The Rent Review Specialist
Rent Review
Open market rent review
A feature of investing in commercial property is the rent review. With residential BTL, rents can be increased but usually only at the end of the term if the existing tenant would pay more or on a new letting if the market is up to it or, as with ground rents, to pre-set incremental increases. With commercial property, rent reviews can occur at regular intervals throughout the term because the duration of a commercial property letting is often for years: 3 to 5 years is not uncommon, 10 is typical, 15-25 years not unusual, and with ground leases 75-125 years or more. At present, I dealing with a ground lease rent review where the contractual term was extended from 80 years to 150 years.
There are various types of rent review: fixed increases, percentage uplifts, formulaic reviews such as inflation-adjusted index-linked, ground rent reviews geared to open market rent, turnover rent review comprising a base figure plus a percentage of the turnover of the tenant's business, and open market reviews where the rent is assessed by reference to the open market. Turnover reviews are common in factory outlet centres and shopping malls that are owned by a single landlord; in isolation turnover reviews are for the private investor harder to administer, let alone finding a tenant who'd agree. (The turnover is before VAT: in case-law, a tenant got clobbered a while back through overlooking the impact of VAT on the wording of the review and was obliged to pay more rent when the VAT rate went up to 20%.) Fixed increases, common during the 1960s/1970s, are rare nowadays because the amount of increase requires a leap of faith at the onset. Formulaic reviews tend to be found with sale-and-leaseback and where investors are offered a certain or easily calculable income stream, akin to an annuity. Ground rent review is where the land is let, the tenant constructing the building in consideration for which the landlord gets a percentage of the rental value of the building.
Open market review is the most common. The principle is that the rent would be adjusted to the market rent assuming (hypothetically) the premises would be available to let in the open market at the review date or valuation date if different. For the hypothesis, there are matters to be assumed and disregarded and whatever is to be taken into account is to be found in the wording of the rent review clause. There are no set guidelines: it all depends upon what was agreed when the lease was granted and any related documentation. The interpretation the guidelines is another matter entirely which is why to assume literally whatever the review clause says can be a mistake.
For open market review, the rental valuation approach is evidence-oriented. There has to be evidence of a higher rent elsewhere for the rent of the premises under review to increase, either that or informed opinion. Informed opinion is not the same as working out what the actual tenant should be able to afford: that the tenant might be able to afford, for example, ten times more doesn't in itself mean that the rent should increase.
On grant of leases, there are two types of landlord. The landlord for whom the property has always been an investment, and the landlord that previously occupied the property for his own business but is selling up and simultaneously granting a new lease of the property to the buyer. Where the lease is being granted in conjunction with the sale of the business, it is common for the initial rent to be set by reference to what the business could afford. Where that rent is higher than the market rent, it is essential for the wording of the rent review to enable an increase, otherwise all that will happen is that the market rent would prevail. That does not matter if the market rent were higher than the initial rent but, all other factors remaining constant, often it's not. In such cases, the rent currently payable could result in over-renting in the context of the open market rent.
Frequently, I am consulted by landlords who, having granted a new lease in conjunction with sale of their business as a going concern, approach the rent review in the same way of thinking as with the initial rent. A well-advised tenant is likely to opposite any increase on that basis.
The landlord for whom the property has always been an investment will usually agree whatever rent the incoming tenant will agree to pay. Since that rent would normally be based on the asking rent, the agreed rent is likely to reflect the open market rent at the time, presupposing the terms and conditions of the lease reflect that rent.
Unlike the new letting where the landlord can bide his time waiting for an acceptable offer, the open market rent on review is at a fixed date, the valuation date which may or may not be the same as the review date depending upon what the lease says. Regardless of the type of landlord and how the initial rent was set, both become subject to the terminology of the open market rent on review, in particular the valuation basis.
