Jump To Content

Michael Lever

The Rent Review Specialist

A list of retailers and businesses with numerous branches that have entered administration and/or rescued and/or downsizing since 2003 and before. ABC and Year

(2026 Apr: LinkedIn) – Upward / downward rent review will not, in my view, be an issue for institutional commercial property investors judicious in buying. Unlike private investors whose time-horizon ranges from personal pension to generational, with rarely any wider responsibility, institutional investor decision-makers are more likely responsible for hundreds/thousands of people whom they are unlikely to meet. So one might think that such decision-makers a lot more cautious and not throw it to the wind. During the 1970s, for no logical reason, the minimum price for institutional interest in a retail property investment used to be £250,000. Soon after I established my practise, I acted for an insurance company on rent reviews in 4 parades of shops so naturally my first choice for any shop investment that I thought it should buy. When a landlord with two shop investments in a town centre high street asked whether I had any clients to buy them for £50,000 each, I thought the properties had long-term potential so when I sent the details to my client I wrote a short report with my reasoning. The insurance company thanked for the report but declined because of the price range. I thought it very shortsighted and was proved right when years later the same insurance company paid five times as much for a shop investment nearby. There are not many towns in England and Wales that have perennial growth potential, probably no more than half a dozen. Generally what happens is a cut-off point at which it becomes too expensive commensurate with a level playing field. Something has to give. In a market based on competition ultimately there can only be one winner in each market sector which means everyone else falls by the wayside. Capital growth that depends on yield compression requires high interest rates when buying and shrewd selling when interest rates fall. But the propositions to buy only come onto the market when prices are high because interest rates are low. Overpaying is rife. Rent increase comes from the existing tenant able to afford to pay more or a new tenant thinking it can afford to pay more. For an institutional investor, the illiquidity of commercial property is high risk. Get the timing wrong on buying, easy to overpay. It is much easier to time buying shares in a quoted property company than direct investment. Unlike commercial property valued infrequently, shares on the stock market are valued every second during trading hours. Unlike direct investment whose value is an informed opinion, but an opinion nevertheless, of one or a few valuers, a share price is the opinion of hundreds/thousands of ‘valuer’ actual buyers. Currently, share prices of quoted propcos owning prime property offers about the same yield as direct investment, but with none of the costs and risks of direct investment. Upward/downward review removes the cushion hiding the poor decisions made by Institutional investors, most of which should never have bought into direct investment.

Feb 2026. Rent review and third party reasons.

I act for a freeholder/ landlord whose tenant is a quoted property company. The tenant sub-lets the property to two different occupiers. The rent review in the head-lease between my client and prop co went to arbitration. In my submission to the arbitrator, I advocated that the hypothetical tenant could be an investor. In his reasoned award, the arbitrator rejected the possibility, preferring an occupier. As the actual tenant is an investor, the arbitrator’s reasoning did not make sense.

I act for the landlord of a double shop with two residential flats, the whole of which let to one tenant. The tenant occupies the double shop and sub-lets the flats. Before my client bought the freehold, the tenant had one shop and one flat, and had acquired the lease of the adjoining shop and its flat from the same landlord, and removed the dividing wall between the shops. On renewal of the previous two leases, a single lease. For the rent review, it is assumed that there are two shops. Under the lease, the tenant does not have the right to underlet just the ground floor either as a whole or in part. The review was referred to an Independent Expert. In my report, I acted as expert witness, I reasoned that the hypothetical tenant could be one tenant with two different businesses. In the reasoned determination, the IE opined highly unlikely that the hypothetical tenant would run a single business across two units or two different businesses each from one shop unit. Equally unlikely that the hypothetical tenant would want to occupy one or both flats for their own occupation or the occupation by an employee. IE, agreeing with the tenant’s surveyor, not recalling the last time they came across such a letting in the open market. The most likely scenario that a hypothetical tenant would acquire the property with the intention of removing the dividing wall to trade from one enlarged ground floor. So because under the Lease is the assumption the dividing wall remains, 7.5% allowance is appropriate.

