Menu
Trowbridge - 39 The Shires
01/Oct/2008 - Trowbridge - A-Tenant
Acting for Special Occasions (Greetings) Ltd, a well-respected greeting cards retailer, I negotiated acquisition of a new lease at 39 The Shires, Trowbridge, for a term of 10 years from October 2008.
Special Occasions was a partnership with 4 shops when I first started acting for the Client. The business later incorporated and over years the company took on another 10 shops, a total of 14 branches net of short while experiences. Carterton, Cheltenham (for a while) Chepstow, Cirencester (for a short while), Fishponds (Bristol), Gloucester, Hereford, Leominster, Monmouth, Roath (Cardiff), Ross on Wye, Stroud, Tewkesbury, Trowbridge, Whiteladies (Bristol( (for a while), Witney, and Yate.
I dealt with rent reviews, lease renewals, and acquisition diligence, and tenancy matters arising, including assignments from the partnership to the company. My services came to an end after the business was sold to Cardzone, another greeting cards multiple retailer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Occasions was a partnership with 4 shops when I first started acting for the Client. The business later incorporated and over years the company took on another 10 shops, a total of 14 branches net of short while experiences. Carterton, Cheltenham (for a while) Chepstow, Cirencester (for a short while), Fishponds (Bristol), Gloucester, Hereford, Leominster, Monmouth, Roath (Cardiff), Ross on Wye, Stroud, Tewkesbury, Trowbridge, Whiteladies (Bristol( (for a while), Witney, and Yate.
I dealt with rent reviews, lease renewals, and acquisition diligence, and tenancy matters arising, including assignments from the partnership to the company. My services came to an end after the business was sold to Cardzone, another greeting cards multiple retailer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Surbiton
26/Sep/2008 - A-Landlord - Surbiton
Upwards or downward rent review
Many tenants, and I should imagine landlords also, probably think that where a rent review is 'upward' or 'downward' so that the rent payable after the review could be less than before, the rent is likely to go down, in the prevailing economic climate.
That may not be so. For a private investor landlord of a shop property in Surbiton, I negotiated a 10% increase in rent for a September 2008 review even though the lease contains a downward provision.
The important thing to remember is that rents are not based on what the actual tenant could afford or the actual landlord might want, but upon comparison. Where the evidence is of rents whose reviews are upward-only, a nil increase (which, as I have said before, is no evidence of a lower rent) does not mean rents have fallen. Also, it is not only another rent (pro-rata) to which a review is compared, but also the terms of the lease. When you make a comparison between an upward only review clause and an upward/downwards clause, it is reasonable to assume a tenant would be attracted by the prospect of a lease containing upward/downward clause and paying a greater rent for the premises than if the review were upward only.
So, if all the evidence is nil increase, which as I've said does not mean the rent has gone down, then in the absence of proof that rents have indeed fallen, the advantage of having an upward/downward review has a value. Which in this case I agreed at 10% more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Many tenants, and I should imagine landlords also, probably think that where a rent review is 'upward' or 'downward' so that the rent payable after the review could be less than before, the rent is likely to go down, in the prevailing economic climate.
That may not be so. For a private investor landlord of a shop property in Surbiton, I negotiated a 10% increase in rent for a September 2008 review even though the lease contains a downward provision.
The important thing to remember is that rents are not based on what the actual tenant could afford or the actual landlord might want, but upon comparison. Where the evidence is of rents whose reviews are upward-only, a nil increase (which, as I have said before, is no evidence of a lower rent) does not mean rents have fallen. Also, it is not only another rent (pro-rata) to which a review is compared, but also the terms of the lease. When you make a comparison between an upward only review clause and an upward/downwards clause, it is reasonable to assume a tenant would be attracted by the prospect of a lease containing upward/downward clause and paying a greater rent for the premises than if the review were upward only.
