The Rent Review Specialist
Rent Review
The purpose of a rent review (and where the basis is market rent) is to enable the landlord to obtain the market rent for the premises at the review date (or valuation date if different) and for the tenant to ensure it is not paying any more or less.
The open market is made up of different ‘affordabilities’, so, in linking the review to 'open market rent' ("OMR") ‘open’ means everyone and anyone. [In valuation, the word ‘open’ is superfluous. ]
As comparable evidence, a new letting to an inexperienced first-time tenant at a rent that might amaze is as valid as any hard-driven bargain by a company with dozens of branches. So, since rents in the commercial property market are unregulated, any tenant committing to a review to OMR is exposing its business to all manner of risks beyond its control (a situation that can strain compliance with the Turnbull report on internal control and risk management, to safeguard shareholders’ investment and the company’s assets). Similarly, since, in the open market, different landlords are likely to have different investment strategies, risks also apply to the landlord’s investment. Hence, the only way the actual landlord and actual tenant can have any control over the direction of the rental relationship is by recording their requirements in the lease, per the rent review guidelines.
In the market, rent is a product; it does not occur naturally, as in, ‘this is the rent for the premises’. To value rent, all terms and conditions of the tenancy must be known, stated in advance or defined. But, since the rent on a new letting is often agreed before the lease is drafted and/or approved, it is possible for a completed lease to contain terms and conditions that could produce a different rent to what was agreed. The test of efficacy is whether the rent would be identical if there were a rent review on the same date as the term commencement.
A rent review might be thought of greater benefit to landlords but, essentially, benefit is equal. A review ensures the tenant is not subsidised. Of course, tenants do not necessarily see it like that; and, for many, the only way the business can remain profitable is when costs are below the going rate.
With the gap widening between those that have what customers want and those that do not, tenants not on the receiving end of profitable demand are often fighting to preserve an outmoded business model. The tenant’s reaction to a proposed increase is likely to be emotional, than dispassionate, but a tenant’s failure to adapt its style to changing circumstances cannot possibly be something for which the landlord should be expected to share responsibility. It is not a fault of landlords that rents have become uneconomical for some tenants, but a function of the market, and that includes competition from other businesses, valuation methodology, and tenants straying from review guidelines.
It is pointless for a tenant to agree what it can afford because that could vary over the years: to pay more than necessary when business is booming can mean that rent fixed for the term, regardless. Because terminology is fashionable, guidelines vary from detailed to vague - terms and conditions of a tenancy cannot be changed, except by rectification by the original parties, or mutual agreement - but, whether the intention of the original parties is clear or interpreted, the guidelines are intended to be helpful: to enable the tenant to apply market circumstances at the valuation date to the level of rent.
A rent review is objective: not how much the actual tenant would agree, or the actual landlord would want, but what a hypothetical willing landlord would reasonably expect and a hypothetical willing tenant would pay; such parties may include the actual landlord and actual tenant. So, in addition to procedure for operating the review, time for agreement, method and cost of dispute resolution, and timing of payment and rate of interest on any back rent, the guidelines define the valuation basis for the terms of the tenancy between the hypothetical parties.
There is no such thing as an ‘upward-only rent review’ as such. Upward-only is a cushion for the rent payable and nothing to do with the market rent. So, if the lease contains an “upward-only” review clause, then that does not mean the rent must go up; but that the rent payable after the review cannot be lower than before. Even so, when the landlord expects an increase, that feeling can rub off on the tenant, so the tenant’s first thought is likely to focus on the proposal, rather than how to agree a rent that accords with the guidelines. Landlords can prey on inexperience and unsuspecting - for example, an increase for inflation, or encouraging avoiding the expense of appointing surveyors - so when landlord and tenant communicate directly, it is not unusual for such tenants to settle for a quiet life. But, whereas avoiding confrontation may sometimes be commercially expedient, it makes no sense, at least to me, for a tenant to ignore the guidelines, by thinking that could upset their landlord, when the guidelines are designed to be helpful.
If you are acting for the tenant and do as the tenant asks, but the landlord is unyielding, then for you and/or the tenant to reckon no real likelihood of a surveyor doing any better should, I suggest, be put to the test. It does not follow just because you and your client are not making any progress that a surveyor's experience would also get nowhere. To a landlord (whether represented overtly by a surveyor), a tenant, when negotiating themselves, or through a solicitor or an accountant, is often regarded a ‘soft touch’. Calling a landlord’s bluff - for example, threatening to instruct a surveyor, or referral to ‘arbitration’ - will only work when the landlord is fearful of the prospect. A landlord will wait to see whom the tenant has instructed, before deciding whether to enter into combat.
Although lowest rent is important, it may be all the more where the lease contains a tenant’s option to buy the freehold for the price valuation formula is based on the rent.