For possibilities to be dismissed because the third party’s experience is limited is galling. I have experience of dual situations, including acting for one such tenant whose two shops on the same lease are used for different businesses, and when acting for a landlord on referral to a different IE where the single tenant also has two separate businesses. In another matter recently, approximately 10 miles from the double shop example, acting for a landlord on a review to an arbitrator, my evidence included a new open market letting to one tenant who divided the shop into two separate businesses.

The qualifications to be an arbitrator or independent expert imply wide-ranging experience. There is no excuse for a hypothesis to be ruled out just because of personal experience. Arbrix should in my view create a database of experiences so that even if a particular third party has no experience, it would be known another has, The particular third-party could then say something like ‘although I have no experience, I’m aware that others do.’

Feb 2026 – The RICS DRS marking 50 years this year is to be congratulated. I have paid tribute direct including. of course, it helps to have a monopoly for appointments in probably every lease of commercial property in England and Wales. It wasn’t always thus. My experience of dispute resolution pre-dates the RICS DRS. I remember when procedure was a lot different. For examples, (i) for appointment, the Institute of Arbitrators, (ii) two persons to be appointed as arbitrator; (ii) the President of the Law Society; and (iv) the President of a Chamber of Commerce local to the premises.

Ever since invited and accepted appointment to act as Independent Expert to determine the rent review of a shop in Willesden, London NW10, I have breathed a sigh of relief at never again. From that experience, I concluded not an enviable task. It is all very well inviting representations from the parties, but not if they are so subjective as to be of no assistance at all.

When you know the buck stops with you, it is perhaps inevitable to be cautious. As suggested to me during a discussion about a disappointing outcome, the client impression of a third party nervous of six figure rents. (Please read my article “Third Party Inexperience”.)

I thoroughly enjoy acting either as expert witness or advocate, or in a dual-role clear at all times in which capacity. Nowadays I’ve a reputation among third parties for being thorough. Or, as my wife remarks, whenever I emerge from days of intense writing, doing the other person’s job for them. For example, a landlord’s surveyor’s offering is 7 megabytes, whereas mine for the tenant is 101 megabytes.

My decision at the start of this year to tell RICS DRS Independent experts that their directions must not be akin to those of arbitrators is underway. No reliance on SOAF. Unless premises are awkward configuration, it shouldn’t cost the parties more than about 30 minutes of the IE’s time to measure areas. i make up for assertive in procedure, a separate issue to the quality of assistance: hence my preference for thorough.

On 6 September 2013 in Lexology, Nicholas Cheffings and Dellah Gilbert, of Hogan Lovells solicitors, in their article about the RICS consultation on Independent Expert rent reviews, refer to “The document recognises that, contrary to what may be seen as the leading strengths of independent expert determination (namely, a quick, simple and cost-effective means of dispute resolution) it has become stablished practice to invite the parties to provide material to the independent expert in much the same way as if the matter were proceeding by way of arbitration. This seems to reflect the parties understandable desire to “have their say” rather than simply relying upon the independent expert as being truly “independent” as well as “expert”. Perhaps the parties should give more consideration to going back to basics, dispensing with expert evidence and simply asking the independent third-party for an answer to what is, more often than not, a straightforward valuation question.”

(2026 Feb: LinkedIn) At rent review, we surveyors are told that, according to case law, arbitration awards are not admissible evidence because it depends upon the evidence presented to the arbitrator. However, something that (sort of*) makes sense to surveyors doesn’t apply to lawyers. Whenever one obtains a lawyer’s advice or opinion, invariably it will contain an element of sureness. Lawyers ignore the evidence presented to the court and instead extract from the ruling rules that lawyers apply regardless of the facts of the cases concerned. To reinforce that way of thinking, lawyers write about topics and, to capitalise on the financial potential, publishers of law books arrange for ‘Handbooks’ to be written by and for surveyors and others. Over time, not only has lawyer way of thinking become the norm, but also institutionalised.

