted, with a condition that the operator complete an independent systems audit within six months and submit the findings to the OTC.

Key Takeaway: Accuracy is Essential

This case serves as a clear reminder of the importance of getting the application right first time. Even minor errors can result in delays, additional scrutiny, and the stress and cost of a public inquiry.

If you're applying for an O Licence, it pays to seek professional guidance from the start. Our team can help you navigate the process, ensure your paperwork is accurate and complete, and give you the best chance of a smooth application.
Transport Law
Being called to a Public Inquiry is a serious matter for any operator. But facing two inquiries within a year can put an operator’s very survival at risk. In this case, our client—a licensed operator—found themselves before the Traffic Commissioner for the second time in under twelve months. The issue? Failure to follow through on a straightforward undertaking given at the first hearing.

The First Public Inquiry

The operator initially faced a Public Inquiry due to several maintenance failings, along with wider compliance concerns. On paper, the case looked serious. However, the company was committed to improvement and had started taking corrective action even before the hearing date was set.

We were instructed in good time and provided detailed advice not just on the maintenance issues raised, but also on other areas of compliance that had not been fully appreciated by the operator. The company took on board our recommendations and made a robust response to the DVSA’s findings. At the inquiry, the Traffic Commissioner acknowledged the positive steps taken, and the outcome was a formal warning—no more.

The Missed Undertaking

One of the undertakings given at the first hearing was for the operator to arrange an independent systems audit within six months. This was a clear and reasonable requirement. Unfortunately, the audit was not carried out within the required timeframe, and no communication was made with the Traffic Commissioner’s office.

When the TC’s office followed up, the operator explained that the failure had been an honest oversight. An audit was booked immediately, but by then it was too late to avoid the consequences. A second Public Inquiry was called—this time with the O Licence at serious risk.

The Second Hearing

We were instructed once again. The operator accepted our further advice and offered several new undertakings to address the situation. As before, the company’s director and transport manager presented well at the hearing.

In our legal submissions, we emphasised that this was a compliant and responsible operator that had learned from past mistakes and was not a threat to road safety or fair competition. We acknowledged the seriousness of the repeat appearance but highlighted the progress made and the company’s genuine efforts to get things right.

The Outcome

Despite being unimpressed by the need for a second hearing, the Traffic Commissioner accepted that the business had taken appropriate action and showed genuine intent to comply. While revocation was considered, the TC decided—just—to stop short of it.

The result was a short, two-week curtailment of vehicle authority. Given the circumstances, this was a remarkable outcome.

Our client recognised how close they had come to losing their licence altogether and expressed their sincere thanks for our guidance and representation throughout both proceedings.
Transport Law

Recently, we were instructed well in advance—approximately five weeks before the hearing—to represent a client facing serious regulatory challenges. This lead time was crucial, allowing us to prepare a comprehensive case and avoid the pitfalls that often accompany last-minute instructions, including potential criticism from the TC for insufficient preparation. 

The Issues Identified

During a PSV checkpoint, several significant compliance issues were uncovered:

  • Driving without the correct entitlement

  • Absence of a valid MOT or having the wrong type of MOT

  • Insufficient daily rest periods for drivers

Following this, the DVSA launched a detailed traffic investigation that revealed serious systems failures within the operator’s management. While the operator was not prosecuted, the Operator Licence was placed under threat, and they were required to submit evidence at the Public Inquiry.

Our Approach

We advised the operator thoroughly on all key issues identified in the TC’s PI Brief, as well as on additional risks not explicitly raised. Our recommendations included targeted training and educational courses specifically designed for PSV operations, emphasizing the importance of compliance and system improvements.

The operator’s cooperation was exemplary. Unlike cases where operators seek to mislead or minimize faults, this operator acknowledged the technical nature of many offences—offences serious in regulatory terms but not necessarily posing a substantial threat to road safety or fair competition.

Preparation and Evidence Submission

Submissions were made well ahead of the hearing—three weeks prior to the DVSA and two weeks prior to the TC’s office. The evidence demonstrated a robust overhaul of operational systems and a fundamental shift in compliance culture. Importantly, DVSA’s subsequent reports acknowledged that the operator was broadly compliant with all relevant regulatory requirements.

The Hearing and Outcome

At the Public Inquiry, both the operator and the transport manager presented clear, confident, and candid evidence. Their preparedness and willingness to accept responsibility helped the Traffic Commissioner in reaching a balanced decision.

The TC acknowledged the operator’s orderly preparation and improvements, resulting in a warning and a short removal of a margin of vehicle authority. This outcome had minimal adverse impact on the business and reflected positively on the operator’s prompt and serious response to legal advice.


Why Early Legal Advice Matters

This case highlights the critical importance of instructing specialist transport law advisers promptly when facing regulatory challenges. Early engagement allows for: 

  • Thorough investigation and preparation

  • Effective response to all issues raised

  • Mitigation of potential penalties through demonstration of proactive compliance

If your PSV or transport business faces compliance issues or a Public Inquiry, contact NA Legal for expert guidance and representation. Our experience can make a decisive difference in securing the best possible outcome.