The Rent Review Specialist
The Market v the Evidence
28/09/2016
To consider the property market as a whole or an umbrella term for its sectors and segments depends on the thinking and the nature of the property. Thinking about…For further reading, please visit LandlordZone.
Assessing Covenant Strength
09/09/2016
Assuming a commercial property is let already, the proposition an income-producing investment, the investor would be buying the building/property, not the tenant’s business. Since the…For further reading, please visit LandlordZone.
"Upward only" rent review
12/05/2014
Contrary to popular belief, ‘upward-only’ rent review does not mean the rent must increase. For further reading, please visit LandlordZone
Negotiation
01/01/2014
Contrary to popular belief, there is, assuming the review to market rent, no right or wrong way to negotiate a rent review. The tenant may like to assert that the landlord should produce evidence to justify a proposed increase and if none were forthcoming then the rent should not go up, but that stance has no basis in law. On the contrary, a principle of business tenancy law is that a rent review is for the benefit of both parties, so co-operation is called for.
In United Scientific Holdings v Burnley Borough Council (1978), Lord Salmon said: “To my mind, it is totally unrealistic to regard such clauses (rent review) as conferring a privilege upon the landlord or as imposing a burden upon the tenant. Both the landlord and the tenant recognise the obvious, viz., that such clauses are fair and reasonable for each of them. I do not agree with what has been said in some of the authorities, namely, that a rent revision clause is for the benefit of the landlord alone and not at all for the benefit of the tenant. It is plainly for the benefit of them both. It is for the benefit of the tenant because without such a clause he would never get the long lease which he required; and under modern conditions it would be grossly unfair that he should. It is for the benefit of the landlord because it ensures that for the duration of the lease he will receive a fair rent instead of a rent far below the market value of the property which he demises. ”
A review ensures the tenant is not subsidised. Even so, tenants rarely see it like that; and, for many, the only way the business can remain profitable is when costs are below the going rate. A business plan is rarely straightforward, and with the gap widening between retailers that have what customers want, and those that do not, retailers not on the receiving end of profitable demand are often fighting to preserve an outmoded business model. When the survival of the tenant’s business depends to a large extent upon the landlord not wanting any (hefty) increase, the tenant’s reaction to a proposed increase is much more likely to be emotional, than dispassionate. What might be described as 'woolly-headed liberal thinking' has entered the popular fray but retailing is not an extension of social services. A tenant’s failure to adapt its business 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 retailers, but a function of the market, which includes competition from other retailers, consumer spending-priorities, rental valuation methodology, and tenants straying from review guidelines.
In United Scientific Holdings v Burnley Borough Council (1978), Lord Salmon said: “To my mind, it is totally unrealistic to regard such clauses (rent review) as conferring a privilege upon the landlord or as imposing a burden upon the tenant. Both the landlord and the tenant recognise the obvious, viz., that such clauses are fair and reasonable for each of them. I do not agree with what has been said in some of the authorities, namely, that a rent revision clause is for the benefit of the landlord alone and not at all for the benefit of the tenant. It is plainly for the benefit of them both. It is for the benefit of the tenant because without such a clause he would never get the long lease which he required; and under modern conditions it would be grossly unfair that he should. It is for the benefit of the landlord because it ensures that for the duration of the lease he will receive a fair rent instead of a rent far below the market value of the property which he demises. ”
A review ensures the tenant is not subsidised. Even so, tenants rarely see it like that; and, for many, the only way the business can remain profitable is when costs are below the going rate. A business plan is rarely straightforward, and with the gap widening between retailers that have what customers want, and those that do not, retailers not on the receiving end of profitable demand are often fighting to preserve an outmoded business model. When the survival of the tenant’s business depends to a large extent upon the landlord not wanting any (hefty) increase, the tenant’s reaction to a proposed increase is much more likely to be emotional, than dispassionate. What might be described as 'woolly-headed liberal thinking' has entered the popular fray but retailing is not an extension of social services. A tenant’s failure to adapt its business 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 retailers, but a function of the market, which includes competition from other retailers, consumer spending-priorities, rental valuation methodology, and tenants straying from review guidelines.