Commercial rent arrears recovery (CRAR)

The Commercial Rent Arrears Recovery (CRAR) regime, set out in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA 2007) and related regulations allows landlords of commercial premises where there is a written lease to seize their tenant’s goods to recover rent arrears. It does not apply to residential or mixed-use premises.

CRAR is a 'self help' remedy and does not generally require the involvement of the courts. It is initiated by a landlord's instruction to 'enforcement agents' (bailiffs) to collect the rent or take control of goods. The court retains power to intervene if the tenant applies for an order.

As the use of the CRAR procedure will waive any right to forfeit which exists, the landlord should consider the position carefully before taking such action. Consideration should also be given to whether the tenant is subject

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Property Disputes News

Was the tenant’s intention to return to the property as an owner sufficient to satisfy the ‘tenant condition’ (Hackney London Borough Council v Weintraub)

Local Government analysis: This judgment is another in a string of decisions concerning the interpretation of the tenant condition. The issue in this case was narrower than in previous hearings. Hackney appealed the previous judgment of Mr Justice Zacaroli made in April 2024. Hackney appealed on the basis that an intention to return to the property as an owner cannot satisfy the ‘tenant condition’. The judge in this case disagreed with such an assertion and the appeal was dismissed. There were other elements to the appeal, but those fell by the wayside. The Judge held that the tenancy condition can be satisfied even where the tenant does not intend to return to the premises as a tenant. It was held that there is no suggestion within the legislative provision that a return as a tenant is required. The condition remains satisfied if a tenant intends to return in any capacity, as long as this can be measured and shown against objective ascertained fact. Written by Clive Adams, head of Housing Management at Birketts LLP.

Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—1 November 2024

The minutes of the CPR Committee (CPRC) meeting of 1 November 2024 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference) cover a number of issues including the Law Commission consultation on the law of contempt, Closed Material Procedure, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the outcome of the Workplace Claims consultation and costs budgeting light.

Property Disputes weekly highlights—19 December 2024

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: a Privy Council decision confirming that leases can be terminated for repudiatory breach and Court of Appeal decisions on the ‘tenant condition’, the Tenant Fees Act 2019, and the status of an unregistered landlord for the purposes of the right to manage. It also includes High Court decisions on claims for property damage by an RTM company and for remedial expenditure to prevent damage caused by continuing nuisance, and Upper Tribunal decisions on the calculation of time periods, the evidence required to impose a civil penalty, and the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal to review the rent under an assured tenancy, and publication of the minutes of the Online Procedure Rule Committee.

Tenant Fees Act 2019—check-out challenge fails (Switaj v McClenaghan)

Property Disputes analysis: the Court of Appeal addressed whether tenancy fees can amount to prohibited payments under the Tenant Fees Act 2019 (TFA 2019) even though they were paid prior to the Act taking effect. The tenant sought to defend proceedings for possession by relying upon a tenancy check-out fee which had been charged with the original tenancy in 2018, arguing that the fee held-over to subsequent replacement tenancies and became a prohibited payment post-TFA 2019. The appeal relied by analogy on the position with deposits where a deposit is notionally treated as being repaid upon replacement tenancies (Superstrike v Rodrigues). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision at first instance to distinguish Superstrike. The case helps clarify the status of tenancy fees paid prior to the Act and whether these can amount to prohibited payments post-2019. Written by Kevin Long, solicitor at Hackney Community Law Centre.

View Property Disputes by content type :

News