In outline, the leases contains two leases: the lease and the hypothetical lease. The hypothetical lease only applies at rent review. The terms and conditions of the hypothetical lease can be the same as the lease or differ, that's a matter of drafting and approval when the lease was granted. Of the three methods of valuation, the contractor's or costs method, the profits test, and the comparable evidence, the latter is the most common. The profits test may not be admissible evidence: the information would have to be in the public domain and limited to the particular property, rather than the tenant's other interests. The contractor's method tends to be used for buildings that are rarely on the market and for which there is no evidence. The evidence method, based on comparable evidence, is the method in widespread use because the opinions that can cloud the contractor's and profits' method do not apply.
Evidence is what another tenant has agreed to pay for their property. The property may belong to the same of a different landlord. The weight that would be given to the evidence for use as comparable is likely to vary according to the facts and circumstances.
What happens if there's no evidence. The short answer is no increase. Does that make sense? Yes and no. Yes if you accept without question the valuation basis for the rent. No if you wonder why you should lose out just because there's no evidence.
Perhaps it has always been thus but in recent years I've noticed a trend towards reliance on evidence regardless. I suspect it's a product of tenant-resistance to increase. Tenants and surveyors are well aware of the need for evidence for justification. It may not be necessary to give reasons but in the event of dispute it is. In dispute, which is the parameter upon which all reviews are based even if referral were not initiated, the tenant's approach is to require the landlord to justify the proposed increase with supporting evidence. To the inexperienced landlord, it is wearing, often frustrating that the tenant will not play ball. Despite the lease stating the parties are to reach agreement, rarely if ever does the lease prescribe how agreement is to be reached. The landlords thinks the tenant can afford more, the tenant thinks why should he offer more. This is unyielding combat, a battle of wits.
Frequently, I am instructed to take over negotiations where the landlord having reached the end of his tether doesn't want to take the next step of referral but wants me to work wonders. To force the pace, the cost of referral is not a step to be taken lightly. One step at a time maybe but the starting price is £369 for referral to the RICS. After that, the minimum fee could be £500/£750 plus anything between £180 and £350 an hour plus VAT and disbursements merely to get the tenant to concede. Lining the pockets of third parties is not how it should be, but is the price of venturing into the property system.
The standard form of rent review clause to open market rent is rarely thought out in the context of the actual property. In my opinion, there is no benefit to a landlord in going to the expense of a rent review clause drafted if there is any possibility the rent might not increase. To assume that merely because there is a rent review and an open market that the two combine to support an increase is a nonsense. At rent review to open market, a landlord is not in a position to insist upon an increase, nor is there is any justification for an increase merely because at the last rent review there was no increase. In a matter I was dealing with earlier this year, where my instructions were withdrawn despite the landlord concurring with my opinion that the rent would not increase, the fact that it takes time to procure an increase when none is justified seemed to be lost on the landlord. as far as the landlord was concerned merely because I advised no increase, but have a go, and the tenant's surveyor concurred with me did not mean the rent should not increase. You may think the landlord off his rocker but the failing is that the rent review clause to open market was drafted on the assumption that there would be evidence in the open market to support an increase.
Psychologically, the implication in 'upward-only' rent review is that the rent must increase and that if the landlord cannot procure what he wants through his own efforts a surveyor ought to be able to do better. Tough, it's not like that. Sometimes the rent that the parties could agree between themselves would be higher than if surveyors are involved. Hardly surprising therefore that landlords are keen on dissuading tenants from involving surveyors!
There are various types of rent review: fixed increases, percentage uplifts, formulaic reviews such as inflation-adjusted index-linked, ground rent reviews geared to open market rent, turnover rent review comprising a base figure plus a percentage of the turnover of the tenant's business, and open market reviews where the rent is assessed by reference to the open market. Turnover reviews are common in factory outlet centres and shopping malls that are owned by a single landlord; in isolation turnover reviews are for the private investor harder to administer, let alone finding a tenant who'd agree. (The turnover is before VAT: in case-law, a tenant got clobbered a while back through overlooking the impact of VAT on the wording of the review and was obliged to pay more rent when the VAT rate went up to 20%.) Fixed increases, common during the 1960s/1970s, are rare nowadays because the amount of increase requires a leap of faith at the onset. Formulaic reviews tend to be found with sale-and-leaseback and where investors are offered a certain or easily calculable income stream, akin to an annuity. Ground rent review is where the land is let, the tenant constructing the building in consideration for which the landlord gets a percentage of the rental value of the building.
