Thousands may lose out despite leasehold reform
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.BUSINESS groups have broadly welcomed the Government's intentions regarding the law that holds business tenants liable for rent even years after they may have sold leases on. But it will be some time before those affected can rest assured.
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, announced two weeks ago that the law of commercial property would be changed to stop tenants being held liable for rent arrears on future leases, in line with the recommendations of a 1988 Law Commission report, Landlord and Tenant Law: Privity of Contract and Estate.
There are no details yet, but it seems clear that the change will not help the thousands of small businesses responsible for payments due on existing leases. Some of them may benefit, however, from the intention to require landlords to issue claims against former tenants within nine months of the date when payment becomes due.
Judith Vincent, head of company and commercial law at the Confederation of British Industry, said: 'This is a tremendous breakthrough for all those leaseholders who have been severely penalised - and in some cases bankrupted - by being expected to meet the costs of rent, repairs and service charges for property they assigned to subsequent tenants.'
However, John Samson, property partner with Nabarro Nathanson, the solicitors, said the move had done nothing to help thousands of people who were in even worse positions than the one whose case prompted the Law Commission study. In the mid-Eighties a former tenant could take back a delinquent lease and sell it again, but that is not an option in today's depressed market.
He said the Government could have abolished the law retrospectively, or - since that is rarely done - introduced a system of relief for those suffering hardship as a result of the law. He also predicted that landlords would get around the nine-month limit by issuing notices to tenants as soon as any arrears began, regardless of whether they intended to claim against the former leaseholder. As a result, he said, many retired business people could be unnecessarily alarmed.
Indeed, the CBI has called for the nine-month period to be reduced to three months, and for former tenants to be given a number of rights, including early information on the default of the current tenant, immediate possession of the property and exemption from liability for costs of repairs.
Mr Samson added that, by announcing the intention to introduce legislation rather than issuing an immediate order, the Government had prolonged the uncertainty.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments