Menu
Bury St Edmunds - saving £87,000 pa
01/Jan/2009 - A-Tenant - Bury St Edmunds
Acting for a successful retailer in East Anglia, the premises are on an under-lease from Homebase Ltd. Like many large companies, Homebase has a residual estate: numerous properties that it used to occupy, but which have long since been conveyed to others. (Around the time of my involvement, according to April 2009 accounts, in the public domain, the parent company of Homebase, Home Retail Group plc, made £117.3M provision for onerous lease charges.) In this case, Homebase wanted to assign its lease with an indemnity for the remainder of the term for a difference in repairing covenants, so my Client would be no worse off.
Terms were agreed in principle. At the onset, I said I should not recommend my Client instruct solicitors until the freeholder’s consent had been obtained. The head-lease contains a surrender-back clause, also I did not want my Client to incur costs unnecessarily. Homebase applied for licence to assign, a draft was submitted by the freeholder’s solicitors, and I was told by the surveyor acting for Homebase consent had been given. However, what was not disclosed until much later on was that the freeholder had not actually given consent, because it was still awaiting reply to its enquiries about my Client’s accounts. [Whether the freeholder’s solicitors, in having issued a draft licence, was enough to deem consent was never resolved: that would’ve meant applying to court for a declaration, which Homebase would do provided contracts to assign were first exchanged, (on condition if the application failed then the transaction would abort)]
As the conveyancing progressed, I started thinking further ahead. Even if the freeholder were shown to be unreasonably withholding consent, I felt my Client would be off to a bad start if the landlord were ordered to consent against its will. No matter the impersonality of business tenancy law, the human aspect in the ongoing relationship between landlord and tenant is important. Then there was the question of personal surety. The underlessee has no surety, which would mean, on expiry of the head-lease when Homebase’s interest ends, and the under-lease is renewed direct with the freeholder, there would be no need for surety in future. (The under-lease is inside the 1954 Act so has renewal rights.) In the head-lease, the freeholder can require personal surety for a limited company assignee. My Client offered an associate company, but not a personal surety. Had the matter gone to court, it is possible the court would have ordered a personal surety with any licence to be granted, which would mean my Client would have been worse off.
The difference in repairing covenant could also cause problems. The under-lease contains a schedule of condition, whereas the head-lease is full repairing. The cost of the difference is estimated at £100,000, at least. I got Homebase to agree to extend the indemnity beyond expiry of the term into any holding-over period, but that benefit would only have practical effect if the freeholder were to serve a schedule of dilapidations whilst Homebase were around. There would be nothing to stop the freeholder waiting until Homebase were out of the picture before serving it on my Client. Similarly, if my Client did not want to renew, then its terminal obligation would be limited. Also, by taking on the head-lease, the under-lease could have been extinguished, losing the benefit in having the schedule of condition continue on renewal of the lease direct with the freeholder.
I concluded the risks outweighed the benefits, so I recommended withdrawing from the transaction.
I have agreed the 2003 and 2009 rent reviews at nil increase, a saving of about £87,000 pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms were agreed in principle. At the onset, I said I should not recommend my Client instruct solicitors until the freeholder’s consent had been obtained. The head-lease contains a surrender-back clause, also I did not want my Client to incur costs unnecessarily. Homebase applied for licence to assign, a draft was submitted by the freeholder’s solicitors, and I was told by the surveyor acting for Homebase consent had been given. However, what was not disclosed until much later on was that the freeholder had not actually given consent, because it was still awaiting reply to its enquiries about my Client’s accounts. [Whether the freeholder’s solicitors, in having issued a draft licence, was enough to deem consent was never resolved: that would’ve meant applying to court for a declaration, which Homebase would do provided contracts to assign were first exchanged, (on condition if the application failed then the transaction would abort)]
As the conveyancing progressed, I started thinking further ahead. Even if the freeholder were shown to be unreasonably withholding consent, I felt my Client would be off to a bad start if the landlord were ordered to consent against its will. No matter the impersonality of business tenancy law, the human aspect in the ongoing relationship between landlord and tenant is important. Then there was the question of personal surety. The underlessee has no surety, which would mean, on expiry of the head-lease when Homebase’s interest ends, and the under-lease is renewed direct with the freeholder, there would be no need for surety in future. (The under-lease is inside the 1954 Act so has renewal rights.) In the head-lease, the freeholder can require personal surety for a limited company assignee. My Client offered an associate company, but not a personal surety. Had the matter gone to court, it is possible the court would have ordered a personal surety with any licence to be granted, which would mean my Client would have been worse off.
The difference in repairing covenant could also cause problems. The under-lease contains a schedule of condition, whereas the head-lease is full repairing. The cost of the difference is estimated at £100,000, at least. I got Homebase to agree to extend the indemnity beyond expiry of the term into any holding-over period, but that benefit would only have practical effect if the freeholder were to serve a schedule of dilapidations whilst Homebase were around. There would be nothing to stop the freeholder waiting until Homebase were out of the picture before serving it on my Client. Similarly, if my Client did not want to renew, then its terminal obligation would be limited. Also, by taking on the head-lease, the under-lease could have been extinguished, losing the benefit in having the schedule of condition continue on renewal of the lease direct with the freeholder.
I concluded the risks outweighed the benefits, so I recommended withdrawing from the transaction.
I have agreed the 2003 and 2009 rent reviews at nil increase, a saving of about £87,000 pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------------