* Some third parties as independent experts don’t take any notice of this, I guess on the principle that despite an arbitration award being confidential, the so-called confidential protection that independent experts include in determinations is enough to overcome the breach. 

If for example a surveyor were to stand in the witness box in court to decide a lease renewal and in evidence relied on the letting of a office building for the valuation of a shop, the only similarity a letting, the surveyor would become a laughing stock. It wouldn’t happen, so why is it allowed for lawyers? The short answer is that case law is relied upon as establishing rules for later actions. But, the long answer is, I hesitate to say, a product of laziness. It is easier and quicker and therefore more profitable to shorten the time-span for remembering. If it were not for an inventive C16 physician inventing the = symbol, mathematicians would’ve had the tedious repetition of writing the words “is equal to”. The difference, however, between symbols and rules for later actions is that the facts of the case(s) from which the rules are derived are often more relevant to the case in question.

“Judge each case on its individual merits” – in the Estates Gazette 1 November 2003, the title of an article written by Hazel Williamson QC, a barrister in Maitland Chambers, and an arbitrator and deputy high court judge. In this article, Ms Williamson says ” Care should be taken not to rely too much upon the case law as laying down concrete rules on the application of law.” “Where are cases depend upon the meaning of a document. it may be that apparently similar documents having, in an all important respect, used different wording.” “Cases all depend upon their own particular facts and the evidence that is advanced.”

(2026 Feb: LinkedIn). Property owes its reputation as a long-term hedge against inflation to its potential for rental and capital growth. But for commercial property it is, in my opinion, a reputation well past its shelf-life. A consequence of what is known as yield compression, the attraction of commercial property as a safe bet has become distorted by amateur investors pouring millions of pounds into the market for the wrong reason.

The commercial property market comprises sectors – shops, offices, industrial – each sector having segments into which more specialised property categories fall. Specialised property is generally harder to value because there is less demand and rental evidence more difficult to find. As a rule, property that is harder to value will normally command a higher investment yield to allow for the greater risk.

In the popular sectors, rack-rented investment yields are relatively low compared to the more specialist segments.

Apart from institutional investors, there are two types of investor: professional and amateur. Amateurs have one thing in common: they do not understand why, when Base Rate and the cost of borrowing is the same regardless of location, it makes sense for high yields to exist just because of the valuation difficulty. What makes more sense is that a high yield is an attractive investment. The appeal is so strong that the lure outweighs almost any other consideration particularly those of property fundamentals whose criteria for a professional investor is more important than yield.

Amateurs are not merely armchair investors, one or a few properties to their name. Many amateurs have substantial portfolios whose book value runs to tens of millions of £. Because of that, they see themselves as professional investors, but provided the rental income exceeds the cost of their borrowings, that’s all that matters.

Ever since auction overtook private treaty to become the number 1 means for buying and selling commercial property investment, professional investors have had and continue to have a field day. The inexperience among amateurs buying at auction enables professionals to capitalise. Property with little or no hope of rental and capital growth is packaged attractively to lull inexperience into a false sense of security.

By widening the range of commercial property for sale by auction to include specialist segments, it has enabled the specialist segments to be sold for much than they would fetch otherwise to people whose investment performance is entirely dependent upon finding another inexperienced buyer to pay more and at rent review and lease renewal a surveyor with enough knowledge of the type of property to act for them.

As for finding a surveyor, the difficulty is that as specialist sectors are relatively small markets surveyors with the know-how act for the tenants. 

Top of the list of specialist sectors is the public house; pubs. Among the esoteric are airport landing lights – as I discovered when acting for a landlord and all but one of the firms I contacted act for airport operators. Also when acting for the landlord of a garden centre, one of the few surveyors with know-how refused to help me because as he said I shouldn’t have taken on the instructions if I didn’t know how to do the review. Subsequently I found he had contributed a chapter in a book about valuation in which he explained in detail how to value the rent of garden centres. I have also rent valued a football ground, a rifle range, squash courts. I’ve done a few pub reviews: i am acting for a landlord currently. Nightclubs too. I declined acting for the landlord of a casino because I’ve never done a review of a casino and from little I know evidence would be thin.

