Miles Herman is a clever, understated lawyer who is at the top of his game.
Default on payment of rent can lead in turn to a landlord being unable to make their mortgage payments, thereby threatening their property interest.
Rent default will permit a landlord to seek forfeiture of the premises, whereupon they can let it out to a new tenant and prevent further financial loss. There are protections available for residential tenants that curtail the enforcement options available to landlords.
Non-payment of rent is a specific ground for a landlord exercising the remedy of forfeiture. Where rent becomes past due, a landlord is not required to provide the tenant who has fallen into arrears with a Section 146 Notice before proceeding with forfeiture remedies. Ordinarily, a Section 146 Notice would be intended to afford a tenant reasonable time to fulfil their obligations under contract.
It is imperative to note that there must be a valid forfeiture clause in the lease agreement in order to use it as a remedy. In many cases, a lease agreement will provide a 14 to 21 day grace period to allow for a tenant to make up arrears.
Where commercial properties are concerned, the landlord is entitled to either (1) peaceably re-enter the premises or (2) seek court proceedings for eviction.
Peaceable re-entry is a cost effective solution where the landlord enters the premises (force is permissible), changes the locks and leaves physical notice that the lease has been terminated on that date.
A landlord engaging in self-help must be diligent in ensuring there are no persons or property remaining on the premises. It is illegal for a landlord to access and change the locks on the premises if there is someone present who objects to the forfeiture.
For residential property, a landlord cannot use peaceable re-entry as a means of recovering possession unless it is clear the tenant has vacated the premises and does not intend to return. In almost all cases it is not advisable to use this method for residential property, as a landlord may leave themselves vulnerable to claims for trespass. Instead, a landlord will recover possession of residential property through court proceedings.
If unaffixed property has been left by the tenant, the landlord may be legally responsible for its safekeeping until the tenant can recover possession. By contrast, if a tenant brought in structures that became fixed to the premises that cannot be removed without damaging it, they will become property of the landlord upon termination of the lease.
With regards assured shorthold tenancies, and where non-payment of rent is concerned, a landlord may serve a Section 8 Notice upon the tenant. Typically, 14 days’ notice will be afforded to the tenant before eviction occurs. In doing so, the landlord must explicitly state that the reason for serving the Section 8 Notice is for the basis of non-payment of rent.
If a landlord is not confident an assured shorthold lease tenant will be able to pay rent in the event they seek to renew their lease, they may serve a Section 21 Notice upon the tenant to the effect that they must vacate the premises when their lease term comes to an end.
Relief can be awarded with regards non-payment of rent, if the tenant pays all sums due five days prior to a court hearing regarding an order for possession. A successful relief from forfeiture will result in the lease being reinstated and the parties returned to the position they were in prior to the alleged breach. Relief can only be awarded by a court, and can be applied for before the relevant County Court or the High Court.
Depending on the nature of the breach and the time elapsed since any court order for possession (usually six months) the courts have varied discretion whether or not to award relief.
If forfeiture is found to be wrongful, the landlord may find himself or herself subject to a damages claim from the tenant.
A landlord must take care to avoid explicit or implicitly waiving their right to bring forfeiture proceedings for non-payment of rent. This can occur where a landlord accepts rent payments after any default on an agreed rent due date in the lease agreement, or where they continue to pursue rent payments instead of seeking forfeiture.
As a contingency for tenant default, and court action for its recovery, a landlord may consider obtaining rent guarantee insurance. Such insurance coverage will supplement the shortfall in rent arrears on a monthly basis while the tenant remains in occupancy, and may also be extended to cover legal expenses in seeking court action for recovery of sums owed.
Where a tenant is in default on their rent due, a landlord is entitled to enforcement action, but must do so in adherence to proper procedure. Failure to do so can result in the tenant being re-instated and entitled to bring damages against the landlord.
At Lewis Nedas, our team of Property Litigation Solicitors have broad experience in both commercial and residential property litigation. We have successfully advised landlords and tenants with highly complex and multi-faceted cases. To speak with one of our Property Lawyers, please contact us on 020 7387 2032 or complete our online enquiry form.
Book a
confidential
consultation
Miles Herman is a clever, understated lawyer who is at the top of his game.
Richard McConnell carried out conveyance for my family on 4 London flats, 1 sale and 3 purchases. In each instance he was excellent. The attention to detail and communication throughout the process was perfect. I have recommended Richard to several family members and friends who have been extremely pleased. I would have no hesitation in using Richard McConnell and Lewis Nedas in the future should the need arise.
I wanted to take the opportunity as well to thank you for everything that you have done on this case. The result that we got on Monday will have a massive positive impact not only on my life but the lives of all my family including that of my own son. I personally was struggling to hold back the tears when the sentence was being delivered by the judge and I know my father and sister felt the same too. It must be fantastic to work in a way that can have such a positive impact on people’s lives and I want you to know how much it all means to us all. Thanks a million and good luck with all that you do going forward.
Lewis Nedas advised me in a serious case of insider dealing. The lead solicitor dealing with my case was Jeffrey Lewis, who impressed me with his quick grasp of the very complex circumstances. His in-depth knowledge of how the City really works and his long experience of serious financial crime gave me great confidence. But it was also his friendly and supportive attitude, and readiness to take calls (or return them promptly if he was in court) which was very reassuring. I was delighted with the positive result of the case, and the speed and efficiency with which it was handled.
Hands on partner involvement leading a dynamic team who like to think out of the box. Results driven. Clear strategies. They can go toe to toe with the big “City” firms.
Lewis Nedas are an efficient litigation machine. If something needs to be done, they will do it. Have a real “the client comes first” attitude.