So, if all the evidence is nil increase, which as I've said does not mean the rent has gone down, then in the absence of proof that rents have indeed fallen, the advantage of having an upward/downward review has a value. Which in this case I agreed at 10% more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wembley - 5 Neeld Parade
20/Feb/2008 - Wembley - A-Landlord
For the freeholder, for whom I have acted since 1978, dealing with rent reviews and leasing matters arising, I arranged sale of the freehold interest in 5 Neeld Parade, Wembley by auction, in conjunction with Barnett Ross, on 20 February 2008 - Lot 28
At the junction with High Road and adjoining William Hill, and approximately 100 yards from the southern approach walkway to the new Wembley Stadium and Wembley Stadium Station, the property is a ground floor shop with first floor rear storage, and self-contained 5KB flat on two floors above.
The shop has A3 use (restaurant/coffee bar).
Gross frontage 20'5"
Net frontage 14'9" widening to 17'2"
Shop depth 55'4"
Built depth 100'11"
Rear storage, approximately 180 sqft
The entire property is let for 20 years from 25 December 1989. The passing rent £14,000 was fixed in 1990 and no action was taken for the 2005 rent review. The lease expires in 2009.
The guide price was £350,000 and the property was sold for £595,000. In addition, the buyer paid my Client approximately £7000 for arrears of rent.
Barnett Ross has 60 years experience, I have 40. Our combined 100 years experience added-up, to quote Barnett Ross's post-auction comment: "2.4% What a price!!! Defies valuation"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
At the junction with High Road and adjoining William Hill, and approximately 100 yards from the southern approach walkway to the new Wembley Stadium and Wembley Stadium Station, the property is a ground floor shop with first floor rear storage, and self-contained 5KB flat on two floors above.
The shop has A3 use (restaurant/coffee bar).
Gross frontage 20'5"
Net frontage 14'9" widening to 17'2"
Shop depth 55'4"
Built depth 100'11"
Rear storage, approximately 180 sqft
The entire property is let for 20 years from 25 December 1989. The passing rent £14,000 was fixed in 1990 and no action was taken for the 2005 rent review. The lease expires in 2009.
The guide price was £350,000 and the property was sold for £595,000. In addition, the buyer paid my Client approximately £7000 for arrears of rent.
Barnett Ross has 60 years experience, I have 40. Our combined 100 years experience added-up, to quote Barnett Ross's post-auction comment: "2.4% What a price!!! Defies valuation"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Pontypridd - Car Park and Bowls Centre
01/Jan/2008 - A-Landlord - Pontypridd
In Pontypridd, South Wales, is a town centre car park and bowls centres operated by the Local Council.
Acting for the Landlord, in connection with a 2008 rent review in a ground lease referred to arbitration. I acted in a supporting role to a chartered surveyor who specialises in car park rents. My role included advice on the effect of a long-lease on the review, interpretation of the user clause, and the valuation of the buildings. I also advised the landlord on the wording of a deed of variation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunstanton - 8-16 High Street
01/Jan/2008 - A-Tenant - Hunstanton
My Client, t/a Warehouse Clearance, bought the lease of 8-16 High Street, Hunstanton - formerly occupied by Woolworths - from the administrator of Woolworths.
Before contracts were exchanged for the acquisition, I advised on the terms and conditions of the existing lease so that my Client would know what it would be letting itself in for. Thereafter, I negotiated the outstanding rent review with the Landlord.
In Hunstanton, I have also advised on:
24 High Street
1 Northgate Precinct
St Edmunds Terrace
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Before contracts were exchanged for the acquisition, I advised on the terms and conditions of the existing lease so that my Client would know what it would be letting itself in for. Thereafter, I negotiated the outstanding rent review with the Landlord.
In Hunstanton, I have also advised on:
24 High Street
1 Northgate Precinct
St Edmunds Terrace
--------------------------------------------------------------------
London SE1 - 62-64 Weston Street
01/Jan/2008 - A-Tenant - London SE1
My Client t/a Champor-Champor is an award-winning modern Malaysian restaurant close to London Bridge Station.
The Landlord owns numerous buildings in the area and the proposal of £34,000 was based on its evidence.
For the 2008 review, the Lease contained a minimum uplift so I was unable to reduce the rent below that figure, but at least I made sure the tenant did not have to pay a penny more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Landlord owns numerous buildings in the area and the proposal of £34,000 was based on its evidence.
For the 2008 review, the Lease contained a minimum uplift so I was unable to reduce the rent below that figure, but at least I made sure the tenant did not have to pay a penny more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------