Menu
Introduction
31/December/2014 - Introduction - LandlordZONE
In 1984, I launched a newsletter, Quarterly Commentary, subsequently renamed Current Review, and now Rent Review Matters. An outlet for my opinions, technical comment and insight, the newsletter Rent Review Matters, and writings elsewhere, provide a mine of useful information, designed to stimulate and inspire.
Since 2012, I've also contributed to LandlordZONE's monthly newsletter and from 2014 as a Guest Writer for its twice-a-month blog. LandlordZONE® ("LZ") is a website community and forum for landlords, tenants and others involved in letting property. To read the articles, please click Landlordzone in the Index here and follow the links.
You will find an Index of keywords and archive years on the left-hand-side of this page and if you'd like to keep in touch via email updates then please click the RSS Feed at the foot of the Index.
I hope you enjoy reading and look forward to helping you in some way.
Michael Lever
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2012, I've also contributed to LandlordZONE's monthly newsletter and from 2014 as a Guest Writer for its twice-a-month blog. LandlordZONE® ("LZ") is a website community and forum for landlords, tenants and others involved in letting property. To read the articles, please click Landlordzone in the Index here and follow the links.
You will find an Index of keywords and archive years on the left-hand-side of this page and if you'd like to keep in touch via email updates then please click the RSS Feed at the foot of the Index.
I hope you enjoy reading and look forward to helping you in some way.
Michael Lever
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's in a word?
As I say on my website, ”anyone can read a lease, but knowing what to look for is what really counts”. Words have meanings, but words attract positive and negative connotations so… For further reading, please visit LandlordZone
How to Appraise a Shop Investment
02/June/2014 - LandlordZONE - Shop Investment - Appraisal - Zone A - ITZA - Trading Position - Reversionary - Rental Growth
The short answer to how to appraise a shop investment is that everything about the proposition is reflected in the level of Zone A rent. For further reading, please visit LandlordZone
Business Tenancy Law
A business tenancy is a commercial contract, which means the parties are deemed to know what they are doing. The terms and conditions that the parties agree before the lease is signed and completed are subject to a combination of legislation which may or may not be overriding, and the body of case law for the interpretation of actual wording and phrasing.
Business tenancy law comprises legislation (Acts of Parliament, including Orders and Regulations) and case law derived from court rulings on particular issues which in many instances set a precedent and constitute evidence in support of an opinion.
Case law is the set of existing rulings that have made new interpretations of law and can be cited as precedent. Legal principles are often enunciated and embodied in judicial decisions.
For the most part, the interpretation of the construction of the wording and phrasing in leases, including lease analysis, is based upon an understanding and appreciation of case law. In my computerised law library, I have details of thousands of cases, with information and articles from reputable sources. I also subscribe to leading on-line law resources.
Whether case-law is reported or unreported, it could be binding.
To quote Lord Denning, writing in the foreword to the microfiche edition of The Court of Appeal Transcripts 1951-1980:
… every decision of the Court of Appeal on a point of law is binding on all courts of first instance and on the Court of Appeal itself. No matter whether the decision is reported in the regular series of Law Reports, or is unreported, it is binding. Once you have the transcript of an unreported decision, you can cite it as of equal authority to a reported decision, so it behoves every counsel or solicitor to find, if he can, a case – reported or unreported – which will help him advise or win his case.
Generally, I find Clients are not that interested in the details of a particular case (unless, of course, it's a matter they themselves took to court). Of greater interest and much more importance is how a particular case could and might affect their own situation. With business tenancies, use of and reliable on precedent is not necessarily sacrosanct, because much may depend upon the particular circumstances or facts surrounding the case, and often each new situation has to be assessed on its merits. The interpretation of the construction of leases is fashionable. Literal interpretation may have given way to a presumption in favour of reality, but not necessarily in all instances.
Typical matters where I am consulted on the legal aspects include whether time is of the essence for a rent review, the validity of notices, the wording of Calderbank offers, how best to defeat landlord opposition to renewal of a tenancy, whether better to take a long term lease with a break clause or a short lease with an option to renew, how to obtain more than the statutory compensation on non-renewal, reducing service charges, the effect of the Competition Act on the permitted user clause. Negotiation for rent review, include dispute resolution procedure and lease renewal including expert witness reports is also heavily dependent upon case law.
Business tenancy law comprises legislation (Acts of Parliament, including Orders and Regulations) and case law derived from court rulings on particular issues which in many instances set a precedent and constitute evidence in support of an opinion.
Case law is the set of existing rulings that have made new interpretations of law and can be cited as precedent. Legal principles are often enunciated and embodied in judicial decisions.
For the most part, the interpretation of the construction of the wording and phrasing in leases, including lease analysis, is based upon an understanding and appreciation of case law. In my computerised law library, I have details of thousands of cases, with information and articles from reputable sources. I also subscribe to leading on-line law resources.
Whether case-law is reported or unreported, it could be binding.
To quote Lord Denning, writing in the foreword to the microfiche edition of The Court of Appeal Transcripts 1951-1980:
… every decision of the Court of Appeal on a point of law is binding on all courts of first instance and on the Court of Appeal itself. No matter whether the decision is reported in the regular series of Law Reports, or is unreported, it is binding. Once you have the transcript of an unreported decision, you can cite it as of equal authority to a reported decision, so it behoves every counsel or solicitor to find, if he can, a case – reported or unreported – which will help him advise or win his case.
Generally, I find Clients are not that interested in the details of a particular case (unless, of course, it's a matter they themselves took to court). Of greater interest and much more importance is how a particular case could and might affect their own situation. With business tenancies, use of and reliable on precedent is not necessarily sacrosanct, because much may depend upon the particular circumstances or facts surrounding the case, and often each new situation has to be assessed on its merits. The interpretation of the construction of leases is fashionable. Literal interpretation may have given way to a presumption in favour of reality, but not necessarily in all instances.
Typical matters where I am consulted on the legal aspects include whether time is of the essence for a rent review, the validity of notices, the wording of Calderbank offers, how best to defeat landlord opposition to renewal of a tenancy, whether better to take a long term lease with a break clause or a short lease with an option to renew, how to obtain more than the statutory compensation on non-renewal, reducing service charges, the effect of the Competition Act on the permitted user clause. Negotiation for rent review, include dispute resolution procedure and lease renewal including expert witness reports is also heavily dependent upon case law.
A Refreshing Change
Becoming, being a landlord will change you. In the driving seat, no longer a passenger, will shift you into a different state of mind. Investment does that to people: the feeling that others are paying you is …For further reading, please visit LandlordZone newsletter issue 24 - click here
"Upward only" rent review
12/May/2014 - LandlordZONE - Rent Review - Market Rent - Negotiation - Index-linked - Open Market Rent
Contrary to popular belief, ‘upward-only’ rent review does not mean the rent must increase. For further reading, please visit LandlordZone
Safety in Numbers
Physically outwardly people are different and different nationalities each have their own cultures but, other than gender, human beings are basically inwardly the same. For further reading, please visit LandlordZone - click here
Sentiment v Technicalities
With commercial property rent review and lease renewal when practical help from a surveyor is sought, as distinct from seeking advice, there are two types of client: …For further reading, please visit LandlordZone newsletter issue 23 - click here
Location, location, location
Investment performance despite any resistance by the tenant. Why would the tenant resist? …For further reading, please visit LandlordZone - click here
April Fool or Successful Investor
Successful investment is about judicious choice and timing: what to buy, how much to pay, how to manage, when and how to sell…for further reading, please visit LandlordZone - click here
Investment Psychology
Psychology occupies the middle-ground between who you are and who you want to become, and all that that entails. To become something you have to invest. Investment is about becoming better off than you are now. How long it takes to become better off depends upon a combination of two factors: the practical and the psychological. … For further reading, please visit LandlordZone newsletter issue 22 - click here
Valuation and Over-Paying
I want to dispel a widely held notion, the strong belief in which leads to investors overpaying for shop property. It is a notion that has contributed to substantial over-valuation (along with over-mortgaging by the banks and other lenders) of shop property investments for more than three decades.
When you buy a shop property for investment, you are not buying into the existing or proposed tenant's business: the only thing you own is the property itself. That is all. How the tenant chooses to run its business, the prospects for the business including the market sector the tenant's business serves, are nothing to do with you. You are buying the property and whether it is the entire building or part of a building, that is all. Therefore, the identity of the tenant makes no difference whatsoever to the value of the property. The only relevance of what is known as the 'covenant' of the tenant that makes a difference is the chances of rent on time and other requirements of the occupancy honoured throughout the term of the lease. Therefore, if you pay a higher price because the shop property is let to a well-known covenant, then that 'premium' adds to the risk and may not be recoverable when you want to sell.
To understand why even though there is no link between the value of the property and the tenant's covenant nevertheless a strong connection is made, it is necessary to go back to events in the shop property market during the mid-1970s. In 1972, all Asians were expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin, the president of Uganda at that time. Those holding British passports came to Britain. Many had been businesspeople in Africa and rebuilt up their lives in Britain. Some became retailers while others found suitable employment.
An explosive growth in demand for shops and retail businesses led to a widespread change in attitude. Before the immigration-influx, I think it fair to say many 'white' shopkeepers were living off their laurels, for example half-day closing during the week was the norm, trading times out of kilter with an increasingly cosmopolitan society. Asian shops, the ubiquitous 'Mr Patel', opened longer hours, closing at 10pm rather than 5.30pm, and extended the shopping week to include all day Sunday. Prices obtainable in the market for selling going-concern businesses also rose. In the newsagent, confectioner, tobacconist sector, ("CTN"), it was said a 'white' buyer would pay ten times turnover, but an 'Asian' buyer would pay fifteen times turnover. The difference in price was accounted for by removing staff costs and so on, because the Asian family would work in the shop. Strictly, it shouldn't make any difference to price payable that savings can be made from being more operationally efficient, but I do not think that was the agenda. It was not so much about wanting more income, so much as wanting more capital. By modernising the business, turnover could be increased and the business re-sold for a profit. It also gave the Asian family an opportunity to establish 'roots' in the wider community.
(The presence of Asian shopkeepers in Britain was by no means new. The earliest origins of settlement of South Asians in Great Britain is uncertain, perhaps the Middle Ages. By the late 19th/early 20th centuries there were approximately 70,000 South Asians in Britain and following World War II and the break-up of the British Empire, immigration increased throughout the 1950s and 1960s as citizens of Commonwealth countries and former Caribbean colonies moved to Britain. Following restrictions on primary immigration, much of the subsequent growth in the British Asian community has come from the births of second and third-generation Asian Britons. As time passes, the formation and development of community can alter the demographics. Southall, in north-west Greater London, for example, is a case in point. In 1950, the first group of South Asians arrived in Southall, reputedly recruited to work in a factory owned by a former British Army officer. With the closeness of expanding employment opportunities such as Heathrow Airport, nowadays over 55% of Southall's population of 70,000 is Indian/Pakistani, Southall has one of the largest Sikh Temples outside India and Southall contains the largest Asian shopping centre in the London area.)
An attraction of English property law is freehold ownership. As the ultimate owner of the property, freehold provides both physical and emotional security. Owning shop property freehold can contribute to status in community and business. As anyone that has tried to buy shop property for investment will testify, it is not an easy step. The first hurdle is convincing commercial property agencies you are serious! It's not that surveyors were impossible to deal with, simply they have regular buyers and saw no reason to give newcomers a bite of the cherry. Also, many established surveyors can't be bothered with inexperienced investors. Then there is a question of credibility. Unless you pay the asking price or your offer is very close, you risk being considered a time-waster. Similarly, if you mess about and delay exchange of contract and/or fail to complete. Moreover, there may be a language barrier. Even if you fulfil the criteria, there is no certainty of being offered anything with potential. The solution is to buy at property auctions. Property auctions lend themselves to anonymity. Property auctions have long been popular with people of all nationalities, but before the mid-1970s there was a greater tacit understanding of shop valuation methodology. What the new wave of investors did not appreciate (or at least not give an impression) was that, in principle, a high yield suggests a shop property where little or no capital growth is expected, conversely a low-yield offers prospects for growth. In any event, because the cost of borrowing money is the same nationwide, it made no sense to be able to buy a shop property investment yielding say 12% for a lower price pro-rata than a shop property showing 7%. Hence, what began to happen and rapidly gathered steam, until the influence of the change in approach became the 'norm', was for shop properties having little or no growth prospects to go up price which in turn led to an increase in price for properties with growth prospects.
Finance plays a pivotal role in the commercial property market. It is said that property investment is more about finance than property. When a buyer wants to mortgage an investment property, or needs a mortgage in order to buy the property in the first place, ways to repay the mortgage include the borrower's other sources of income and whether the yield on the property exceeds the instalment for payment of the mortgage. Whilst a lender will assess the credit-worthiness of the borrower, a lender is not normally interested in the prospects for the investment: all a mortgagee cares about is whether the borrower could honour the requirements of the mortgage, or in the event of default the property could be sold to repay the loan. The fact that high-yielding investments are more risky is of no consequence to the lender, and may in fact be considered more secure simply because of a higher yield. In effect, thanks to their mortgage criteria, what the banks have imposed on buyers of shop property is the equivalent of a business plan, whereby never mind whether the shop property constitutes an investment, all that matters is that the financial side of things stack up.
What stemmed from inexperience became the 'norm' thanks to mortgage valuation surveyors. The task of a mortgage valuation surveyor, often a chartered surveyor, is to give an opinion of the market value of the property. However, the market value of a property is only the value of the property itself. It is not the value of the investment. The investment comprises the property and any existing or proposed 'tenancy' involving that property. So, since the value of the investment can vary depending upon terms of the tenancy, arguably a valuation surveyor should make that clear in the report, otherwise there is the risk the banks could be misled into thinking lending on the property is more secure than it is.
The fact that a layer of variable value can be added to the intrinsic value of a property is not something lost on sellers. The marketing of commercial property for investment involves very sophisticated and shrewd techniques. For example, one of the most obvious ways to maximise the price is to create an investment that is readily mortgageable. When selling a shop property investment, the seller is not interested in the value of the property as such, but how much the property and all that comes with it is likely to fetch in the market. It is the existence of that subtle difference for which the inexperienced investor can pay a hefty price. Selling a shop property for investment is no different to any other form of selling. Dress it up to look its best and hope the buyer doesn't spot what's wrong. Any complaints afterwards can be met by caveat emptor: the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before making the purchase. Moreover, unlike products and services where the seller might be concerned to safeguard reputation for future custom, a seller of shop property is unlikely to care a jot about goodwill.
Although the seller of shop property is unlikely to care about goodwill, the seller's agents are mindful of their reputation in the market. To maximise the selling process whilst attempting to minimise the repercussions of overpayment, auctioneers have, for some time, highlighted the financial status of the tenant in the auction catalogue, for example the retailer's number of branches, latest turnover and profit figures.
Covenant and early review lots are guaranteed to fetch top prices. In the details, much emphasis is given to the date of review, with the estimated rental value suggested, either by having issued the rent review notice quoting a very high proposal, or by stating the vendor's opinion of rental value, or by citing a brief mention of a nearby new letting.
Pre-occupation with quality of covenant has driven investment yields down to levels which, for the type of property, is more commonly expected for prime propositions, offering assured long-term growth!
Consequently, what has happened is that not only has the way shop property is valued disconnected from fundamental principles, but also the banks and vested interests have create a market that is completely divorced from the reality of property itself. The test of that claim is easy to pass, for example: imagine two shop properties, next door to each other, both shops identical size, layout, etc, both let for 20 years at the same rent with rent reviews at five yearly intervals. One shop is let to a national multiple retailer with dozens of branches, the other to a local shopkeeper with just that one shop. Both properties are offered for sale by auction on the same date by the same auctioneer. What's the betting the shop let to the multiple retailer would fetch a higher price?
In my opinion, it is not up to valuation surveyors to insist banks lend only on the value of the property, as distinct from the market value of the investment. That decision is for the banks alone. However, I do consider valuation surveyors have a duty of care to ensure the banks understand there is a difference which might not necessarily be allowed for in the 'forced' sale valuation. A definition of 'forced sale' valuation is "the highest price which a property can reasonably be expected to bring, if offered for sale without the consent or concurrence of the owner by virtue of judicial process, in what may be a restricted market place, within a restricted time frame, to a prudent, willing and able purchaser who may have limited knowledge about the property, its uses and capability." If the forced sale valuation is a percentage of the market value of the property then in my opinion the mortgage is likely to be more secure, than if the forced sale value is the valuation of the investment.
When you buy a shop property for investment, you are not buying into the existing or proposed tenant's business: the only thing you own is the property itself. That is all. How the tenant chooses to run its business, the prospects for the business including the market sector the tenant's business serves, are nothing to do with you. You are buying the property and whether it is the entire building or part of a building, that is all. Therefore, the identity of the tenant makes no difference whatsoever to the value of the property. The only relevance of what is known as the 'covenant' of the tenant that makes a difference is the chances of rent on time and other requirements of the occupancy honoured throughout the term of the lease. Therefore, if you pay a higher price because the shop property is let to a well-known covenant, then that 'premium' adds to the risk and may not be recoverable when you want to sell.
To understand why even though there is no link between the value of the property and the tenant's covenant nevertheless a strong connection is made, it is necessary to go back to events in the shop property market during the mid-1970s. In 1972, all Asians were expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin, the president of Uganda at that time. Those holding British passports came to Britain. Many had been businesspeople in Africa and rebuilt up their lives in Britain. Some became retailers while others found suitable employment.
An explosive growth in demand for shops and retail businesses led to a widespread change in attitude. Before the immigration-influx, I think it fair to say many 'white' shopkeepers were living off their laurels, for example half-day closing during the week was the norm, trading times out of kilter with an increasingly cosmopolitan society. Asian shops, the ubiquitous 'Mr Patel', opened longer hours, closing at 10pm rather than 5.30pm, and extended the shopping week to include all day Sunday. Prices obtainable in the market for selling going-concern businesses also rose. In the newsagent, confectioner, tobacconist sector, ("CTN"), it was said a 'white' buyer would pay ten times turnover, but an 'Asian' buyer would pay fifteen times turnover. The difference in price was accounted for by removing staff costs and so on, because the Asian family would work in the shop. Strictly, it shouldn't make any difference to price payable that savings can be made from being more operationally efficient, but I do not think that was the agenda. It was not so much about wanting more income, so much as wanting more capital. By modernising the business, turnover could be increased and the business re-sold for a profit. It also gave the Asian family an opportunity to establish 'roots' in the wider community.
(The presence of Asian shopkeepers in Britain was by no means new. The earliest origins of settlement of South Asians in Great Britain is uncertain, perhaps the Middle Ages. By the late 19th/early 20th centuries there were approximately 70,000 South Asians in Britain and following World War II and the break-up of the British Empire, immigration increased throughout the 1950s and 1960s as citizens of Commonwealth countries and former Caribbean colonies moved to Britain. Following restrictions on primary immigration, much of the subsequent growth in the British Asian community has come from the births of second and third-generation Asian Britons. As time passes, the formation and development of community can alter the demographics. Southall, in north-west Greater London, for example, is a case in point. In 1950, the first group of South Asians arrived in Southall, reputedly recruited to work in a factory owned by a former British Army officer. With the closeness of expanding employment opportunities such as Heathrow Airport, nowadays over 55% of Southall's population of 70,000 is Indian/Pakistani, Southall has one of the largest Sikh Temples outside India and Southall contains the largest Asian shopping centre in the London area.)
An attraction of English property law is freehold ownership. As the ultimate owner of the property, freehold provides both physical and emotional security. Owning shop property freehold can contribute to status in community and business. As anyone that has tried to buy shop property for investment will testify, it is not an easy step. The first hurdle is convincing commercial property agencies you are serious! It's not that surveyors were impossible to deal with, simply they have regular buyers and saw no reason to give newcomers a bite of the cherry. Also, many established surveyors can't be bothered with inexperienced investors. Then there is a question of credibility. Unless you pay the asking price or your offer is very close, you risk being considered a time-waster. Similarly, if you mess about and delay exchange of contract and/or fail to complete. Moreover, there may be a language barrier. Even if you fulfil the criteria, there is no certainty of being offered anything with potential. The solution is to buy at property auctions. Property auctions lend themselves to anonymity. Property auctions have long been popular with people of all nationalities, but before the mid-1970s there was a greater tacit understanding of shop valuation methodology. What the new wave of investors did not appreciate (or at least not give an impression) was that, in principle, a high yield suggests a shop property where little or no capital growth is expected, conversely a low-yield offers prospects for growth. In any event, because the cost of borrowing money is the same nationwide, it made no sense to be able to buy a shop property investment yielding say 12% for a lower price pro-rata than a shop property showing 7%. Hence, what began to happen and rapidly gathered steam, until the influence of the change in approach became the 'norm', was for shop properties having little or no growth prospects to go up price which in turn led to an increase in price for properties with growth prospects.
Finance plays a pivotal role in the commercial property market. It is said that property investment is more about finance than property. When a buyer wants to mortgage an investment property, or needs a mortgage in order to buy the property in the first place, ways to repay the mortgage include the borrower's other sources of income and whether the yield on the property exceeds the instalment for payment of the mortgage. Whilst a lender will assess the credit-worthiness of the borrower, a lender is not normally interested in the prospects for the investment: all a mortgagee cares about is whether the borrower could honour the requirements of the mortgage, or in the event of default the property could be sold to repay the loan. The fact that high-yielding investments are more risky is of no consequence to the lender, and may in fact be considered more secure simply because of a higher yield. In effect, thanks to their mortgage criteria, what the banks have imposed on buyers of shop property is the equivalent of a business plan, whereby never mind whether the shop property constitutes an investment, all that matters is that the financial side of things stack up.
What stemmed from inexperience became the 'norm' thanks to mortgage valuation surveyors. The task of a mortgage valuation surveyor, often a chartered surveyor, is to give an opinion of the market value of the property. However, the market value of a property is only the value of the property itself. It is not the value of the investment. The investment comprises the property and any existing or proposed 'tenancy' involving that property. So, since the value of the investment can vary depending upon terms of the tenancy, arguably a valuation surveyor should make that clear in the report, otherwise there is the risk the banks could be misled into thinking lending on the property is more secure than it is.
The fact that a layer of variable value can be added to the intrinsic value of a property is not something lost on sellers. The marketing of commercial property for investment involves very sophisticated and shrewd techniques. For example, one of the most obvious ways to maximise the price is to create an investment that is readily mortgageable. When selling a shop property investment, the seller is not interested in the value of the property as such, but how much the property and all that comes with it is likely to fetch in the market. It is the existence of that subtle difference for which the inexperienced investor can pay a hefty price. Selling a shop property for investment is no different to any other form of selling. Dress it up to look its best and hope the buyer doesn't spot what's wrong. Any complaints afterwards can be met by caveat emptor: the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before making the purchase. Moreover, unlike products and services where the seller might be concerned to safeguard reputation for future custom, a seller of shop property is unlikely to care a jot about goodwill.
Although the seller of shop property is unlikely to care about goodwill, the seller's agents are mindful of their reputation in the market. To maximise the selling process whilst attempting to minimise the repercussions of overpayment, auctioneers have, for some time, highlighted the financial status of the tenant in the auction catalogue, for example the retailer's number of branches, latest turnover and profit figures.
Covenant and early review lots are guaranteed to fetch top prices. In the details, much emphasis is given to the date of review, with the estimated rental value suggested, either by having issued the rent review notice quoting a very high proposal, or by stating the vendor's opinion of rental value, or by citing a brief mention of a nearby new letting.
Pre-occupation with quality of covenant has driven investment yields down to levels which, for the type of property, is more commonly expected for prime propositions, offering assured long-term growth!
Consequently, what has happened is that not only has the way shop property is valued disconnected from fundamental principles, but also the banks and vested interests have create a market that is completely divorced from the reality of property itself. The test of that claim is easy to pass, for example: imagine two shop properties, next door to each other, both shops identical size, layout, etc, both let for 20 years at the same rent with rent reviews at five yearly intervals. One shop is let to a national multiple retailer with dozens of branches, the other to a local shopkeeper with just that one shop. Both properties are offered for sale by auction on the same date by the same auctioneer. What's the betting the shop let to the multiple retailer would fetch a higher price?
In my opinion, it is not up to valuation surveyors to insist banks lend only on the value of the property, as distinct from the market value of the investment. That decision is for the banks alone. However, I do consider valuation surveyors have a duty of care to ensure the banks understand there is a difference which might not necessarily be allowed for in the 'forced' sale valuation. A definition of 'forced sale' valuation is "the highest price which a property can reasonably be expected to bring, if offered for sale without the consent or concurrence of the owner by virtue of judicial process, in what may be a restricted market place, within a restricted time frame, to a prudent, willing and able purchaser who may have limited knowledge about the property, its uses and capability." If the forced sale valuation is a percentage of the market value of the property then in my opinion the mortgage is likely to be more secure, than if the forced sale value is the valuation of the investment.
Dispute Resolution Costs
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 suffering intense competition.
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.
I should like to set up a low cost referral service where, for example, one would charge in the region of £1000 + VAT for expert determination assuming the matter straightforward and maybe the same for arbitration. I could set up such a service and rely on the provision in many leases where the parties can appoint a surveyor without having to go through the RICS. What you think? Would you like me to?
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 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.
The RICS has set up a low-cost referral service but the parties have to agree to give up certain rights before the procedure can be used. Otherwise, since one function of the RICS is to provide a source of revenue for its members, the RICS won't get involved but I think they'd have to sit up and take notice and do something about it if more and more landlords and tenants were to register their disapproval and clamour for a lower cost system. As it is, I think landlords and tenants are being taken for a ride.
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 suffering intense competition.
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.
I should like to set up a low cost referral service where, for example, one would charge in the region of £1000 + VAT for expert determination assuming the matter straightforward and maybe the same for arbitration. I could set up such a service and rely on the provision in many leases where the parties can appoint a surveyor without having to go through the RICS. What you think? Would you like me to?
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 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.
The RICS has set up a low-cost referral service but the parties have to agree to give up certain rights before the procedure can be used. Otherwise, since one function of the RICS is to provide a source of revenue for its members, the RICS won't get involved but I think they'd have to sit up and take notice and do something about it if more and more landlords and tenants were to register their disapproval and clamour for a lower cost system. As it is, I think landlords and tenants are being taken for a ride.