In my opinion, things go wrong in the landlord and tenant relationship when negotiations become subjective, and wider consequences for the actual landlord and tenant dominate. It is not simply a clash of personality or viewpoint. Costs can figure largely, the tenant baulks at the expense of referral, angles are not spotted or explored, so a new rent does not reflect the market at the valuation date, but is a product of the past, based almost solely on other rent review and lease renewal agreements. The cumulative effect can take its toll.
To quote from Wallshire Ltd v Aarons [1988] “second best are rent reviews which are negotiated between valuers, because although their aim is to achieve the same end-result of deciding what the market rent is, their decision is not tested by the market; their decision, their agreement, is based on their conclusions about what the market would decide. Negotiated settlements therefore can be unreliable because of the possibility of error piled on error. They need … an occasional window of reality provided by open market decisions. ”
The difficulty for a solicitor, when acting for a tenant, is their advisory role differs from that of a surveyor. Solicitors act only on client instructions, whereas surveyors can act off their own bat. When the tenant tells you the landlord’s proposal is excessive, or such like, and wants to reply with a counter-offer of what he could afford, how the response is received by the landlord is likely to be construed as an outburst, merely letting off steam. While some landlords do overstate, the proposal may in fact be close to market rent. Generally, particularly when substantial increase is proposed, the tenant’s reaction is anticipated. A emotional plea is unlikely to cut any ice. Since a review is a function of tenancy management, the tenant may forget, or not realise, the process is nothing personal.
It is also important to realise the review process is not only about rent, but also whether the review can be implemented and/or the proposal negotiated. Implementation often requires some notice to be given, the notice must be valid, and time-limits adhered to. Similarly, it may be necessary to serve a counter-notice. It is vital to respect the guidelines. Bellinger v South London Stationers Ltd [1979] is an example of what can go wrong: “we would hardly need to add that we do not accept your revised figure” was not considered sufficiently specific to be a counter-notice.
Where many tenants go wrong is not consulting a surveyor. It’s all very well wanting to save on fees by tackling the landlord themselves, or getting their solicitor or accountant to write, but, at rent review, as with anything involving a business tenancy, it’s not simply a matter of the tenant agreeing what it can afford, but what others would agree for the same situation. Anything the tenant agrees by themselves could end up backfiring on them at a later date. Whether through a solicitor or an accountant, a tenant trying to negotiate a rent review without involving a surveyor can leave the tenant with the feeling the cards are stacked in favour of the landlord but, in my experience, how negotiations are handled from the start can make a difference to the outcome.
The open market is made up of different ‘affordabilities’, so, in linking the review to 'open market rent' ("OMR") ‘open’ means everyone and anyone. [In valuation, the word ‘open’ is superfluous. ]
As comparable evidence, a new letting to an inexperienced first-time tenant at a rent that might amaze is as valid as any hard-driven bargain by a company with dozens of branches. So, since rents in the commercial property market are unregulated, any tenant committing to a review to OMR is exposing its business to all manner of risks beyond its control (a situation that can strain compliance with the Turnbull report on internal control and risk management, to safeguard shareholders’ investment and the company’s assets). Similarly, since, in the open market, different landlords are likely to have different investment strategies, risks also apply to the landlord’s investment. Hence, the only way the actual landlord and actual tenant can have any control over the direction of the rental relationship is by recording their requirements in the lease, per the rent review guidelines.
In the market, rent is a product; it does not occur naturally, as in, ‘this is the rent for the premises’. To value rent, all terms and conditions of the tenancy must be known, stated in advance or defined. But, since the rent on a new letting is often agreed before the lease is drafted and/or approved, it is possible for a completed lease to contain terms and conditions that could produce a different rent to what was agreed. The test of efficacy is whether the rent would be identical if there were a rent review on the same date as the term commencement.
A rent review might be thought of greater benefit to landlords but, essentially, benefit is equal. A review ensures the tenant is not subsidised. Of course, tenants do not necessarily see it like that; and, for many, the only way the business can remain profitable is when costs are below the going rate.
With the gap widening between those that have what customers want and those that do not, tenants not on the receiving end of profitable demand are often fighting to preserve an outmoded business model. The tenant’s reaction to a proposed increase is likely to be emotional, than dispassionate, but a tenant’s failure to adapt its style to changing circumstances cannot possibly be something for which the landlord should be expected to share responsibility. It is not a fault of landlords that rents have become uneconomical for some tenants, but a function of the market, and that includes competition from other businesses, valuation methodology, and tenants straying from review guidelines.
It is pointless for a tenant to agree what it can afford because that could vary over the years: to pay more than necessary when business is booming can mean that rent fixed for the term, regardless. Because terminology is fashionable, guidelines vary from detailed to vague - terms and conditions of a tenancy cannot be changed, except by rectification by the original parties, or mutual agreement - but, whether the intention of the original parties is clear or interpreted, the guidelines are intended to be helpful: to enable the tenant to apply market circumstances at the valuation date to the level of rent.