The convenience store market comprises multiple operators, none of whom pay a penny more despite being in the minority circa 7% of tenants, and the independents. But the multiples only get away with nil increase because landlords surveyors fall for m/o negotiating tactics.

I’ve masses of experience of geared and ground rent reviews. And as for banks,,,,

(2025 Oct). Here’s a conflict of interest issue. Surveyor A works for a firm of surveyors. Firm is instructed to do rent reviews for a multiple retailer. Directive nil increase. A gets to work and uses every trick in the book to achieve the client’s objective.

I am instructed to act for a landlord whose tenant is this multiple retailer. A’s negotiating stance doesn’t work on me. I refer the review to a third party.

A acts as expert witness. A’s report opinion is nil increase.

I tell third party that tenant has put A in an invidious position as regards his opinion because one of the tests of integrity for an expert witness is that the opinion would be the same if acting for the landlord.

In Report A rejects this criticism. In my counter-submission I find numerous flaws in A’s Report.

Third party determines an increase.

A’s client not happy with outcome. A’s firm loses client.

(2025 Oct) – I have said this before, and I’ll say it again, not in the same words, there are a heck of a lot of private investors that have no idea what they’re letting themselves in for when they buy shop property investments.

Reality hits home on renewal of the lease. The cushion, of upward-only review, the rent payable after the review is agreed or ascertained, cannot go down disappears. In its place is exposure to the full force of the market.

Worry becomes evident where the review basis under the existing lease is index-linked. For lifestyles reliant on a level of rent that only exists during the term of the lease, to find that the initial rent on a renewal lease is much lower can make a substantial difference to investor financial security. Millions of GBP, lured into SIPPs by tax relief, lost.

From a surveyor’s persective, we deal with what is and the evidence. The real challenge is in managing client expectations. In my opinion, we wouldn’t need to if the client were better informed to begin with. But informed advice competing with popular thinking is heavy-going. I have had clients argue that what I am saying does not make sense in the context of what everybody else is doing. Long ago, one client in particular said he would never buy anything if he took my advice. A consequence of that remark is that nowadays anything I say when my advice is sought is introduced with that warning.

Specialising in rent review, one becomes sensitive to the subtleties and nuances that make a difference between a prudent and foolish purchase. Many private investors buy on yield compared to putting the money on deposit at the bank. Yield is a reflection of market sentiment at the time. Except for high-yielding investments that are obviously ex-growth, yield is not a determining factor for whether the property would make a good investment. In the same way there are thousands of quoted companies on the stock market that are very good businesses, relatively few are good investments.

Inexperienced armchair investors can spend their money on whatever they like. But going into a marketplace which they have no proper understanding of what it’s all about, let alone the terms and conditions of the lease, leaves them exposed to the high risk in loss of irreplaceable capital.

If you buy a 6% yield, then that equates to 16.67 years purchase, almost 17 years before you get your money back, during which time anything can happen. The structural change in retailing, on-going unabated for years, isn’t suddenly going to revert to its level playing field. The cliff edge is crumbling into the sea. Attracting retailers are withdrawing, taking customers with them. Institutional investors pruning portfolios of everything that has gone or will be going ex-growth.

Property’s reputation as a long-term hedge against inflation only applies to judicious choice. For everyone else, it’s a lost cause.

(2025 Sep) – On referral and in the process of agreeing a Statement of Agreed Facts, it appears – in my experience – to be taken for granted that the SOAF will contain proforma of so-called comparable evidence even if neither party’s surveyor has had any involvement with the evidence premises. And not only reliance on hearsay but also no attempt to provide copy leases to complement.

