Menu
A-Landlord
London N1 - 104 Islington High Street
23/May/2014
I have acted for the landlord of 104 Islington High Street, a Grade II listed building next door to Frederick's restaurant, since about 1987. At that time the ground floor shop and basement was let to an antiques dealer. Later, the lease was assigned to a silversmith, and thereafter to an interior furnishing shop.
In 2013, the tenant wanted to assign the residue of the term so the lease was surrendered and a new lease granted simultaneously. The new tenant has completely renovated the ground floor and premises for use as a bridal retreat and beauty spa. In August 2013, my Client invited me to become a trustee for the freeholder. I accepted and continue to act as property adviser on tenancy matters arising.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2013, the tenant wanted to assign the residue of the term so the lease was surrendered and a new lease granted simultaneously. The new tenant has completely renovated the ground floor and premises for use as a bridal retreat and beauty spa. In August 2013, my Client invited me to become a trustee for the freeholder. I accepted and continue to act as property adviser on tenancy matters arising.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
London E13 - 384 Green Street
01/Jan/2014
In 1988, the freehold of 384 Green Street, Upton Park, London E13 was bought at auction on sale-and-leaseback to Boots for a term of 25 years with 5 yearly rent reviews. .
In a corner position, at the junction with Harold Road, and close to Upton Park Station, the property is a ground floor shop with ancillary space on two floors above. It has on-site parking for 1-2 vehicles in its own yard. The trading position is amongst the finest, with Peacocks, Iceland and Tesco Metro a few doors along in the same parade.
Acting for the Landlord. I negotiate rent reviews, lease renewal and advise on matters arising.
For the first ten years, difficulty in finding hard evidence because of a paucity of new lettings meant that the rent did not increase by much. Referring the 2008 review to arbitration was the first time since 1988 that the rent had been assessed objectively and the award increased the rent by approximately 30% There are 4 advertising panels on the return frontage for which at previous reviews the tenant had resisted paying. This time, I got £250 a year. For that 2008 review, the tenant's surveyor was of the opinion the rent should not increase and cited evidence of 2005 reviews at Zone A £38.75 in the same parade. I disagreed with that as evidence, because it involved large stores which, in my experienced, are normally valued overall, rather than in zones. The reasoned award was Zone A £50
The contractual term expired in 2013 and I am dealing with negotiations for renewal of the lease to Boots. A substantial increase has been agreed in principle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In a corner position, at the junction with Harold Road, and close to Upton Park Station, the property is a ground floor shop with ancillary space on two floors above. It has on-site parking for 1-2 vehicles in its own yard. The trading position is amongst the finest, with Peacocks, Iceland and Tesco Metro a few doors along in the same parade.
Acting for the Landlord. I negotiate rent reviews, lease renewal and advise on matters arising.
For the first ten years, difficulty in finding hard evidence because of a paucity of new lettings meant that the rent did not increase by much. Referring the 2008 review to arbitration was the first time since 1988 that the rent had been assessed objectively and the award increased the rent by approximately 30% There are 4 advertising panels on the return frontage for which at previous reviews the tenant had resisted paying. This time, I got £250 a year. For that 2008 review, the tenant's surveyor was of the opinion the rent should not increase and cited evidence of 2005 reviews at Zone A £38.75 in the same parade. I disagreed with that as evidence, because it involved large stores which, in my experienced, are normally valued overall, rather than in zones. The reasoned award was Zone A £50
The contractual term expired in 2013 and I am dealing with negotiations for renewal of the lease to Boots. A substantial increase has been agreed in principle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenford - 30 and 32 The Broadway
01/Jan/2014
For the landlord of 30 and 32 The Broadway, Greenford, I provide rent review and lease advice and handle matters arising.
No. 30 - In 2001, I negotiated restructuring of the lease to Oxfam so that the flat above was surrendered to the landlord. In 2006, Oxfam decided not to renew its lease on expiry so I handled the dilapidations claim and arranged new letting of the shop to UK Pet Centres. The rent devalues to approximately £44.75 Zone A which is one of if not the highest rent in this part of the parade. The rent was reviewed in 2012 to Zone A £59.51. The lease was subsequently assigned to DTW Associates trading as Cash & Cheque Express.
No. 32 - The entire property (shop and flat) was let to O & H Properties Ltd which in turn had sub-let the flat and shop separately. In 2007, I advised on the dilapidations claim, requiring the Lessee to carry out major repairs to the structure. Also, I negotiated renewal of the tenancy of the shop and which is now let on lease outside the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. For 2014, negotiations are underway to regularise a change in the tenant's occupancy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 30 - In 2001, I negotiated restructuring of the lease to Oxfam so that the flat above was surrendered to the landlord. In 2006, Oxfam decided not to renew its lease on expiry so I handled the dilapidations claim and arranged new letting of the shop to UK Pet Centres. The rent devalues to approximately £44.75 Zone A which is one of if not the highest rent in this part of the parade. The rent was reviewed in 2012 to Zone A £59.51. The lease was subsequently assigned to DTW Associates trading as Cash & Cheque Express.
