Landlords Consents Alienation Assignment and sub-letting No restrictions Absolute covenant against assignment Qualified covenant Express proviso

Assignment Absolute covenant is rare as value is affected Qualified covenant ie “ without landlords consent”. Implied not to be unreasonably withheld s19 LTA 1927. Not a strict list of rules, Bickel v Duke of Westminster 1977. But see s19(1A) grounds below Character of assignee and effect on rent or investment value are key. Assignment

Examples of unreasonableness Lose a good tenant of other property Would result in a change of use restricted elsewhere. Consider the request in a reasonable time and consent cannot be unreasonably withheld LTA 1988. Threat of damages for delay can influence decision to give consent. Examples of unreasonableness

Reasonableness In most cases a few weeks What are the facts of the case at the time of the request eg three months has been held to be too long, but 28 days has been held to be reasonable. Landlords careful approach may be reasonable if there are genuine concerns eg around robustness of proposed assignee, effect on other tenants or building Reasonableness

Damages Design Progression v Thurloe Properties 2004 No written decision in breach of 1988 Act Exemplary Damages £25,000 Loss of premium agreed with assignee Loss of business goodwill and turnover Refusal in good time followed by request for further information can lead to damages Go West v Spigarolo 2003 Damages

Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 S19(1A) In a new lease, agreed circumstances that would constitute reasonable refusal( and conditions for grant of consent). Examples An outstanding breach of tenants covenant Assignee of weaker covenant strength Assignee financially unlikely to be able to fulfil covenants in the lease Conditions that may be imposed could be Covenant from assignee to observe tenants covenants in the lease. Covenant to provide a rent deposit at assignment. Assigning tenant to provide an AGA See Authorised Guarantee Agreement under L and T Covenants Act 1995 Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 S19(1A)

Illegal Sub letting Forfeiture, s146 LPA 1925 Injunction Claim damages. Do not accept rent Brinkmanship by Landlord and or sub tenant. Crestfort v Tesco 2005 Illegal Sub letting

User No implied covenant around consent But.... Cannot take a premium or fine Planning law runs parallel, but can help interpret user Landlord should not seek an opportunistic advantage. Anglia Building Society v Sheffield City Council 1982 Hours can be restricted, delivery times etc to protect the working of other tenants. The building may need to be protected eg from heavy machinery. User

User - Effect on value May be an opportunity to add value. May be an opportunity to make useful suggestions to tenant and advisor May be a catalyst to improved L and T relationship (see commercial lease code). User - Effect on value

1927 Act again applies if there is a qualified covenant ie Landlords consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. Landlord can have compensation for diminution in value. Tenant can be compensated at end of lease May be in their interest to not require removal at end of lease eg where re – letting value is increased Improvements

Improvements Interpreted from tenants perspective Up to tenant to prove unreasonableness if consent withheld Refer to county court (etc?) if Landlord is asking too much compensation Alterations can be improvements eg where adjacent buildings are better used, yet the value of the demised premises may not increase. Improvements