Rent Review
RICS dispute resolution fee
25/Feb/2011 12:45
RICS dispute resolution application fee
With effect from 4 January 2011, the application fee payable to the RICS is £369.00 (inclusive of VAT at 20%)
Previously:
2000 April - £275 inclusive of VAT
2002 August - £300 inclusive of VAT
2006 June - £320 inclusive of VAT
2008 April - £340.00 inclusive VAT
2009 April 15 - £333 inclusive of VAT (15%)
2009 June 15 - £353 inclusive of VAT
2010 to 3 January 2011 - £361.00 inclusive of VAT (17.5%)
2011 January 4 - £369 inclusive of VAT (20%)
With effect from 4 January 2011, the application fee payable to the RICS is £369.00 (inclusive of VAT at 20%)
Previously:
2000 April - £275 inclusive of VAT
2002 August - £300 inclusive of VAT
2006 June - £320 inclusive of VAT
2008 April - £340.00 inclusive VAT
2009 April 15 - £333 inclusive of VAT (15%)
2009 June 15 - £353 inclusive of VAT
2010 to 3 January 2011 - £361.00 inclusive of VAT (17.5%)
2011 January 4 - £369 inclusive of VAT (20%)
Expert Witness Lip service
25/Feb/2011 12:45
I have become so fed up with chartered surveyors paying ‘lip service’ to the RICS Practise Statement and guidance Notes for chartered surveyors acting as expert witness at rent review but ignoring the substantive provisions that I am going to make formal complaints to the President of the RICS.
In one case recently, the tenant’s expert witness surveyor, apparently on the RICS panel, failed to disclose that he and his firm are retained advisers for the tenant. The expert witness opinion was partisan and when challenged he said he was not answerable to me. Fair enough, but he is answerable to the RICS and being on RICS panel for dispute resolution appointed surveyors has a duty to set a good example.
In another matter at present, where I’m acting for the tenant, the landlord’s surveyor now acting as expert witness, quite apart from describing his report as a submission, thereby confirming ignorance of terminology, is basically arguing the matter as if an advocate.
In one case recently, the tenant’s expert witness surveyor, apparently on the RICS panel, failed to disclose that he and his firm are retained advisers for the tenant. The expert witness opinion was partisan and when challenged he said he was not answerable to me. Fair enough, but he is answerable to the RICS and being on RICS panel for dispute resolution appointed surveyors has a duty to set a good example.
In another matter at present, where I’m acting for the tenant, the landlord’s surveyor now acting as expert witness, quite apart from describing his report as a submission, thereby confirming ignorance of terminology, is basically arguing the matter as if an advocate.
Dispute resolution costs and fees
27/Oct/2009 09:18
Dispute resolution costs and fees
In my opinion, and I'm not alone, the fees required and charged by surveyors appointed by the RICS to act as arbitrators or independent experts are often out of touch with reality and, in many instances, obscene.
For example, I am dealing with two matters at present, for different clients, where the rents are likely to end up at around £14,500 pa. In each case, the independent expert wants to charge around £250-£300 an hour, with a minimum fee of £3500 + disbursements and VAT. Now if the agency side of the firms of which those experts are partners were instructed to let the property then chances are the commission would be 10% of the first year's rent (ignoring any rent-free) subject to a minimum commission of £2000 plus VAT.
In another case, the appointed independent expert's hourly rate is £200 an hour + disbursements and VAT. Okay, maybe that's par for the course (or at least it used to be), but the surveyor has run up a bill of almost £1000 + VAT, etc just on dealing with preliminary communications. Also, at a different office of same company, where another person has been appointed, the charge is (only) £175 an hour which, considering it's the same administrative structure, suggests to me some sort of target approach to revenue.
I don't know where such people think the money comes from to pay their fees but frankly if that's the way they carry on then it's hardly surprising so many surveyors are experiencing financial difficulties and having to lay off staff, etc.
It's always been the case that where the parties have no choice the adviser will charge as much as they possibly can. You get that with legal costs and surveyor's fees in connection with tenant applications for licences to assign, sub-let, do alterations, and with schedules of dilapidations. I think the same principle is being applied at review referrals. Once appointed, the surveyor has a general duty to proceed and although that can be stopped by agreement what the parties have little or no control over is how much the surveyor will charge.
