The Rent Review Specialist
Sub-Lease
01/01/2014
Multiple retailers, particularly, with premises that are surplus to requirements frequently sub-let rather than assign the leases. Why? There are many reasons. For example:
1) the risk of assignment is that in the event of assignee default, the lease could revert to the assignor at any time. [Although leases containing Authorised Guarantee Agreements only revert to the assignor in the event of assignee default, older leases are subject to the original rules of privity of contract, so would revert to the original tenant, regardless of how many assignments have taken place, and with the assignor having no rights to reoccupy the premises.]
2) The financial standing of the assignee might not satisfy the freeholder's criteria.
3) Once assigned, it would not normally be possible for the assignor to take the premises back were the assignor to want to re-occupy the premises in future.
4) Any use to which an assignee or future assignee might put the premises could, assuming no restriction in the lease, risk creating a competitor for the assignor's business in the locality.
On balance, sub-letting is an opportunity to charge a profit rent, and enables the tenant to keep control of the lease. The risk of sub-tenant default or delay in paying the rent still exists, but the tenant would control what to do, rather than the landlord.
Generally, where a lease allows the tenant to sub-let, the required outline terms and conditions of any underlease are stated in the lease. Although modern leases may require any under-lease to be outside the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, often older leases do not. That means that provided the under-lease would qualify for renewal rights on expiry, and assuming the under-lessee wants to renew and the superior landlord does not oppose renewal, the under-lessee would become the direct tenant of the superior landlord.
Regardless of the conditions required by the lease, on grant of under-lease, it is not unusual for strictures of full repairing and decorating obligations to be eased by a schedule of condition or similar. In such cases, the under-lessee should be aware that, unless the underlease is worded correctly, the commercial value of a schedule of condition will end on expiry of the contractual term of underlease, and not continue into any statutory continuation or holding over period. Furthermore, provided the under-lessee is in occupation of the premises on expiry, (and the superior landlord does not oppose renewal, and renewal rights are protected), it should be possible for the terms and conditions of the underlease to be reflected in the terms and conditions of the renewal lease. So, the renewal lease could also contain a schedule of condition.
The risk/cost of managing surplus estate and onerous leases can mount up to become a noticeable provision on the balance-sheet, so retailers like to be rid of the commitment by assigning them, either to third parties, or more likely to their under-lessees. Where an under-lease contains a schedule of condition, the lessor/assignor will normally agree to indemnify the under-lessee for the cost of compliance with the difference between the full repairing covenant and the schedule of condition so that, in practice, the underlesee/to-be-assignee is in no worse a position.
However, unless careful consideration is given to the long-term and wider consequences, the position could be a lot worse. The under-lessee should ensure the indemnity covers any statutory continuation or holding over period of the lease. Also, the under-lessee should note that, on expiry and renewal, it would be the terms and conditions of the lease (assigned) that form the basis for the valuation aspects of s.34 and s.35 Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and not the terms and conditions of the underlease. In other words, by taking over the lease, the under-lessee would be losing the right to renew on the same terms and conditions of the underlease, the schedule of condition not carried forward.
The total cost of putting a property in a state of repair and decoration as envisaged by the lease can be considerable. It is not only the actual expense for the works but also the attendant costs and fees payable to lawyers and surveyors for the landlord, as well as the tenant's advisers.
1) the risk of assignment is that in the event of assignee default, the lease could revert to the assignor at any time. [Although leases containing Authorised Guarantee Agreements only revert to the assignor in the event of assignee default, older leases are subject to the original rules of privity of contract, so would revert to the original tenant, regardless of how many assignments have taken place, and with the assignor having no rights to reoccupy the premises.]
2) The financial standing of the assignee might not satisfy the freeholder's criteria.
3) Once assigned, it would not normally be possible for the assignor to take the premises back were the assignor to want to re-occupy the premises in future.
4) Any use to which an assignee or future assignee might put the premises could, assuming no restriction in the lease, risk creating a competitor for the assignor's business in the locality.
On balance, sub-letting is an opportunity to charge a profit rent, and enables the tenant to keep control of the lease. The risk of sub-tenant default or delay in paying the rent still exists, but the tenant would control what to do, rather than the landlord.
Generally, where a lease allows the tenant to sub-let, the required outline terms and conditions of any underlease are stated in the lease. Although modern leases may require any under-lease to be outside the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, often older leases do not. That means that provided the under-lease would qualify for renewal rights on expiry, and assuming the under-lessee wants to renew and the superior landlord does not oppose renewal, the under-lessee would become the direct tenant of the superior landlord.
Regardless of the conditions required by the lease, on grant of under-lease, it is not unusual for strictures of full repairing and decorating obligations to be eased by a schedule of condition or similar. In such cases, the under-lessee should be aware that, unless the underlease is worded correctly, the commercial value of a schedule of condition will end on expiry of the contractual term of underlease, and not continue into any statutory continuation or holding over period. Furthermore, provided the under-lessee is in occupation of the premises on expiry, (and the superior landlord does not oppose renewal, and renewal rights are protected), it should be possible for the terms and conditions of the underlease to be reflected in the terms and conditions of the renewal lease. So, the renewal lease could also contain a schedule of condition.
The risk/cost of managing surplus estate and onerous leases can mount up to become a noticeable provision on the balance-sheet, so retailers like to be rid of the commitment by assigning them, either to third parties, or more likely to their under-lessees. Where an under-lease contains a schedule of condition, the lessor/assignor will normally agree to indemnify the under-lessee for the cost of compliance with the difference between the full repairing covenant and the schedule of condition so that, in practice, the underlesee/to-be-assignee is in no worse a position.
However, unless careful consideration is given to the long-term and wider consequences, the position could be a lot worse. The under-lessee should ensure the indemnity covers any statutory continuation or holding over period of the lease. Also, the under-lessee should note that, on expiry and renewal, it would be the terms and conditions of the lease (assigned) that form the basis for the valuation aspects of s.34 and s.35 Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, and not the terms and conditions of the underlease. In other words, by taking over the lease, the under-lessee would be losing the right to renew on the same terms and conditions of the underlease, the schedule of condition not carried forward.
The total cost of putting a property in a state of repair and decoration as envisaged by the lease can be considerable. It is not only the actual expense for the works but also the attendant costs and fees payable to lawyers and surveyors for the landlord, as well as the tenant's advisers.