Rent

Rent

Rent is not required for a tenancy to exist, although it is a strong indicator that the parties intended to create a tenancy. If the other ‘hallmarks’ identified in Street v Mountford are present (ie exclusive possession of defined premises for a term), then a tenancy can exist even if no rent is reserved or payable.

The amount of rent must be ‘certain’. This does not mean that the lease must state the actual figures for the whole of the term, however, there must be a mechanism (usually a rent review clause) allowing the rent throughout the term to be ascertained with certainty.

No particular form of words is required to reserve rent, although the formula ‘yielding and paying during the term’ is widely used.

Commercial rents are usually paid in advance by equal instalments on the quarter days (25 December, 25 March, 24 June and 29 September) or on other dates specified as rent payment days. In the absence of an express agreement that rent is payable in advance, it will be payable in arrears.

Where rent is payable quarterly in advance, the whole

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