Ending a Protected Tenancy: A Comparative Study

The report discusses the rights of tenants and landlords in commercial tenancies, particularly regarding security of tenure. It highlights that unless a new tenancy is requested by the tenant, the landlord serves Section 25 notice followed by Section 26 notice from the tenant requesting a new tenancy. The report also evaluates two case scenarios and provides legal advice to the landlord on ending a protected tenancy. Additionally, it describes the differences between Grantley House and Unit 2 Milbanke Court leases.

COMMERCIAL
PRACTICE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
Question 1:.......................................................................................................................................1
(A): Procedures that Fred can adopt to put an end to the protected tenancies............................1
(B): Rights of tenants against Fred..............................................................................................4
(C): Advices to Fred in reference to unit 6 to redevelopment the property and occupy for
himself.........................................................................................................................................4
Question 2: ......................................................................................................................................6
Difference between Unit 2 Milbanke Court, Milbanke Way, Bracknell and Grantley House,
Park Lane, Cranford, Middlesex leases.......................................................................................6
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................7
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8

INTRODUCTION
The activities which are directly linked with the promotion, sale or supply of any product
or services to customers are known as commercial practices. Like other businesses, tenancy also
have several laws and regulations which are required to be followed throughout the functioning
(Rydin, 2013). Present report revolves around two different case studies associated with a person
engaged in industrial estate business, Fred. There are various legal rights for both the tenant and
the owner. By making use of these laws, the actions that can be taken by them are explained in
this study. The aim of this project is to assist Fred by legal obligations to prevent the renewal of
the tenancies. Contrarily, there are also some rights of the tenants which are also discussed in the
presented undertaking so that the owner of the estate can select appropriate strategies to end both
the protected occupancy.
Question 1:
(A): Procedures that Fred can adopt to put an end to the protected tenancies.
Fred, the owner of the estate business from last 20 years. All the units of the industry are
subject to seven-year FRI tenancies which are not excluded from the Landlord and Tenant Act,
1954. It has been observed that both the units on which the report revolves around, are having
their due date of tenancy expiration on 29 April 2018. Fred is not willing to continue business
with them and thus, no renewal is desired to be done. Hence, the methods, laws and legal action
are suggested for the same.
Below present a brief description of both the cases along with the procedures that Fred is
required to adopt to put an end to these tenancies.
Unit 2:
This case revolves around Barking Mad who runs a dog-grooming business. It has been
observed that the tenant has not paid the rent from last three months. Also, the customers has
recorded that some of the ceiling tiles are missing. In addition to this, when Fred wished to
access the property Barking Mad denied him.
In this case, Fred has various legal right which can be used by him against Barking Mad.
Firstly, the tenant has not paid the negotiated rent from last three months. According to the he
Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954 and the Housing Act, 1988 the possession of Fred is valid and
negotiated lease charges are necessarily required to be paid by the tenant (Janda, 2014). Hence,
1

this issue is favourable for the owner to end the tenancy. For the further details, the below case
study can be accessed which is based on relevant issue:
[Edwards v Ddin (1976) 63 Cr App R 218 Case summary ]
[Ddin (1976) 63 Cr App R 218 Case summary ]
In addition to this, it has been recorded by some customer that some of the ceiling tiles
were missing in the premises. Thus, as per the Tenancy deposit protection schemes, 2007 Fred is
eligible to forfeit the deposited sum. Further, the disrepairs were kept inaccessible for the owner
which is completely wrong according to the Landlord and Tenant laws (Dixon, Britnell and
Watson, 2014). Further information can be accessed through relevant case study, which is as
follows:
[Roper v Knott [1898] 1 QB 868 Case summary]
All these elements are favourable for the owner to end the tenancy. In this case, the
procedure that Fred should follow is as follows:
 Fred should complain in the courts and make use of the leasing obligations against the
Barking Mad.
 He should forfeit the deposited sum under the Tenancy deposit protection scheme, 2007
as there were disrepairs in the property.
 With the help of the mutual agreement, a lease may be ended
 As present tenancy is excluded one, thus Fred is liable to give only "reasonable notice" to
quit.
 The written agreements can be shared either via registered post, electronic
communication or in-hand.
 The notice is required to contain the details: Address to the tenant, Reason of termination
(property damage and rent not paid), attested by the responsible signatory, date for the
tenant to leave (Janda and et. al., 2016)
 However, the damage to the property is there, thus immediate notice period is also valid
in this clause.
Thus, Fred can use this procedure to end the tenancy with the Barking Mad.
2