Hearsay evidence may be admissible, but case law has examples where the court has placed no weight on an expert witness evidence because copy leases were not provided so the court did not know whether there was anything onerous in them that would affect the rents.

It’s not uncommon for someone signing a proforma to omit material information and/or not having seen the lease. Yet reliance on such possibly mis-information is rife. Why some third parties are accommodating is beyond me. Despite the information on the Arbrix website, I conclude a difference between the theory and in practice.

Paying lip service to the RICS PS is one thing, quite another to purport to be an expert witness when not up to the task.

The level of competence to be an EW exceeds that of a chartered surveyor. In counter-submission, the way to sort the wheat from the chaff and destroy a pretend expert witness’s credibility is to highlight one or more of the top 5 mistakes that EWs make. I’m not going to tell you what they are because if we’re up against one another and you make a mistake, then you’ll be first to read what I’ll be telling the third party.

It’s ok for an EW to advocate for the methodology, but not for the case itself. When acting for a tenant who doesn’t care about the rules provided the result is as the tenant wants, I suggest that if you value your self-respect, then declining the instruction wouid be best.

The bottom line is the answer to which is more important? The fee or professional integrity.

If you don’t want to have to choose, then don’t cut corners because for rent reviews, as in most things in life, that’s where the angles are.

(2025 Aug: LinkedIn) – VOA areas and rent review. In many places, and often contrary to what is on-line, the VOA zoning methodology is not 6.1m/6.1m/6.1m (20’/20’/20′). but 4.57m/ 7.62m/ 6.1m (15’/25’/20′). Where VOA areas are relied on assuming 20/20/20 when they’re not is a common trip-up for rent review surveyors none the wiser. (Strictly, 20 ft = 6.096m)

Possibly common knowledge amongst rating surveyors, but perhaps less so for rent review surveyors, is the VOA zoning of shops in the London Borough of Lambeth.

In Wei Xialoli v Nicola Johnson (VO) 2025, a Lead Valuer in the National Valuation Unit of the VOA said that the VOA adopts two zoning methods in London Borough of Lambeth. For main shopping centre locations, three 6.1m (20′) zones and a remainder. In secondary locations, two zones A 4.57m, Zone B 7.62m. and a remainder.

For evidence of rental growth for adjusting to the avd, this case contains comment about VOA reliance on a Costar report, and why the Tribunal placed no weight on it. A similar observation about the usefulness or not of generalisation reports is in House of Fraser Ltd v Scottish Widows plc 2011.

In my experience of referrals, it is common for reports published by big firms of surveyors, market commentators, trade bodies, and local organisations. to be cited as evidence. Whether any weight would be placed by a third party on such so-called evidence depends upon the report author(s)’ methodology. Usually, the methodology is to be found somewhere in the report and, in my experience, rarely of any relevance to the premises in question.

Regarding the VOA’s two methods in LB Lambeth makes me wonder whether the VOA has two methods elsewhere. In principle, it doesn’t matter provided the methodology in each VOA Scheme is consistent, but how do we know it is?

For anyone inexperienced of market rent valuation for rent review, the VOA information on-line is misleading. What the VOA means by market rent and what rent review surveyors mean differ. I am acting for the landlord of a shop whose tenant’s representative has cited the Rateable Value as the market rent and asserting the VOA On line: “The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) uses a ‘rental’ method to value high street businesses like shops, hairdressers, betting shops and banks. The VOA gathers information about rents paid for shops and businesses. It analyses the information and works out a price per square metre. It also considers local conditions and things like unusual shops shapes, split levels and sales areas hidden by pillars. Zoning is used to apply the price per square metre to the property and get the rateable value. Each zone covers the width of the shop and usually has a depth of 6.1 metres. Zone A starts at the shop window. As you move further into the shop, each zone is half the value of the one before it. Spaces like store rooms or upstairs offices are valued but not as a zone.”

it gets worse, the VOA is on Youtube. https://lnkd.in/eGUAtxxW