No. 32 - The entire property (shop and flat) was let to O & H Properties Ltd which in turn had sub-let the flat and shop separately. In 2007, I advised on the dilapidations claim, requiring the Lessee to carry out major repairs to the structure. Also, I negotiated renewal of the tenancy of the shop and which is now let on lease outside the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. For 2014, negotiations are underway to regularise a change in the tenant's occupancy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
London N1 - 15 Hoxton Market
01/Sep/2013
I have acted for the Landlord of 15 Hoxton Market, London N1 since the late 1980s when the building was occupied by a carpet wholesaler. After the client died, I carried out the valuation for probate including negotiation with the District Valuer. I continue to act for the beneficiaries of the estate, When the property became vacant, the upper floors were converted into residential flats and in 1999 I let the ground floor and basement to The Real Greek restaurant, whose celebrity chef at the time was Theodore Kyriakou.
The tenant company was sold to another restaurant group and, in 2013, the lease was assigned to Meatailer Ltd. I have dealt with the rent reviews and advised on the assignment. I continue to act as Managing Agent for the Landlord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The tenant company was sold to another restaurant group and, in 2013, the lease was assigned to Meatailer Ltd. I have dealt with the rent reviews and advised on the assignment. I continue to act as Managing Agent for the Landlord.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Polegate - 59-61 High Street
25/Dec/2011
In 2007, 59-61 High Street, Polegate, East Sussex was bought at auction on sale-and-leaseback to Barclays Bank. Acting for the Landlord, I dealt with the 2011 rent review which was agreed at circa 7% increase.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ilford - 314 Ilford Lane
29/Sep/2011
At 314 Ilford Lane, Ilford, I have acted for the landlord, a private investor, since 1984.
I negotiate rent reviews and lease renewals and provide lease advice for matters arising. Over the years the rent has tripled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I negotiate rent reviews and lease renewals and provide lease advice for matters arising. Over the years the rent has tripled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
London N1 - 315 & 316 Upper Street
29/Sep/2011
At 315 and 316 Upper Street, Islington, London N1, I act for the landlord and negotiate rent reviews and provide lease advice on matters arising.
Other properties I have dealt with in Islington include 1A Florence Street, 274 and 275 Upper Street, and 104 Islington High Street.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Other properties I have dealt with in Islington include 1A Florence Street, 274 and 275 Upper Street, and 104 Islington High Street.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Surbiton
26/Sep/2008
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
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
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
London SE18 - 71-77 Powis Street -
01/Jan/1995
71-77 Powis Street, Woolwich, London SE18 comprises a 52,000 sqft store occupied by New Look.
I act for the superior Landlord, owner of the freehold of the front section of the property, ground leaseholder of the back section and leaseholder for 99 years of the middle section. The middle section is built on a raft over the railway tracks and the rent is a percentage of the entire property. My Client leases the entire property to Powis Street Estates which in turns sub-lets to New Look.
The 99-year lease has rent reviews every 21 years and the underlease between my Client and Powis Street Estates also contains reviews at 21 year intervals. For the 1995 review, when the store was let to Littlewoods, the review was referred to arbitration, the arbitrator was a senior partner of Jones Lang LaSalle. Littlewoods was represented by a partner of Healey & Baker (now Cushman & Wakefield). In our respective submissions, we considered rents of stores throughout Greater London. The Award was almost the same rent as I had originally proposed. For the 99-year lease review, where my landlord-Client is the tenant, other issues were involved reflecting differences in the leases. To minimise the proposed increase in rent, I researched the development history of the building including obtaining copy documents from the solicitors that had acted for the original landlord in 1974. During the negotiations, legal proceedings were initiated against the superior landlord’s surveyor for breach of warranty of authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I act for the superior Landlord, owner of the freehold of the front section of the property, ground leaseholder of the back section and leaseholder for 99 years of the middle section. The middle section is built on a raft over the railway tracks and the rent is a percentage of the entire property. My Client leases the entire property to Powis Street Estates which in turns sub-lets to New Look.
The 99-year lease has rent reviews every 21 years and the underlease between my Client and Powis Street Estates also contains reviews at 21 year intervals. For the 1995 review, when the store was let to Littlewoods, the review was referred to arbitration, the arbitrator was a senior partner of Jones Lang LaSalle. Littlewoods was represented by a partner of Healey & Baker (now Cushman & Wakefield). In our respective submissions, we considered rents of stores throughout Greater London. The Award was almost the same rent as I had originally proposed. For the 99-year lease review, where my landlord-Client is the tenant, other issues were involved reflecting differences in the leases. To minimise the proposed increase in rent, I researched the development history of the building including obtaining copy documents from the solicitors that had acted for the original landlord in 1974. During the negotiations, legal proceedings were initiated against the superior landlord’s surveyor for breach of warranty of authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------