Open market review is the most common. The principle is that the rent would be adjusted to the market rent assuming (hypothetically) the premises would be available to let in the open market at the review date or valuation date if different. For the hypothesis, there are matters to be assumed and disregarded and whatever is to be taken into account is to be found in the wording of the rent review clause. There are no set guidelines: it all depends upon what was agreed when the lease was granted and any related documentation. The interpretation the guidelines is another matter entirely which is why to assume literally whatever the review clause says can be a mistake.
For open market review, the rental valuation approach is evidence-oriented. There has to be evidence of a higher rent elsewhere for the rent of the premises under review to increase, either that or informed opinion. Informed opinion is not the same as working out what the actual tenant should be able to afford: that the tenant might be able to afford, for example, ten times more doesn't in itself mean that the rent should increase.
On grant of leases, there are two types of landlord. The landlord for whom the property has always been an investment, and the landlord that previously occupied the property for his own business but is selling up and simultaneously granting a new lease of the property to the buyer. Where the lease is being granted in conjunction with the sale of the business, it is common for the initial rent to be set by reference to what the business could afford. Where that rent is higher than the market rent, it is essential for the wording of the rent review to enable an increase, otherwise all that will happen is that the market rent would prevail. That does not matter if the market rent were higher than the initial rent but, all other factors remaining constant, often it's not. In such cases, the rent currently payable could result in over-renting in the context of the open market rent.
Frequently, I am consulted by landlords who, having granted a new lease in conjunction with sale of their business as a going concern, approach the rent review in the same way of thinking as with the initial rent. A well-advised tenant is likely to opposite any increase on that basis.
The landlord for whom the property has always been an investment will usually agree whatever rent the incoming tenant will agree to pay. Since that rent would normally be based on the asking rent, the agreed rent is likely to reflect the open market rent at the time, presupposing the terms and conditions of the lease reflect that rent.
Unlike the new letting where the landlord can bide his time waiting for an acceptable offer, the open market rent on review is at a fixed date, the valuation date which may or may not be the same as the review date depending upon what the lease says. Regardless of the type of landlord and how the initial rent was set, both become subject to the terminology of the open market rent on review, in particular the valuation basis.
In outline, the leases contains two leases: the lease and the hypothetical lease. The hypothetical lease only applies at rent review. The terms and conditions of the hypothetical lease can be the same as the lease or differ, that's a matter of drafting and approval when the lease was granted. Of the three methods of valuation, the contractor's or costs method, the profits test, and the comparable evidence, the latter is the most common. The profits test may not be admissible evidence: the information would have to be in the public domain and limited to the particular property, rather than the tenant's other interests. The contractor's method tends to be used for buildings that are rarely on the market and for which there is no evidence. The evidence method, based on comparable evidence, is the method in widespread use because the opinions that can cloud the contractor's and profits' method do not apply.
Evidence is what another tenant has agreed to pay for their property. The property may belong to the same of a different landlord. The weight that would be given to the evidence for use as comparable is likely to vary according to the facts and circumstances.
What happens if there's no evidence. The short answer is no increase. Does that make sense? Yes and no. Yes if you accept without question the valuation basis for the rent. No if you wonder why you should lose out just because there's no evidence.
Perhaps it has always been thus but in recent years I've noticed a trend towards reliance on evidence regardless. I suspect it's a product of tenant-resistance to increase. Tenants and surveyors are well aware of the need for evidence for justification. It may not be necessary to give reasons but in the event of dispute it is. In dispute, which is the parameter upon which all reviews are based even if referral were not initiated, the tenant's approach is to require the landlord to justify the proposed increase with supporting evidence. To the inexperienced landlord, it is wearing, often frustrating that the tenant will not play ball. Despite the lease stating the parties are to reach agreement, rarely if ever does the lease prescribe how agreement is to be reached. The landlords thinks the tenant can afford more, the tenant thinks why should he offer more. This is unyielding combat, a battle of wits.