A rent review is objective: not how much the actual tenant would agree, or the actual landlord would want, but what a hypothetical willing landlord would reasonably expect and a hypothetical willing tenant would pay; such parties may include the actual landlord and actual tenant. So, in addition to procedure for operating the review, time for agreement, method and cost of dispute resolution, and timing of payment and rate of interest on any back rent, the guidelines define the valuation basis for the terms of the tenancy between the hypothetical parties.
There is no such thing as an ‘upward-only rent review’ as such. Upward-only is a cushion for the rent payable and nothing to do with the market rent. So, if the lease contains an “upward-only” review clause, then that does not mean the rent must go up; but that the rent payable after the review cannot be lower than before. Even so, when the landlord expects an increase, that feeling can rub off on the tenant, so the tenant’s first thought is likely to focus on the proposal, rather than how to agree a rent that accords with the guidelines. Landlords can prey on inexperience and unsuspecting - for example, an increase for inflation, or encouraging avoiding the expense of appointing surveyors - so when landlord and tenant communicate directly, it is not unusual for such tenants to settle for a quiet life. But, whereas avoiding confrontation may sometimes be commercially expedient, it makes no sense, at least to me, for a tenant to ignore the guidelines, by thinking that could upset their landlord, when the guidelines are designed to be helpful.
If you are acting for the tenant and do as the tenant asks, but the landlord is unyielding, then for you and/or the tenant to reckon no real likelihood of a surveyor doing any better should, I suggest, be put to the test. It does not follow just because you and your client are not making any progress that a surveyor's experience would also get nowhere. To a landlord (whether represented overtly by a surveyor), a tenant, when negotiating themselves, or through a solicitor or an accountant, is often regarded a ‘soft touch’. Calling a landlord’s bluff - for example, threatening to instruct a surveyor, or referral to ‘arbitration’ - will only work when the landlord is fearful of the prospect. A landlord will wait to see whom the tenant has instructed, before deciding whether to enter into combat.
Although lowest rent is important, it may be all the more where the lease contains a tenant’s option to buy the freehold for the price valuation formula is based on the rent.
In my opinion, things go wrong in the landlord and tenant relationship when negotiations become subjective, and wider consequences for the actual landlord and tenant dominate. It is not simply a clash of personality or viewpoint. Costs can figure largely, the tenant baulks at the expense of referral, angles are not spotted or explored, so a new rent does not reflect the market at the valuation date, but is a product of the past, based almost solely on other rent review and lease renewal agreements. The cumulative effect can take its toll.
To quote from Wallshire Ltd v Aarons [1988] “second best are rent reviews which are negotiated between valuers, because although their aim is to achieve the same end-result of deciding what the market rent is, their decision is not tested by the market; their decision, their agreement, is based on their conclusions about what the market would decide. Negotiated settlements therefore can be unreliable because of the possibility of error piled on error. They need … an occasional window of reality provided by open market decisions. ”
The difficulty for a solicitor, when acting for a tenant, is their advisory role differs from that of a surveyor. Solicitors act only on client instructions, whereas surveyors can act off their own bat. When the tenant tells you the landlord’s proposal is excessive, or such like, and wants to reply with a counter-offer of what he could afford, how the response is received by the landlord is likely to be construed as an outburst, merely letting off steam. While some landlords do overstate, the proposal may in fact be close to market rent. Generally, particularly when substantial increase is proposed, the tenant’s reaction is anticipated. A emotional plea is unlikely to cut any ice. Since a review is a function of tenancy management, the tenant may forget, or not realise, the process is nothing personal.
It is also important to realise the review process is not only about rent, but also whether the review can be implemented and/or the proposal negotiated. Implementation often requires some notice to be given, the notice must be valid, and time-limits adhered to. Similarly, it may be necessary to serve a counter-notice. It is vital to respect the guidelines. Bellinger v South London Stationers Ltd [1979] is an example of what can go wrong: “we would hardly need to add that we do not accept your revised figure” was not considered sufficiently specific to be a counter-notice.
Where many tenants go wrong is not consulting a surveyor. It’s all very well wanting to save on fees by tackling the landlord themselves, or getting their solicitor or accountant to write, but, at rent review, as with anything involving a business tenancy, it’s not simply a matter of the tenant agreeing what it can afford, but what others would agree for the same situation. Anything the tenant agrees by themselves could end up backfiring on them at a later date. Whether through a solicitor or an accountant, a tenant trying to negotiate a rent review without involving a surveyor can leave the tenant with the feeling the cards are stacked in favour of the landlord but, in my experience, how negotiations are handled from the start can make a difference to the outcome.