Personally, and I've said this all along, I think there should be a fixed fee, possibly on a sliding scale according to the level of passing rent, (with adjustment if the passing rent is a ground rent, for example), for independent expert determinations and arbitrator awards at rent review. The old argument it's impossible to know what will be involved doesn't hold water. When I take on a rent review for a client, I don't have the luxury of being able to charge whatever I like: I quote a fee at the start and no matter how long the job takes or what's involved, I stick to what has been agreed and no more.
An open-ended 'blank cheque' approach exposes both landlord and tenant to the risk of having to pay a disproportionate amount to a third party, which let's face it, particularly with an independent expert, expects most of the job done for them.
The advantage of a fixed fee is that you know where you are the start. You can tell the client it would cost 'x' to go to referral and that would be it. At present, I can only estimate and having to say that the total costs could be in the region of £3000-£5000 + VAT, etc is a really frightening figure for most people, even if their share would only amount to half of that.
Under the existing system whereby surveyors can charge whatever they like, I think landlords and tenants are being taken for a ride.
PS - I am in the process of setting up a low cost dispute resolution service where, for example, I am likely to charge in the region of £1750 + VAT for expert determination and maybe the same for arbitration. The full fee would, of course, not be payable in the event the matter were settled beforehand.
In my opinion, and I'm not alone, the fees required and charged by surveyors appointed by the RICS to act as arbitrators or independent experts are often out of touch with reality and, in many instances, obscene.
For example, I am dealing with two matters at present, for different clients, where the rents are likely to end up at around £14,500 pa. In each case, the independent expert wants to charge around £250-£300 an hour, with a minimum fee of £3500 + disbursements and VAT. Now if the agency side of the firms of which those experts are partners were instructed to let the property then chances are the commission would be 10% of the first year's rent (ignoring any rent-free) subject to a minimum commission of £2000 plus VAT.
In another case, the appointed independent expert's hourly rate is £200 an hour + disbursements and VAT. Okay, maybe that's par for the course (or at least it used to be), but the surveyor has run up a bill of almost £1000 + VAT, etc just on dealing with preliminary communications. Also, at a different office of same company, where another person has been appointed, the charge is (only) £175 an hour which, considering it's the same administrative structure, suggests to me some sort of target approach to revenue.
I don't know where such people think the money comes from to pay their fees but frankly if that's the way they carry on then it's hardly surprising so many surveyors are experiencing financial difficulties and having to lay off staff, etc.
It's always been the case that where the parties have no choice the adviser will charge as much as they possibly can. You get that with legal costs and surveyor's fees in connection with tenant applications for licences to assign, sub-let, do alterations, and with schedules of dilapidations. I think the same principle is being applied at review referrals. Once appointed, the surveyor has a general duty to proceed and although that can be stopped by agreement what the parties have little or no control over is how much the surveyor will charge.
Personally, and I've said this all along, I think there should be a fixed fee, possibly on a sliding scale according to the level of passing rent, (with adjustment if the passing rent is a ground rent, for example), for independent expert determinations and arbitrator awards at rent review. The old argument it's impossible to know what will be involved doesn't hold water. When I take on a rent review for a client, I don't have the luxury of being able to charge whatever I like: I quote a fee at the start and no matter how long the job takes or what's involved, I stick to what has been agreed and no more.
An open-ended 'blank cheque' approach exposes both landlord and tenant to the risk of having to pay a disproportionate amount to a third party, which let's face it, particularly with an independent expert, expects most of the job done for them.
The advantage of a fixed fee is that you know where you are the start. You can tell the client it would cost 'x' to go to referral and that would be it. At present, I can only estimate and having to say that the total costs could be in the region of £3000-£5000 + VAT, etc is a really frightening figure for most people, even if their share would only amount to half of that.
Under the existing system whereby surveyors can charge whatever they like, I think landlords and tenants are being taken for a ride.
PS - I am in the process of setting up a low cost dispute resolution service where, for example, I am likely to charge in the region of £1750 + VAT for expert determination and maybe the same for arbitration. The full fee would, of course, not be payable in the event the matter were settled beforehand.
Take-away food shops - planning restrictions
26/Oct/2009 15:35
Take-away food shops planning restrictions
LB Waltham Forest has introduced a policy, likely to be copied by other planning authorities, of not allowing take-away food shops to open within 400 metres of schools, parks and youth centres. Also, the North East London planning authority has begun consulting on a suite of development control policies which would restrict the number of fast-food outlets within primary, secondary and retail parade zones.