Frequently, I am instructed to take over negotiations where the landlord having reached the end of his tether doesn't want to take the next step of referral but wants me to work wonders. To force the pace, the cost of referral is not a step to be taken lightly. One step at a time maybe but the starting price is £369 for referral to the RICS. After that, the minimum fee could be £500/£750 plus anything between £180 and £350 an hour plus VAT and disbursements merely to get the tenant to concede. Lining the pockets of third parties is not how it should be, but is the price of venturing into the property system.
The standard form of rent review clause to open market rent is rarely thought out in the context of the actual property. In my opinion, there is no benefit to a landlord in going to the expense of a rent review clause drafted if there is any possibility the rent might not increase. To assume that merely because there is a rent review and an open market that the two combine to support an increase is a nonsense. At rent review to open market, a landlord is not in a position to insist upon an increase, nor is there is any justification for an increase merely because at the last rent review there was no increase. In a matter I was dealing with earlier this year, where my instructions were withdrawn despite the landlord concurring with my opinion that the rent would not increase, the fact that it takes time to procure an increase when none is justified seemed to be lost on the landlord. as far as the landlord was concerned merely because I advised no increase, but have a go, and the tenant's surveyor concurred with me did not mean the rent should not increase. You may think the landlord off his rocker but the failing is that the rent review clause to open market was drafted on the assumption that there would be evidence in the open market to support an increase.
Psychologically, the implication in 'upward-only' rent review is that the rent must increase and that if the landlord cannot procure what he wants through his own efforts a surveyor ought to be able to do better. Tough, it's not like that. Sometimes the rent that the parties could agree between themselves would be higher than if surveyors are involved. Hardly surprising therefore that landlords are keen on dissuading tenants from involving surveyors!
Upward only rent review
Contrary to popular belief, ‘upward-only’ rent review does not mean the rent must increase. For further reading, please visit LandlordZone
Rent
Rent is a system of payment for the temporary use of something owned by someone else; the payments for such use are typically referred to as "rent".
In the open market, rent is a product; it does not occur naturally, as in, ‘this is the rent for the premises’. To value rent, all the terms and conditions of the tenancy must be known, stated in advance or defined. However, because the rent at 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.
Whether the parties agree the rent and other outline terms between themselves, or with the help of surveyors, the precise wording and phrasing of the terms and conditions is not generally discussed and agreed before lawyers are instructed.
Sometimes, with a new letting, a draft lease will be available beforehand upon which the tenant’s rental offer would be based. On renewal involving LTA54 a draft lease for uncontentious matters would normally be agreed integral to proceedings, the amount of rent and other contentious items to be agreed thereafter or left blank pending court order. Even so, because there are cost consequences the parties are unlikely to want their lawyers to engage in detailed negotiations for finalising the renewal lease before the main terms are agreed in principle. It is only usually when the matter is actually likely to end up in court that it makes sense for the parties’ surveyors to delay the question of rent and other main terms until a draft lease has been finalised. Either that, or for each agreed item to be incorporated in the draft lease, with the other matters checked to ensure no conflict between what has been agreed previously and each new item.
In the open market, rent is a product; it does not occur naturally, as in, ‘this is the rent for the premises’. To value rent, all the terms and conditions of the tenancy must be known, stated in advance or defined. However, because the rent at 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.
Whether the parties agree the rent and other outline terms between themselves, or with the help of surveyors, the precise wording and phrasing of the terms and conditions is not generally discussed and agreed before lawyers are instructed.