Unit 6: In this case study, Jim who runs a Gym in the leased property has paid all the rent
instalments on time. Further, it has been found that he is residing at the place from past 15 years.
The reliable tenant is further not observed to create any damage to the property. In this context,
it is challenging for the owner to terminate the tenancy. As there is no specific reason of the end
of the tenancy, the estate owner can not use any against the Gym owner. Also, 15 years of fixed-
term tenancy is a long period. In the country, there are greater rights for the tenants that have
moved in between 15 January 1989 and 27 February 1997 (Housing and Local services, 2017).
However, the owner can make legal relations with the Jim. A case relevant to the agreement by
legal relation can be accessed by the summary provided below:
[Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328 Case summary]
A structured procedure is required in this case to end the protected tenancy. These steps
are as follows:
 The owner is required to provide a reason for the end of the tenancy. Here, Fred should
render cause for the termination such as backing for development purposes, occupying
for himself, etc. (Henderson, 2015).
 After stating the appropriate termination cause. Fred is supposed to give a notice period
to the Jim.
 In the present case, the tenant was living for 15 years hence, a 12 weeks notice period is
needed under section 25 of the landlord and the tenants, 1954 act.
 There are some elements which should be mentioned in the termination clause such as
end date of the lease, etc.
 Termination is required with the security of the tenure. For this, the estate owner is
supposed to provide a same sized area to the Jim (Southworth and Manning, 2017).
 The deposited sum under the tenancy deposit protection scheme, must be return to the the
Jim within 10 days of the termination as there was no damaged observed in the property.
Hence, this is the procedure that can be carried by the Fred to end the protected tenancy
with the Gym owner, Jim.
3

(B): Rights of tenants against Fred.
Unit 2: In this case, Barking Mad has not paid the rent on time. Further, it is found that he had
damaged the property. In addition to this, he has not provided access to the Fred when he wished
to see the disrepairs. In this case, there is no legal action that Barking Mad can use against the
estate owner. It may however be recognised that the quarter renting structure has been
mentioned in the case thus, he is supposed to give a notice before three months of the
termination of the lease. Also, according to the landlords and tenants law, 1954, Fred is required
to provide Barking Mad with detailed information prior to the end of tenancy (Dowden, 2015).
However, it should also be considered that the tenant had damaged the property and due to
which, the landlord has complete right to end the tenancy immediately. In this way, there are no
any further legal actions that can be taken by the tenant.
Unit 6: There are numerous legal rights that can be taken by the Jim in this case. The tenant is
innocent, a reliant person who had paid all the rents on time, has not harmed the property and do
not denies Fred to access the place. Also, it is must to be know that he has been living from last
15 years. In this way, there are many legal obligations that Jim can make use of against the estate
industry owner. Below are some rights reserved by the Jim:
 He is eligible to remain in occupation at the end of the contractual term of the lease.
 He has the right to apply to court for the grant of a new lease.
 Under section 25 of the Landlords and the tenants act, 1954, Jim hold the right that the
termination date should be due after the end of the lease and six months from the date of
giving the notice (Housing and Local services, 2017).
 Jim further holds the right to be informed of the terms on which the landlord has
prepared to grant the renewal lease .
 By making use of section 26 of the 1954 act, Jim is eligible to request a new tenancy
upon the termination of the old one.
(C): Advices to Fred in reference to unit 6 to redevelopment the property and occupy for
himself.
The unit 6 case is associated with a tenant who is paying for last 15 years without any
gap and irregularity. In this way, there are some duties of the owner of the estate before ending
the protected tenancy. It may however be recognised that Fred is providing Jim with another unit
of similar size located on the outskirts of Birmingham as per the section 30(1) under the
4

Landlord and the tenant act, 1954. The offer is due to the fact that Fred is willing to redevelop
the property that is leased to Him for running his business. Since the new location is at the
outskirts of the city which will influence the Gym owner to not accept the offer as this lease will
decrease its' customers (Rydin, 2013). Thus, in this order Fred is required to take some legal
advices that can help him in insisting the tenant. Fred is required to give a prior notice before 30
days under the Section 25 of the act of 1954. Relevant case study from where the data can be
gathered:
[Harvey v Pratt [1965] 1 WLR 1025 Case summary] This notice period will help the tenants by
rendering effetive time period to take appropriate decision, such as to either continue with the
same owner or to change it.
Also, under the Regulatory Reform, 2004, it is mandatory for him to prove the intention
to redevelop. It has been observed that there are several cases in which, the owners lied about
the redevelopment for the sake of terminating the tenancy. As per the decision of court of appeal
in [Hough -v- Greathall Limited, 2015 Case Summary], Fred is required to prove the intention of
redevelop. For this, the owner can present the documents of the new business encompassing its
needs and the due date of commencement. Similarly, these intentions are to be proved at the
date of hearing, not after that. The further information can be accessed through the relevant case,
which is : [Betty’s Cafés Limited v Phillips Furniture Stores Limited [1959] AC 20]. Hence, Fred
is suggested to present in court with proper documents and proofs for the redevelopment.
Further, as there is exclusive possesion then Fred is adviced to use this tool. A relevant case can
be accessed through the following:
[Shell-Mex and BP Ltd v Manchester Garages Ltd [1971] 1 All ER 841 Case summary]
Besides this, Jim is living from last 15 years and have good relationship with the owner.
So the present case can also be solved using the mutual agreements by considering the issue of
both. A relevant case study is : [Jones v Padavatton [1969] 1 WLR 328 Case summary] This
technique is beneficial for both, landlord and tenant as it will help in putting their own desires
from the decision. Further, mutual agreement will consider the isuues of both the parties for
implementing appropriate solution.
5

