Tenant Success Stories
Please click on a property address to reveal information about my involvement.
Acting for JL Ion, a Japanese-style hairdresser, I negotiated the September 2009 rent review at £95,000 per annum. The proposal was £110,000 per annum and the Landlord's Calderbank offer at £100,000 per annum
Before I was instructed, the Landlord had referred the matter to arbitration. The matter was resolved without involving the arbitrator much. Getty Images at 46 Eastcastle Street, a few doors away in the same block owned by the same landlord, had had a rent review in 2009 where the agreed rent had been devalued at about Zone A £100 or so. I devalue the rent of 49 at under £90 Zone A.
For the same Client, I had negotiated the rent review of their premises at 57A Dean Street, London W1
Please click here for a slide-show gallery of photographs of the sort of properties and locations where I advise.
I have dealt with rent reviews and provided advice to tenants in almost every postal district in Central and Greater London.
To contact me, please telephone 01531 631892 or email help@michaellever.co.uk
I look forward to helping you in some way.
Michael Lever
Please click on a property address to reveal information about my involvement.
Biddulph - 44/44a and 46/46a High Street - rent reviews and sale of leases to Sainsbury's
Sainsbury's are developing a new supermarket in Biddulph, Staffordshire and hope to start work in 2009-2010.
Part of the site includes a parade of shops, with flats above, where I am acting for two retailers - SW Cotton, Optician at 44/44a High Street, and Morning Fresh greengrocer at 46/46a High Street - in negotiations for surrender of their leases to Sainsbury's, subject to simultaneous leaseback for a few months until vacant possession is required.
For 44/44a I negotiated almost twice as much as Sainsbury's offered originally. For the lease of 46/46a, I negotiated almost three times as much.
Part of the site includes a parade of shops, with flats above, where I am acting for two retailers - SW Cotton, Optician at 44/44a High Street, and Morning Fresh greengrocer at 46/46a High Street - in negotiations for surrender of their leases to Sainsbury's, subject to simultaneous leaseback for a few months until vacant possession is required.
For 44/44a I negotiated almost twice as much as Sainsbury's offered originally. For the lease of 46/46a, I negotiated almost three times as much.
Bury St Edmunds - Anglian Way - saving £87,000 a year
My Client is a successful retailer in East Anglia, one of whose branches is on a under-lease from Homebase Ltd. Like many large companies, Homebase has a residual estate: numerous properties that it used to occupy, but which have long since been conveyed to others. (According to April 2009 accounts, in the public domain, Home Retail Group plc, which owns Homebase, made £117.3M provision for onerous lease charges. The past catches up!) In this case, Homebase wanted to assign its lease with an indemnity for the remainder of the term for a difference in repairing covenants, so my Client would be no worse off.
Terms were agreed in principle. At the onset, I said I should not recommend my Client instruct solicitors until the freeholder’s consent had been obtained. The head-lease contains a surrender-back clause, also I did not want my Client to incur costs unnecessarily. Homebase applied for the licence, a draft was submitted by the freeholder’s solicitors, and I was told by the surveyor acting for Homebase consent had been given. However, what was not disclosed until much later on was that the freeholder had not actually given consent, because it was still awaiting reply to its enquiries about my Client’s accounts. [Whether the freeholder’s solicitors, in having issued a draft licence, was enough to deem consent was never resolved: that would’ve meant applying to court for a declaration, which Homebase would do provided contracts to assign were first exchanged, (on condition if the application failed then the transaction would abort.)]
As the conveyancing progressed, I started thinking further ahead. Even if the freeholder were shown to be unreasonably withholding consent, I felt my Client would be off to a bad start if the landlord were ordered to consent against its will. No matter the business tenancy law, the human element in the ongoing relationship between landlord and tenant is important. Then there was the question of personal surety. The underlessee has no surety, which would mean, on expiry of the head-lease when Homebase’s interest ends, and the under-lease is renewed direct with the freeholder, there would be no need for surety in future. (The under-lease is inside the 1954 Act so has renewal rights.) In the head-lease, the freeholder can require personal surety for a ltd company assignee. My Client offered an associate company, but not a personal surety. Had the matter gone to court, it is possible the court would have ordered a personal surety with any licence to be granted, which would mean my Client worse off.
The difference in repairing covenant could also cause problems. The under-lease contains a schedule of condition, whereas the head-lease is full repairing. The cost of the difference is estimated at £100,000, at least. I got Homebase to agree to extend the indemnity beyond expiry of the term into any holding-over period, but that benefit would only have practical effect if the freeholder were to serve a schedule of dilapidations whilst Homebase were around. There would be nothing to stop the freeholder waiting until Homebase were completely out of the picture before serving it on my Client. Similarly, if my Client did not want to renew, then its terminal obligation would be limited. Also, by taking on the head-lease, the under-lease could have been extinguished, losing the benefit in having the schedule of condition continue on renewal of the lease direct with the freeholder.
I concluded the risks outweighed the benefits, so I recommended withdrawing from the transaction.
I have agreed the 2003 rent review at nil increase, a saving of about £87,000 pa and am now dealing with the 2009 review.
Terms were agreed in principle. At the onset, I said I should not recommend my Client instruct solicitors until the freeholder’s consent had been obtained. The head-lease contains a surrender-back clause, also I did not want my Client to incur costs unnecessarily. Homebase applied for the licence, a draft was submitted by the freeholder’s solicitors, and I was told by the surveyor acting for Homebase consent had been given. However, what was not disclosed until much later on was that the freeholder had not actually given consent, because it was still awaiting reply to its enquiries about my Client’s accounts. [Whether the freeholder’s solicitors, in having issued a draft licence, was enough to deem consent was never resolved: that would’ve meant applying to court for a declaration, which Homebase would do provided contracts to assign were first exchanged, (on condition if the application failed then the transaction would abort.)]
As the conveyancing progressed, I started thinking further ahead. Even if the freeholder were shown to be unreasonably withholding consent, I felt my Client would be off to a bad start if the landlord were ordered to consent against its will. No matter the business tenancy law, the human element in the ongoing relationship between landlord and tenant is important. Then there was the question of personal surety. The underlessee has no surety, which would mean, on expiry of the head-lease when Homebase’s interest ends, and the under-lease is renewed direct with the freeholder, there would be no need for surety in future. (The under-lease is inside the 1954 Act so has renewal rights.) In the head-lease, the freeholder can require personal surety for a ltd company assignee. My Client offered an associate company, but not a personal surety. Had the matter gone to court, it is possible the court would have ordered a personal surety with any licence to be granted, which would mean my Client worse off.
The difference in repairing covenant could also cause problems. The under-lease contains a schedule of condition, whereas the head-lease is full repairing. The cost of the difference is estimated at £100,000, at least. I got Homebase to agree to extend the indemnity beyond expiry of the term into any holding-over period, but that benefit would only have practical effect if the freeholder were to serve a schedule of dilapidations whilst Homebase were around. There would be nothing to stop the freeholder waiting until Homebase were completely out of the picture before serving it on my Client. Similarly, if my Client did not want to renew, then its terminal obligation would be limited. Also, by taking on the head-lease, the under-lease could have been extinguished, losing the benefit in having the schedule of condition continue on renewal of the lease direct with the freeholder.
I concluded the risks outweighed the benefits, so I recommended withdrawing from the transaction.
I have agreed the 2003 rent review at nil increase, a saving of about £87,000 pa and am now dealing with the 2009 review.
Cheylesmore, Coventry - 1-2 Quinton Parade - rent review expert determination and costs issue
Acting for a retailer in Cheylesmore, Coventry, I arranged referral of a rent review to an independent expert and the revised rent was determined accordingly. (The rent devalues to Zone A £20 which is now the lowest in the area, as it happens!)
The Lease requires the tenant to pays all costs of the determination (the expert's fees) if the determination were within 10% of the landlord's proposal, so the expert took it upon himself to determine my Client should pay all costs.
However, what the expert overlooked was a) the proposal was that which had been made at the date of the application to the RICS for the appointment of the expert and b) the expert's role in the procedure did not extend to responsibility for costs. At the date of my application to the RICS, the landlord had not proposed any rent so I reasoned the provision for costs did not apply. Also, I reasoned that apportioning responsibility for costs was a separate issue which was nothing whatsoever to do with the expert. It was an arrangement the parties had agreed would apply after the determination were released and not part of the actual determination process.
Needless to say, the landlord's surveyor did not agree but, because I stuck to my guns the expert found himself in an invidious position, so the landlord said he would obtain legal opinion. Whilst waiting for the lawyers, the landlord' s surveyor sent me a memorandum for my Client to sign to confirm the new rent. I obtained my Client's signature but rather than return the Memorandum to the landlord's surveyor for completion, I said that because the expert's determination on costs was included in the determination the entire determination was invalid pending pending resolution of the costs issue. I emphasized that whereas I was not going to recommend the revised rent should not be agreed, I did not think it should be payable until after the issue of costs was finally disposed of, so if the landlord's legal opinion did not agree with my opinion, I should arrange for my Client's solicitors to apply to the Court for a declaration. However, I went on to say that I should, without prejudice, return the Memorandum for completion and payment of the rent without further ado if the landlord would agree to pay half the expert's costs. The landlord realizing the matter could take months to resolve, not to mention mounting legal costs, duly capitulated.
---
Also in Cheylesmore, instructions include:
123 Daventry Rroad - rent review
141 Daventry Road - lease renewal
187 Daventry Road - rent review
203 Daventry Road - lease renewal
3 Queen Isabel's Avenue - lease renewal
3 Quinton Parade - lease advice
4 Quinton Parade - lease renewal
5 Quinton Parade - lease renewal
8 Quinton Parade - lease advice and rent review
113-115 Quinton Road - rent reviews
The Lease requires the tenant to pays all costs of the determination (the expert's fees) if the determination were within 10% of the landlord's proposal, so the expert took it upon himself to determine my Client should pay all costs.
However, what the expert overlooked was a) the proposal was that which had been made at the date of the application to the RICS for the appointment of the expert and b) the expert's role in the procedure did not extend to responsibility for costs. At the date of my application to the RICS, the landlord had not proposed any rent so I reasoned the provision for costs did not apply. Also, I reasoned that apportioning responsibility for costs was a separate issue which was nothing whatsoever to do with the expert. It was an arrangement the parties had agreed would apply after the determination were released and not part of the actual determination process.
Needless to say, the landlord's surveyor did not agree but, because I stuck to my guns the expert found himself in an invidious position, so the landlord said he would obtain legal opinion. Whilst waiting for the lawyers, the landlord' s surveyor sent me a memorandum for my Client to sign to confirm the new rent. I obtained my Client's signature but rather than return the Memorandum to the landlord's surveyor for completion, I said that because the expert's determination on costs was included in the determination the entire determination was invalid pending pending resolution of the costs issue. I emphasized that whereas I was not going to recommend the revised rent should not be agreed, I did not think it should be payable until after the issue of costs was finally disposed of, so if the landlord's legal opinion did not agree with my opinion, I should arrange for my Client's solicitors to apply to the Court for a declaration. However, I went on to say that I should, without prejudice, return the Memorandum for completion and payment of the rent without further ado if the landlord would agree to pay half the expert's costs. The landlord realizing the matter could take months to resolve, not to mention mounting legal costs, duly capitulated.
---
Also in Cheylesmore, instructions include:
123 Daventry Rroad - rent review
141 Daventry Road - lease renewal
187 Daventry Road - rent review
203 Daventry Road - lease renewal
3 Queen Isabel's Avenue - lease renewal
3 Quinton Parade - lease advice
4 Quinton Parade - lease renewal
5 Quinton Parade - lease renewal
8 Quinton Parade - lease advice and rent review
113-115 Quinton Road - rent reviews
Cardiff - 3 St Mary Street - rent reviews and advice for Beanfreaks
For Beanfreaks, a chain of health-food shops, I advise on rent reviews and tenancy matters at its branches in Cardiff, Cwmbran, Bridgend and Newport.
Formby, Liverpool - Units F-G, The Cloisters, Halsall Lane - t/a Satterthwaites
My Client-tenant is Satterthwaites. The premises, which are located at the back of the centre facing the customer car park, used to be on two separate leases but in 2003 I negotiating terms for merging them into one. I deal with the rent reviews and matters arising.
Hunstanton - 8-16 High Street - advice on acquisition of lease and rent review
My Client, t/a Warehouse Clearance, has acquired the lease of 8-16 High Street, Hunstanton - formerly occupied by Woolworths - from the administrator of Woolworths.
Before contracts were exchanged for the sale of the lease, 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 sale of the lease, 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 - Lambeth - 178 Lambeth Road - rent review saving £11,000 pa
A cafe/restaurant with flats above, the property occupies a prominent corner in an isolated trading position.
Acting for the Tenant, for the 2008 review, the landlord's proposal was £34,000 pa. I served the counter-notice to prevent the proposal becoming binding and then negotiated a reduction of £11,000 per annum.
Acting for the Tenant, for the 2008 review, the landlord's proposal was £34,000 pa. I served the counter-notice to prevent the proposal becoming binding and then negotiated a reduction of £11,000 per annum.
London SE1 - Southwark - 62-64 Weston Street - rent review, not a penny more
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 the restaurant could budget for it: 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 the restaurant could budget for it: I made sure the tenant did not have to pay a penny more.
London SW13 - Barnes - 145 Church Road - rent reviews and advice for Raff Radio (Barnes)
The premises, comprising ground floor shop and basement, are in a prominent corner position at the junction of Castelnau.
I have acted for the tenant, Raff Radio (Barnes), for more than 15 years, and have dealt with rent reviews, lease renewal and matters arising following the exercising of a tenant break-clause in 2009.
I have acted for the tenant, Raff Radio (Barnes), for more than 15 years, and have dealt with rent reviews, lease renewal and matters arising following the exercising of a tenant break-clause in 2009.
London W1 - 49 Eastcastle Street - review 2009 - saving £15,000 pa
Before I was instructed, the Landlord had referred the matter to arbitration. The matter was resolved without involving the arbitrator much. Getty Images at 46 Eastcastle Street, a few doors away in the same block owned by the same landlord, had had a rent review in 2009 where the agreed rent had been devalued at about Zone A £100 or so. I devalue the rent of 49 at under £90 Zone A.
For the same Client, I had negotiated the rent review of their premises at 57A Dean Street, London W1
London W1 - Piccadilly Circus - 8 Glasshouse Street - rent review saving £97,000 pa
Acting for the Tenant of 8 Glasshouse Street, London W1,
I negotiated the rent review 24 June 2002.
Landlord: Land Securities PLC
Landlord's Surveyors: Drivers Jonas.
The rent was £93,000 per annum and the Landlord's proposal was £222,000 per annum.
The Landlord referred the matter to arbitration, but proceedings were not pursued. I negotiated agreement at £125,000 per annum.
A saving of £97,000 per annum
I negotiated the rent review 24 June 2002.
Landlord: Land Securities PLC
Landlord's Surveyors: Drivers Jonas.
The rent was £93,000 per annum and the Landlord's proposal was £222,000 per annum.
The Landlord referred the matter to arbitration, but proceedings were not pursued. I negotiated agreement at £125,000 per annum.
A saving of £97,000 per annum
Northampton - 26-28 The Drapery - rent review saving on Calderbank offer
Acting for Pumpernickels, the tenant had been negotiating the rent review June 2006 direct with the landlord's surveyors. The 2001 passing rent was £30,000 pa and the landlord's proposal £40,500 per annum. Following negotiations the landlord made a Calderbank offer to settle at £33,750 pa. The tenant instructed me to take over negotiations and I settled the rent at £31,000 per annum.
Northampton - 13 Weston Favell Shopping Centre - rent review for Nolan's Jewellers saving £23,800 pa
Acting for Nolan's Jewellers in Weston Favell Shopping Centre, Northampton, the rent was £25,500 per annum and for the July 2004 review the Landlord, The Tesco British Land Property Partnership, proposed £58,800 per annum, based on an open market new letting nearby.
(Every little helps Tesco!) To put pressure, Tesco referred the matter to an independent expert, but the matter was held in abeyance. Initially, the lowest I could persuade the Landlord to accept was £45,500 pa, but, after the freehold of the Centre was sold, I negotiated with the surveyors for the new Landlord and the rent was agreed at £35,000 per annum.
A saving of £23,800 per annum.
(Every little helps Tesco!) To put pressure, Tesco referred the matter to an independent expert, but the matter was held in abeyance. Initially, the lowest I could persuade the Landlord to accept was £45,500 pa, but, after the freehold of the Centre was sold, I negotiated with the surveyors for the new Landlord and the rent was agreed at £35,000 per annum.
A saving of £23,800 per annum.
St Ives, Cambridgeshire - 8-9 Market Hill - t/a Warehouse Clearance Shops
For the tenant, I negotiated the 1997, 2002 and 2007 rent reviews.
The building is let to Safeway supermarket, nowadays owned by Morrisons.
My Client took an underlease of the shop part of the building In 1996, and for the 1997 review negotiations were synchronised with the headlease revew between Safeway and the superior landlord. For the 2002 review, by which time Morrisons had taken over Safeway, the landlord's surveyor wanted more rent pro-rata, so the review was referred to an independent expert for determination. The reasoning provided a precedent for the 2007 review.
The building is let to Safeway supermarket, nowadays owned by Morrisons.
My Client took an underlease of the shop part of the building In 1996, and for the 1997 review negotiations were synchronised with the headlease revew between Safeway and the superior landlord. For the 2002 review, by which time Morrisons had taken over Safeway, the landlord's surveyor wanted more rent pro-rata, so the review was referred to an independent expert for determination. The reasoning provided a precedent for the 2007 review.
Salford - 263 Great Cheetham Street East - dental surgery
For the tenant, a dentist, I was instructed to negotiate the 2008 rent review.
Before I was instructed, the tenant had tried to get the landlord, the Council of the City of Salford, to reduce the rent but the figure the landlord would agree was still considered too much. During negotiations, I discovered that the lease had not actually been completed which meant that, although my Client has a tenancy, the rent review could not be operated. After much consideration, the review was agreed at a nominal increase, to avoid the complication that could ensue.
Before I was instructed, the tenant had tried to get the landlord, the Council of the City of Salford, to reduce the rent but the figure the landlord would agree was still considered too much. During negotiations, I discovered that the lease had not actually been completed which meant that, although my Client has a tenancy, the rent review could not be operated. After much consideration, the review was agreed at a nominal increase, to avoid the complication that could ensue.
Stroud - 24 The Merrywalks Shopping Centre - rent review arbitration for F Hinds
F Hinds Ltd, the jewellers, instructed me to negotiate the rent review 29 September 2000 at its branch in The Merrywalks Centre, Stroud, Gloucestershire.
The rent was £21,500 per annum and, for various reasons, the review was up or down. The Landlord's Surveyors, Johnson Fellows, offered to settle at £19,750 pa. I referred the matter to arbitration so as to present a submission to someone with no vested in the outcome.
The Award was £15,000 pa.
A saving of £6500 per annum
For the September 2005 review, F Hinds Ltd started negotiations direct with the Landlord's surveyors, this time, Alder King. The proposal was £28,500 per annum but, before I was instructed, the Landlord had offered compromise at £26,000 pa.
This time, the Landlord had applied for arbitration. A different arbitrator to last time was appointed. On my recommendation, the arbitration proceeded.
The Award was £24,675 per annum.
A saving of £1325 per annum
The rent was £21,500 per annum and, for various reasons, the review was up or down. The Landlord's Surveyors, Johnson Fellows, offered to settle at £19,750 pa. I referred the matter to arbitration so as to present a submission to someone with no vested in the outcome.
The Award was £15,000 pa.
A saving of £6500 per annum
For the September 2005 review, F Hinds Ltd started negotiations direct with the Landlord's surveyors, this time, Alder King. The proposal was £28,500 per annum but, before I was instructed, the Landlord had offered compromise at £26,000 pa.
This time, the Landlord had applied for arbitration. A different arbitrator to last time was appointed. On my recommendation, the arbitration proceeded.
The Award was £24,675 per annum.
A saving of £1325 per annum
Southsea - 38-40 Kent Road - public house - saving £11,500 a year
The property is a substantial Grade II listed building close to Palmerston Road, of approximately 10,000 sqft arranged on basement, ground and three upper floors.
When my Client- tenant took the lease, the Landlord was a pub-co, but in 2007 the freehold was sold to a property investment and development company. The new landlord served a release notice and instructed Kevin Marsh, of Savills, to deal with the rent review. The proposal was £65,000 pa, with a subsequent Calderbank at a slightly lower figure.
Before I was instructed, my tenant-Client had engaged the services of a well-known chartered surveyor in the field of licensed premises rent review and valuations. Negotiations took place with Savills and an arbitrator appointed, but for various reasons that surveyor could no longer deal with the matter, so I was instructed at short notice, the closing date for the arbitration just a week or so later. I agreed an extension to the closing date for submissions, also I queried the rent review date which resulted in a 3 day difference in favour of the tenant I presented a written submission as an advocate and cross-examined Mr Marsh's expert witness report. The award at £53,500 pa was lower than the Calderbank.
A Calderbank (from Calderbank v Calderbank [1975]) is a without prejudice offer to settle to avoid costs. It can be made by either party and more than one Calderbank offer can be made during the course of the matter. The amount of offer does not have to be the lowest a landlord would accept or the highest a tenant would make. The offer is not disclosed to the arbitrator or independent expert (if the independent expert has jurisdiction on costs) before the award or determination is released. The general rule is that costs follow the event, unless there are circumstances otherwise, so if the award or determination were higher or lower than the Calderbank offer then the party making the offer could have costs award in his favour.
When my Client- tenant took the lease, the Landlord was a pub-co, but in 2007 the freehold was sold to a property investment and development company. The new landlord served a release notice and instructed Kevin Marsh, of Savills, to deal with the rent review. The proposal was £65,000 pa, with a subsequent Calderbank at a slightly lower figure.
Before I was instructed, my tenant-Client had engaged the services of a well-known chartered surveyor in the field of licensed premises rent review and valuations. Negotiations took place with Savills and an arbitrator appointed, but for various reasons that surveyor could no longer deal with the matter, so I was instructed at short notice, the closing date for the arbitration just a week or so later. I agreed an extension to the closing date for submissions, also I queried the rent review date which resulted in a 3 day difference in favour of the tenant I presented a written submission as an advocate and cross-examined Mr Marsh's expert witness report. The award at £53,500 pa was lower than the Calderbank.
A Calderbank (from Calderbank v Calderbank [1975]) is a without prejudice offer to settle to avoid costs. It can be made by either party and more than one Calderbank offer can be made during the course of the matter. The amount of offer does not have to be the lowest a landlord would accept or the highest a tenant would make. The offer is not disclosed to the arbitrator or independent expert (if the independent expert has jurisdiction on costs) before the award or determination is released. The general rule is that costs follow the event, unless there are circumstances otherwise, so if the award or determination were higher or lower than the Calderbank offer then the party making the offer could have costs award in his favour.
Trowbridge - 39 The Shires - acquisition and advice on new lease
Acting for Special Occasions*, the 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 is an award-winning family owned and run company with 14 shops in the Cotswold and Welsh Border areas. They sell greetings cards and a wide range of gifts in all their shops and Thorntons chocolates in 12 of the shops. I have acted for the company for many years, since it had 4 shops.
*Special Occasions is an award-winning family owned and run company with 14 shops in the Cotswold and Welsh Border areas. They sell greetings cards and a wide range of gifts in all their shops and Thorntons chocolates in 12 of the shops. I have acted for the company for many years, since it had 4 shops.
Warwick - 45a Coten End - report for negligence claim
A shop and upper part in a main road position almost opposite Sainsbury's Local, I was instructed to provide an expert report of value for a negligence claim involving failure to protect renewal rights on expiry of the lease.
Please click here for a slide-show gallery of photographs of the sort of properties and locations where I advise.
I have dealt with rent reviews and provided advice to tenants in almost every postal district in Central and Greater London.
To contact me, please telephone 01531 631892 or email help@michaellever.co.uk
I look forward to helping you in some way.
Michael Lever