Sometimes, with a new letting, a draft lease will be available beforehand upon which the tenant’s rental offer would be based. On renewal involving LTA54 a draft lease for uncontentious matters would normally be agreed integral to proceedings, the amount of rent and other contentious items to be agreed thereafter or left blank pending court order. Even so, because there are cost consequences the parties are unlikely to want their lawyers to engage in detailed negotiations for finalising the renewal lease before the main terms are agreed in principle. It is only usually when the matter is actually likely to end up in court that it makes sense for the parties’ surveyors to delay the question of rent and other main terms until a draft lease has been finalised. Either that, or for each agreed item to be incorporated in the draft lease, with the other matters checked to ensure no conflict between what has been agreed previously and each new item.
Five Key Dates
For purpose of agreeing or determining a rent, there are five key dates:
1) the review date;
2) the valuation date;
3) the earliest date for implementing the dispute resolution procedure
4) the date when the revised rent is payable; and
5) the date when any back rent is payable.
The review date is either specifically stated or calculated for the period from commencement of the term. A lease that does not define or specify the term commencement date creates problems, since it becomes a question of whether from the phrasing in the lease it is intended for the term to start from the commencement or the date of the lease. The date of the lease is the date of the document and even if that date were the same as the term commencement it is preferable for the lease to be clear.
I prefer the actual date(s) for the review(s) to be specified. That avoids convoluted terminology and interpretation of anniversary dates.
It is important to agree the valuation date, since that date does not have to be the same date as when the revised rent is payable.
Normally the revised rent payable would be back-dated to the review date, unless otherwise stated in the lease.
1) the review date;
2) the valuation date;
3) the earliest date for implementing the dispute resolution procedure
4) the date when the revised rent is payable; and
5) the date when any back rent is payable.
The review date is either specifically stated or calculated for the period from commencement of the term. A lease that does not define or specify the term commencement date creates problems, since it becomes a question of whether from the phrasing in the lease it is intended for the term to start from the commencement or the date of the lease. The date of the lease is the date of the document and even if that date were the same as the term commencement it is preferable for the lease to be clear.
I prefer the actual date(s) for the review(s) to be specified. That avoids convoluted terminology and interpretation of anniversary dates.
It is important to agree the valuation date, since that date does not have to be the same date as when the revised rent is payable.
Normally the revised rent payable would be back-dated to the review date, unless otherwise stated in the lease.
Review dates
For some reason, best known to the world of lawyer-draftsmen, the phrasing in leases is often unbelievably convoluted. Commonly, review dates are not specified, such as 25 December 2006, 25 December 2011, but referred to as intervals such as 5th and 10th anniversaries, which is all very well provided it is clear from the wording of the lease from which each particular anniversary is computed.
Confusion can arise when, in the drafting of a lease, the draftsman uses the word ‘lease’ when referring to commencement dates for purpose of term, rent, and rent reviews. In modern leases, each expression or phrase will usually be defined in the lease so as to leave no scope for different interpretation, but where the draftsman does not, or phrasing or expression definitions are incomplete, and instead refers casually to the date of the lease, an ambiguity can arise where the lease states that rent reviews are at stated intervals during the term but the review dates themselves are calculated from commencement of the lease.
Anniversary dates in leases are often unspecified, referring to a period of time, rather than actual dates, so can cause interpretation problems, and particularly with rent review and/or break clause the wording of the lease may be critical for ensuring the validity of any notices. Judging by the volume of case-law concerning incorrect dates on notices, it is high time the habit of obliging the parties to calculate or interpret the appropriate dates for themselves is scrapped and instead the actual dates specified wherever possible. Having said that, it can sometimes pay to leave the actual review date unspecified.
Confusion can arise when, in the drafting of a lease, the draftsman uses the word ‘lease’ when referring to commencement dates for purpose of term, rent, and rent reviews. In modern leases, each expression or phrase will usually be defined in the lease so as to leave no scope for different interpretation, but where the draftsman does not, or phrasing or expression definitions are incomplete, and instead refers casually to the date of the lease, an ambiguity can arise where the lease states that rent reviews are at stated intervals during the term but the review dates themselves are calculated from commencement of the lease.