Landlord Proposals
Years ago, an institutional landlord, a well-known insurance company, whom I found myself acting against on numerous occasions, used to include £500 pa margin in its proposals for rent review which struck me as ambitious but in most cases nevertheless insurmountable. Thinking I'd like try the same approach, I experimented by recommending a nominal margin for a proposal on behalf of a landlord-client. My client's reaction was perhaps only to be expected. In his view, tenants would expect the margin to be considerably more and would want a substantial reduction. A small margin would allow me little room for manoeuvre.
The size of the margin I told him was of no consequence to me. The client was happy with my recommended rent, it was my task to achieve it. Despite trepidation, the client allowed me to go ahead. To cut a story, I achieved the rent I was after.
Unlike that insurance company, whose £500 margin seemed to be the norm, I tailor my recommendations to suit the circumstances so if you're a tenant and on the receiving end of a proposal from my landlord-client there's no certainty the margin would be the same in each case.
The point, however, is whether possible to negotiate based a small margin. The answer to that, I suggests, depends upon one's attitude at the onset.
For example, let's assume the passing rent is £28,000 and market rent £30,000 a year. A proposal including 10% margin would be £33,000 pa but there's a risk that if the difference between the proposal and the passing £28,000 is not that much then that could invite the feeling that the landlord isn't expecting any increase. In bartering psychology, therefore, it would be better to inflate the proposal to £35,000 on the assumption that the tenant would offer at least £30,000 to start with.
My only experience of unrepresented landlords is when acting for their tenant, and vice versa my experience of unrepresented tenants is when acting for the landlord. Generally, unrepresented landlords like to barter and expect their tenants to do likewise but actually there is no reason for a tenant to barter if that would result in agreeing more than necessary. Bartering is not the same as negotiation, or at least not the same where the terms and conditions of the lease are taken into account as would happen when the tenant is represented. Consequently, bartering can come unstuck when faced with a refusal to play the game.
In my experience, unrepresented parties tend to focus on the rent to the exclusion of all else. But that can be to their disadvantage because the terms and conditions of the tenancy have a bearing on the rent and there may well be something in the 'small print' to one party's advantage.
The size of the margin I told him was of no consequence to me. The client was happy with my recommended rent, it was my task to achieve it. Despite trepidation, the client allowed me to go ahead. To cut a story, I achieved the rent I was after.
Unlike that insurance company, whose £500 margin seemed to be the norm, I tailor my recommendations to suit the circumstances so if you're a tenant and on the receiving end of a proposal from my landlord-client there's no certainty the margin would be the same in each case.
The point, however, is whether possible to negotiate based a small margin. The answer to that, I suggests, depends upon one's attitude at the onset.
For example, let's assume the passing rent is £28,000 and market rent £30,000 a year. A proposal including 10% margin would be £33,000 pa but there's a risk that if the difference between the proposal and the passing £28,000 is not that much then that could invite the feeling that the landlord isn't expecting any increase. In bartering psychology, therefore, it would be better to inflate the proposal to £35,000 on the assumption that the tenant would offer at least £30,000 to start with.
My only experience of unrepresented landlords is when acting for their tenant, and vice versa my experience of unrepresented tenants is when acting for the landlord. Generally, unrepresented landlords like to barter and expect their tenants to do likewise but actually there is no reason for a tenant to barter if that would result in agreeing more than necessary. Bartering is not the same as negotiation, or at least not the same where the terms and conditions of the lease are taken into account as would happen when the tenant is represented. Consequently, bartering can come unstuck when faced with a refusal to play the game.
In my experience, unrepresented parties tend to focus on the rent to the exclusion of all else. But that can be to their disadvantage because the terms and conditions of the tenancy have a bearing on the rent and there may well be something in the 'small print' to one party's advantage.
Chasing Rainbows
Unlike investing in stocks and shares where the volatility of share prices and uncertainty of dividends can lead to long term buy and lose, investment in property offers two advantages: … For further reading, please visit LandlordZone newsletter issue 21 - click here