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.
Public Inquiries in Northern Ireland
Case Study : New PSV Application in the South East

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

Anyone seeking to operate heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) or passenger service vehicles (PSVs) must approach the Operator’s Licence (O Licence) application process with precision and care—especially where...
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—...

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

Anyone seeking to operate heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) or passenger service vehicles (PSVs) must approach the Operator’s Licence (O Licence) application process with precision and care—especially where there is a history of regulatory issues. This is particularly important in cases involving previously surrendered or revoked licences.

We were recently instructed by a company whose previous O Licence had been revoked within the past year. The company had entered financial difficulty and was placed into administration. They notified the Office of the Traffic Commissioner (OTC), but unfortunately failed to respond adequately to follow-up inquiries. When the OTC requested further information, the company did not reply. Although they attempted to surrender the licence voluntarily, the Traffic Commissioner (TC) ultimately revoked it.

A new application was submitted by a newly formed company with the same directors. This triggered a public inquiry before the TC—a crucial opportunity to demonstrate two key points:

• That the company would be fully compliant with O Licence requirements

• That the directors retained the necessary repute, despite the circumstances surrounding the administration

We worked closely with the company’s transport manager and directors to prepare a comprehensive submission, which was sent in advance of the hearing (typically required at least two weeks prior). With experienced staff now in place, the compliance issues were straightforward to address. The more challenging aspect was persuading the TC that the directors’ conduct did not warrant refusal of the licence.

TCs scrutinise applications rigorously to uphold the principle of fair competition. In this case, our detailed submission addressed all potential concerns. At the hearing, the director and transport manager provided clear and credible first-person evidence, reinforcing the points made in our written materials. We argued that this operator could be trusted and would conform to O Licence compliance and fair competition.

The licence was granted with immediate effect.

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.