Anniversary dates in leases are often unspecified, referring to a period of time, rather than actual dates, so can cause interpretation problems, and particularly with rent review and/or break clause the wording of the lease may be critical for ensuring the validity of any notices. Judging by the volume of case-law concerning incorrect dates on notices, it is high time the habit of obliging the parties to calculate or interpret the appropriate dates for themselves is scrapped and instead the actual dates specified wherever possible. Having said that, it can sometimes pay to leave the actual review date unspecified.
Framework of review clause
The framework of a well-drafted review clause will comprise:
1) The review dates
2) Procedure for operating the review
3) Valuation guidelines
4) Timetable for agreement
5) Dispute resolution procedure
6) Recording the review
7) Payment of the revised rent
1) The review dates
2) Procedure for operating the review
3) Valuation guidelines
4) Timetable for agreement
5) Dispute resolution procedure
6) Recording the review
7) Payment of the revised rent
Types of rent review
1) Fixed increments at set intervals
2) Formulaic such as index-linked or linked to turnover.
3) Open Market Rent
4) Ground rent - strictly not a type but a valuation basis.
5) Capped (or cap-and-collar) review
6) Geared or ratio rent
2) Formulaic such as index-linked or linked to turnover.
3) Open Market Rent
4) Ground rent - strictly not a type but a valuation basis.
5) Capped (or cap-and-collar) review
6) Geared or ratio rent
Purpose of Rent Review
The purpose of rent review is threefold:
1) to enable the landlord to review the rent payable;
2) for the tenant to ensure the rent payable is no more or less than it should be;
3) for both parties to monitor the performance of the location and trading position.
Reviewing the rent payable is all very well for landlords but for tenants ensuring it is no more or less than it should be is not how most tenants would view a rent review. For many tenants, the only way the business can remain profitable is when costs are below the going rate. Even so, despite the tenant's perspective, a rent review is for the benefit of both parties.
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.”
Tenants do have a point, however, in the context of rent payable. Generally, a rent review is not about the rent payable but about the rent at the review/valuation date. The rent payable is the amount payable after the rent is agreed or ascertained. Therefore, there are, in fact, two rents at rent review: 1) the review rent in accordance with the review clause and 2) the rent payable regardless.
The difference arises because of what is known as 'upward-only' rent review. 'Upward-only' does not mean the review rent necessarily has to go up. The review rent might be more or the same or less than the rent payable. 'Upward-only' refers to the rent payable after the review rent is agreed or ascertained as not usually less than the rent payable before the review. (I say 'usually' because there are circumstances where the rent payable could differ; you can find more about that here. (link awaited).
It might be thought unlikely to be cost-effective for either landlord or tenant to review the rent if the rent payable would be more than the review rent. In some instances, however, it might be beneficial for the landlord or the tenant to review the rent regardless, such as, for example, for monitoring performance.
Location is the underlying driving force for both property performance and tenant-demand. Property performance is the measure of rental and capital growth; both factors are needed to counteract and outpace what would otherwise be a depreciating asset. No increase on review is often symptomatic of a location that is static or in decline.
Property is a depreciating asset whose rate of depreciation can be outpaced by rental and capital growth. Rental growth is a product of demand by tenants according to the supply and availability of premises that would satisfy and fulfil the tenant's business operational requirements.
Tenant-demand is a driver for growth, but a premises-supply-shortage which leads to higher rents will challenge the economical rental for those businesses whose presence in the locality is part of the attraction; there is a cut-off point at which the more successful businesses will baulk at any further increase in rent. Although a rent review might be thought a private matter between actual landlord and actual tenant and of no concern to anyone else, any extra rent will increase the insurance premium cover for loss of rent and affect the Rateable Value (hence business rates payable). Also for the tenant the money has to come from somewhere and when an increase exceeds the tenant's economical rent the tenant will have to make savings elsewhere. (In my opinion, the first sign of a location entering decline is when the tenancy of a shop previously let to a multiple retailer is assigned or the premises re-let to a non-multiple retailer.)