Question 2:
Difference between Unit 2 Milbanke Court, Milbanke Way, Bracknell and Grantley House, Park
Lane, Cranford, Middlesex leases. Unit 2 Milbanke Court, Milbanke Way, Bracknell: There is no security of tenure in
Milbanke Court lease. This lease is contracted outside the Landlord and the tenant act,
1954. Under this type of lasing, landlords are also supposed to obtain court order before
wanting the premises to be vacant. As this falls outside the act, it has affected so many
business tenants by resisting renewal of the tenancy (The landlord law blog, 2017). This
lease promotes the overall control of the tenancy on the landlord. Also, the tenant were
not previously involved in the end of tenancy process which was later arranged by the
court. However, it should be noted that later too a notice was included in the process of
termination of the tenancy. Further, from 2004 the courts are no longer involved with this
type of leasing.
 Grantley House, Park Lane, Cranford, Middlesex leases: This lease is contracted inside
the Landlords and tenant act, 1954. This type of rental is used by landlords engaging in
commercial lease in England Wales. Under this, the right of security of tenure is
provided to the tenants when the tenancy comes to an end. However, landlords can
oppose the provision of renewal of the lease for particular reasons such as: rents not
cleared, redevelopment of the property for own use, etc. Further, there is one more
advantage of this lease which is in case if a tenant observes that the premises are over-
rented then he/she can take initiative against that (Rydin, 2013). Besides this, if is has
been found that the landlord is making false claim of redevelopment then the tenants can
make use of section 25 against the owner. Under this, landlord is required to prove the
intention of redevelopment on the date of hearing of court.
Some major differences among them are as follows:
Features Milbanke Court Grantley House
Leasing Leasing is done outside the
Landlords and the Tenants act,
1954
Leasing is done inside the
Landlords and the Tenants act,
1954
6

Negotiation. In this case, the tenant does
not keep any right on the
renewal of the lease as it is
signed outside the landlord and
the tenant act, 1954.
Lease can be continued event
after the end of the contractual
term until and unless landlord
serves Section 25 notice
followed by Section 26 notice
from tenant requesting for new
tenancy.
Security of tenure Low or No High
CONCLUSION
Commercial practices are essentially required to be followed by the people associated in
the relevant business. These activities helps in proceeding the organisations legally and in
appropriate manner. In the present report, two different case scenarios were involved and
evaluated. The rights of both the tenants and the landlords in these cases are discussed along
with suitable statute and case laws. Besides this, the procedures of ending a protected tenancy in
both the scenarios has been discussed in this study. The legal advices to the landlord are also
provided that can assist while ending the tenancy. Moreover, difference between Grantley
House, Park Lane, Cranford, Middlesex and Unit 2 Milbanke Court, Milbanke Way, Bracknell
leases is described in the report so that appropriate among them can be chosen.
7

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Dowden, M. J., 2015. Landlord and Tenant Act 1954: time for a change? Landlord and tenant
update. Journal of Property Investment & Finance. 33(1). pp.107-112.
Furber, J., Sullivan, C. and King, V., 2017. Considering the ‘all too familiar’: The Landlord and
Tenant Act 1954:‘Substantial work of construction’and the role of the building
surveyor. Journal of Building Survey, Appraisal & Valuation. 6(2). pp.106-111.
Janda, K. B. and et. al., 2016. The evolution of green leases: towards inter-organizational
environmental governance. Building Research & Information. 44(5-6). pp.660-674.
Janda, K. B., 2014. Building communities and social potential: between and beyond
organizations and individuals in commercial properties. Energy Policy. 67. pp.48-55.
Rydin, Y., 2013. Using actor–network theory to understand planning practice: exploring
relationships between actants in regulating low-carbon commercial
development. Planning Theory. 12(1). pp.23-45.
Henderson, C., 2015. Beyond the Great Depression: Business Practices and the Barbados Revolt
of 1937. Journal of Caribbean History. 49(1). pp.78-113.
Southworth, J. and Manning, C., 2017. Does recent government guidance clarify the uncertainty
around the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES) Regulations?. Journal of
Building Survey, Appraisal & Valuation. 6(2). pp.136-141.
Online
Housing and Local services, 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<https://www.gov.uk/browse/housing-local-services>. [Accessed on 13the October,
2017].
The landlord law blog, 2017. [Online]. Available through:
<http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2012/03/07/what-rights-do-long-term-tenants-have/
>. [Accessed on 13the October, 2017].
8

9