Until the 400-mere rule becomes a nationally-adopted planning policy, the point would only arise within LB Waltham Forest. In the meantime, to prepare for the possibility:
At rent review in the lease of premises whereby the permitted user is take-away foods - Use Class A5 is hot food takeaway, and possibly A3 - an assumption of the hypothetical tenant being able to get planning permission for such use is normal. If the premises are within 400 metres of a school, park and youth-centre, then in the open market the assumption would fail in practice. That could have the effect of either increasing the market rent, on the basis that if the premises did not already have take-away use then it would not be allowed, in which case there is a scarcity value, or reducing the market rent on the basis that in the market such planning use would not be allowed.
At lease expiry, if the tenant requires a lower rent or it will not renew, the landlord will have to weigh up the consequences of conceding a lower rent against the risk not being able to re-let the premises for take-away use if the planning permission for such use were to elapse.
There are thousands of take-away food shops. As literal interpretation of the lease has given way to presumption in favour of reality, checking the distance to the nearest school, park and youth-centre will be necessary when evaluating the rent.
LB Waltham Forest has introduced a policy, likely to be copied by other planning authorities, of not allowing take-away food shops to open within 400 metres of schools, parks and youth centres. Also, the North East London planning authority has begun consulting on a suite of development control policies which would restrict the number of fast-food outlets within primary, secondary and retail parade zones.
Until the 400-mere rule becomes a nationally-adopted planning policy, the point would only arise within LB Waltham Forest. In the meantime, to prepare for the possibility:
At rent review in the lease of premises whereby the permitted user is take-away foods - Use Class A5 is hot food takeaway, and possibly A3 - an assumption of the hypothetical tenant being able to get planning permission for such use is normal. If the premises are within 400 metres of a school, park and youth-centre, then in the open market the assumption would fail in practice. That could have the effect of either increasing the market rent, on the basis that if the premises did not already have take-away use then it would not be allowed, in which case there is a scarcity value, or reducing the market rent on the basis that in the market such planning use would not be allowed.
At lease expiry, if the tenant requires a lower rent or it will not renew, the landlord will have to weigh up the consequences of conceding a lower rent against the risk not being able to re-let the premises for take-away use if the planning permission for such use were to elapse.
There are thousands of take-away food shops. As literal interpretation of the lease has given way to presumption in favour of reality, checking the distance to the nearest school, park and youth-centre will be necessary when evaluating the rent.
Rent Review - upward or downward
26/Oct/2009 15:33
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 landlord, for whom I have acted for years, I recently 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 landlord, for whom I have acted for years, I recently 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.
Monthly Rents
01/Sep/2009 15:36
Monthly Rents
Although retailers in trouble are managing to persuade landlords to accept rents paid monthly, a growing number of retailers that are not in any difficulty are expecting the same treatment.
Some landlords can afford to be accommodating, but many cannot. Landlords that themselves are borrowing money are likely to be paying their interest quarterly, so accepting rents monthly from the tenant will mean the landlord subsidising the tenant.
In any event, such an arrangement, where it is a departure from the terms and conditions of the lease, should only be temporary, and subject to notice to end the arrangement if the landlord should so desire. Landlords should also put the agreement in writing, in a side-letter with the lease, setting out clearly the terms and conditions of the arrangement.
To avoid problems should the landlord want to sell the investment, the arrangement should be personal to the tenant and landlord and non-transferable.
In my opinion, the investment value of a property where the tenant is being allowed to pay monthly could well be lower than where payments are quarterly.
Although retailers in trouble are managing to persuade landlords to accept rents paid monthly, a growing number of retailers that are not in any difficulty are expecting the same treatment.
Some landlords can afford to be accommodating, but many cannot. Landlords that themselves are borrowing money are likely to be paying their interest quarterly, so accepting rents monthly from the tenant will mean the landlord subsidising the tenant.
In any event, such an arrangement, where it is a departure from the terms and conditions of the lease, should only be temporary, and subject to notice to end the arrangement if the landlord should so desire. Landlords should also put the agreement in writing, in a side-letter with the lease, setting out clearly the terms and conditions of the arrangement.
To avoid problems should the landlord want to sell the investment, the arrangement should be personal to the tenant and landlord and non-transferable.
In my opinion, the investment value of a property where the tenant is being allowed to pay monthly could well be lower than where payments are quarterly.
Rent review in the present climate
21/May/2009 18:30
3CPD, a registered charity www.3cpd.co.uk invited me to give a talk about "Rent Review in the Prevailing Climate" on 21 May 2009 at the Barcelo Hotel, Oxford. Open to non-members, approximately 30 people attended the event.