In theory, a rent review should be a straightforward matter of the landlord and tenant agreeing the rent for the review period. In practice, it is not as simple as that. In business tenancy law, the review rent is not about how much the actual tenant could afford or how much the actual landlord wants to get a return on the investment, but the rent others would agree. And the rent that others would agree is arrived at by evaluating the evidence in the light of the terms and conditions of the lease.
Rent does not exist in isolation. Rent is the product of the terms and conditions of the tenancy upon which the premises are let, or to let. Whenever a new lease is granted, the parties and their advisers will agree the terms and conditions for the letting. There is no standard form of lease for all business premises. Consequently, the terms and conditions of each individual lease will affect the review rent.
Usually, a review is to market rent, unless the parties have agreed another basis as specified in the lease. Where rental valuation has regard to evidence, the hierarchy for best evidence is a new letting in the open market but the premises are let already (even if unoccupied) so the market cannot be tested. The alternative, which is the basis of rent review, is to assess the rent objectively: in other words, assuming the premises are available to let on a specified date at the rent that would be agreed between a hypothetical willing landlord and a hypothetical willing tenant, on the terms and conditions in the existing lease.
1) to enable the landlord to review the rent payable;
2) for the tenant to ensure the rent payable is no more or less than it should be;
3) for both parties to monitor the performance of the location and trading position.
Reviewing the rent payable is all very well for landlords but for tenants ensuring it is no more or less than it should be is not how most tenants would view a rent review. For many tenants, the only way the business can remain profitable is when costs are below the going rate. Even so, despite the tenant's perspective, a rent review is for the benefit of both parties.
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.”
Tenants do have a point, however, in the context of rent payable. Generally, a rent review is not about the rent payable but about the rent at the review/valuation date. The rent payable is the amount payable after the rent is agreed or ascertained. Therefore, there are, in fact, two rents at rent review: 1) the review rent in accordance with the review clause and 2) the rent payable regardless.
The difference arises because of what is known as 'upward-only' rent review. 'Upward-only' does not mean the review rent necessarily has to go up. The review rent might be more or the same or less than the rent payable. 'Upward-only' refers to the rent payable after the review rent is agreed or ascertained as not usually less than the rent payable before the review. (I say 'usually' because there are circumstances where the rent payable could differ; you can find more about that here. (link awaited).
It might be thought unlikely to be cost-effective for either landlord or tenant to review the rent if the rent payable would be more than the review rent. In some instances, however, it might be beneficial for the landlord or the tenant to review the rent regardless, such as, for example, for monitoring performance.
Location is the underlying driving force for both property performance and tenant-demand. Property performance is the measure of rental and capital growth; both factors are needed to counteract and outpace what would otherwise be a depreciating asset. No increase on review is often symptomatic of a location that is static or in decline.
Property is a depreciating asset whose rate of depreciation can be outpaced by rental and capital growth. Rental growth is a product of demand by tenants according to the supply and availability of premises that would satisfy and fulfil the tenant's business operational requirements.
Tenant-demand is a driver for growth, but a premises-supply-shortage which leads to higher rents will challenge the economical rental for those businesses whose presence in the locality is part of the attraction; there is a cut-off point at which the more successful businesses will baulk at any further increase in rent. Although a rent review might be thought a private matter between actual landlord and actual tenant and of no concern to anyone else, any extra rent will increase the insurance premium cover for loss of rent and affect the Rateable Value (hence business rates payable). Also for the tenant the money has to come from somewhere and when an increase exceeds the tenant's economical rent the tenant will have to make savings elsewhere. (In my opinion, the first sign of a location entering decline is when the tenancy of a shop previously let to a multiple retailer is assigned or the premises re-let to a non-multiple retailer.)
In theory, a rent review should be a straightforward matter of the landlord and tenant agreeing the rent for the review period. In practice, it is not as simple as that. In business tenancy law, the review rent is not about how much the actual tenant could afford or how much the actual landlord wants to get a return on the investment, but the rent others would agree. And the rent that others would agree is arrived at by evaluating the evidence in the light of the terms and conditions of the lease.
