And you find that power where?

By s.168, Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, a landlord may not serve a notice under s.146, Law of Property Act 1925, or otherwise exercise a right of re-entry (i.e. forfeiture) in respect of a breach of a covenant (other than one to pay rent – which is unaffected by s.146, see s.146(11); or service/administration charges, which are dealt with under s.81, Housing Act 1996), unless the breach has been admitted by the tenant or determined by a court, LVT or arbitral tribunal.

There is a bit of a cottage industry in these applications to the LVT. Landlord says that tenant is in breach by, e.g. having a cat. … Read the full post

Remedying immoral use

Patel v K&J Restaurants [2010] EWCA Civ 1211 deals with a number of interesting questions concerning relief from forfeiture. Although the lease in question (of a restaurant and residential flats) fell within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the case has wider implications for anyone dealing with relief from forfeiture, particularly where there has been immoral use of the premises.

Patel were the landlords and K&J the tenants. K&J were in breach of their lease in two ways. First a sub-tenant of one of the flats had been using the flat for prostitution — the type example of “immoral user” see Rugby School (Governors) v Tannahill [1935] 1 KB … Read the full post

Forfeiture and the LVT

By virtue of s.81 Housing Act 1996 and s.168 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 a landlord may not seek to forfeit a residential long lease unless the breach (whether to pay rent, service charges, administration charges or other breach of covenant) has been admitted by the tenant or determined by inter alia, an LVT.

In addition, by s.167 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (and the regulations made thereunder), a landlord may not bring proceedings for forfeiture where the debt owed is less than £350.

In Glass v McCready LRX/122/2008, the LVT managed to confuse itself with the interplay between these two provisions and has had to be … Read the full post

Accepting "part" of a cheque without waiving forfeiture


Osibanjo v Seahive Investments Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 1282 (Court of Appeal)

Are there circumstances in which a landlord can accept only part of a cheque offered by a tenant and thereby avoid waiving its right to forfeit? It would appear that there are, according to the Court of Appeal in this case which raises interesting questions about the thorny issue of waiver of forfeiture.

The trial judge found that the tenant had breached numerous covenants in the lease (against alterations, change of use, parting with possession, and keeping the business premises — a public house — open).  Rent arrears built up in 2005 and the landlord (Seahive) served … Read the full post

They'll have to wait

In a sudden rush we have:

Court of Appeal:

Greenwood Reversions Ltd. v World Environment Foundation Ltd. – and – Madhav Mehra [2008] EWCA Civ 47 on forfeiture of lease.

House of Lords:

Majorstake Limited (Respondents) v Curtis (Appellant) [2008] UKHL 10 on definition of premises in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

And one I missed….

Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties and Another  [2008] UKHL 5 on the metaphysical question when a house is a house and when it isn’t.

Detailed notes to follow, but frankly, I’m too busy and too tired to do notes tonight. Meh. I’m sure you can wait 24 … Read the full post