Rent does not exist in isolation. Rent is the product of the terms and conditions of the tenancy upon which the premises are let, or to let. Whenever a new lease is granted, the parties and their advisers will agree the terms and conditions for the letting. There is no standard form of lease for all business premises. Consequently, the terms and conditions of each individual lease will affect the review rent.
Usually, a review is to market rent, unless the parties have agreed another basis as specified in the lease. Where rental valuation has regard to evidence, the hierarchy for best evidence is a new letting in the open market but the premises are let already (even if unoccupied) so the market cannot be tested. The alternative, which is the basis of rent review, is to assess the rent objectively: in other words, assuming the premises are available to let on a specified date at the rent that would be agreed between a hypothetical willing landlord and a hypothetical willing tenant, on the terms and conditions in the existing lease.
Yield and Pricing
The current trend for private investors in the retail market to be more concerned with short term gain than long term income is worrying.
Participants seem to have overlooked the fact that the essence in capital gain to date owes more to previous levels of inflation than to design. And even if high inflation does return, the retailing revolution will stultify any likelihood of a repeat boom.
Many new investors believe that rental value reflects expected investment yield, based upon the price they have paid. In fact, investment value is calculated by reference to the level of rent and not vice versa. However, high prices paid for some investments can only reflect a very optimistic view of rental value. With the exception of property formerly owned by notedly cautious landlords, the idea that the previous owner must have agreed too low a rent, especially if set during the period 1981-1983, is too simplistic. By having always to aim for the top rental on review, to cover purchasing expectations, any failure to achieve the objective rubs off on the relationship with the valuer whose advice is dismissed as 'negative.'
The tenant becomes saddled with a difficult landlord and often with a rental commitment far above the economics of his business. In the open market, cyclical change is inevitable, but in the quest for short term gain, while the loss of one particular tenant may not matter, it is the collective effect of the pressure for high rents which radically affects long term stability, since there cannot be capital gain without security of income.
In the past, their owners' low inflation investment values have had a useful way of adjusting to mistakes, but with changes in the pattern of retailing, and high interest rates, the margin for error now is very small.
The investor who overpays, through ignorance or greed, only to find that the resultant yield, following review, is well below comfortable resale price will have to fund the shortfall somehow. While it is churlish to insist upon strict consideration of investment criteria, since the pressure to use substantial borrowing facilities dominates the market, the problem is unlikely to grow.
Participants seem to have overlooked the fact that the essence in capital gain to date owes more to previous levels of inflation than to design. And even if high inflation does return, the retailing revolution will stultify any likelihood of a repeat boom.
Many new investors believe that rental value reflects expected investment yield, based upon the price they have paid. In fact, investment value is calculated by reference to the level of rent and not vice versa. However, high prices paid for some investments can only reflect a very optimistic view of rental value. With the exception of property formerly owned by notedly cautious landlords, the idea that the previous owner must have agreed too low a rent, especially if set during the period 1981-1983, is too simplistic. By having always to aim for the top rental on review, to cover purchasing expectations, any failure to achieve the objective rubs off on the relationship with the valuer whose advice is dismissed as 'negative.'
The tenant becomes saddled with a difficult landlord and often with a rental commitment far above the economics of his business. In the open market, cyclical change is inevitable, but in the quest for short term gain, while the loss of one particular tenant may not matter, it is the collective effect of the pressure for high rents which radically affects long term stability, since there cannot be capital gain without security of income.
In the past, their owners' low inflation investment values have had a useful way of adjusting to mistakes, but with changes in the pattern of retailing, and high interest rates, the margin for error now is very small.
The investor who overpays, through ignorance or greed, only to find that the resultant yield, following review, is well below comfortable resale price will have to fund the shortfall somehow. While it is churlish to insist upon strict consideration of investment criteria, since the pressure to use substantial borrowing facilities dominates the market, the problem is unlikely to grow.