(2026 March) In Twickenham, 44 King Street – next door to TG Jones (ex WH Smith) – my client bought the freehold investment at Allsop auction in April 1984: joint auctioneers, Langley & Taylor, London WC1: a ground floor lock-up shop with part-covered yard, and separate storage (ex-stable) at the back, all on one lease for 15 years from 1981 at current £6,800 pa, review in 1986, and a self-contained residential upper part on two floors above sold on long lease. I have acted for the landlord regularly since purchase.
To begin with, the ground floor was used as a sports shop until the tenant went broke in 1985, when relet at £12,000 pa to a hairdresser, an individual with several branches. When that hairdresser retired, he sold the business to another hairdresser that in turn sold to another until finally another in 2006; by then I had gotten the rent to £30,000 pa. Meanwhile, my client had bought in the lease of the residential flat for refurbishment and reletting on an AST. The last hairdresser succeeded for a while but in the end surrendered the lease.
Time for a change – in more ways than one. I reckoned the ex-stable at the back had potential for residential. The property in a Conservation Area, my client obtained planning permission in November 2020 – I provided a feasibility report on letting the shop without the store – the development completed and let on an AST.
The shop, refurbished, was let as a shell to a kitchen designer at £22,500 pax. After a while the tenant wanted out, so to avoid liability for business rates surrender not accepted before simultaneous re-letting in March 2026 to a franchisee of Cakeco, an expanding company, at £26,000 pax. Sneller Commercial were agents for both lettings. Advising my client generally throughout, I drafted Heads of Terms and liaised with my client’s solicitors on documentation.
(2026 March) In Canvey Island, Essex, the two shops 45 and 51 Furtherwick Road pre-date my acting regularly for the landlord since 1976. Both shops are ground floor and first floor ancillary, with rear vehicle access. Furtherwick Road is Canvey’s principal road, the Knightswick Shopping Centre nearby.
51 had been used as sn optician for decades until a member of his family took over the practise. Staying power not in the same league, attempt to re-let unsuccessful, the freehold sold with vacant possession at Athawes Son & Co auction.
In 2002, 45 let to the charity, Marie Curie, for 10 years at £15,000 pax, holding-over since 2012 until s27 notice in 2025. I arranged for Southend-on-Sea commercial agents, Ayers & Cruiks, to procure a tenant, completed at asking £18,000 pax to a nail bar with another branch in NW London. Also a local building surveyor to inspect and serve a terminal schedule of dilapidations, agree damages for repairs (supervised) and fees. So impressed with this building survveyor, I have recommended on two occasions since. I advised throughout as usual.
(2025 May: LinkedIn) In 1989, my client bought a property in South London prior to auction, let to a national retailer. The retailer closed the branch and offered a new intermediate lease for circa £1M which was bought by an investment company. That company sub-let the property to another national retailer. The rent reviews are every 21 years and geared to the market rent (as defined by the lease), the first review in 1995. Although my client owned the freehold, part of the property was on a long lease with a same date review. The freeholder’s surveyor reasoned that the rent should include the notional rent of an overhanging building (nothing to do with my client). We investigated the history of the building and obtained legal advice. Rather than incur the costs of going to court in the hope of rectification, we reckoned the least expensive route was to agree a slightly higher rent than the stipulated gearing percentage.
Before the 2016 review, the intermediate lease had been assigned to a well-known property company. For the 2016 review, triggered in 2018, the freeholder via a different surveyor reiterated the same reasoning. This time I referred the review to arbitration, to get the arbitrator to go to court for a declaration. But before that, my client sold the freehold (and long lease) to the well-known property company on condition that part of the purchase price would be withheld pending the outcome of the review. To the buyer’s surveyor, I provided the background information, etc. After a while, the buyer decided to settle also by agreeing a slightly higher rent. The claw-back on the purchase price is about half of what it would’ve been if the review had been nil increase.
I am unable to disclose any more because the sale is subject to an NDA.
[To put another way:
In 1989, my client (A) bought the freehold – including part on a long lease from B – all let on long lease to C.
Next, C granted a new intermediate lease (premium circa £1M) to D.
D sub-under lease to E.
Review 1995, (i) between A and D; then (ii) between B and A, B’s surveyor reasoned as above.
Before 2016, D assigned intermediate lease to F.
Before 2016 review was agreed, (triggered in 2018, B’s surveyor reasoned as above) A sold to F (subject to claw-back)
F agreed the 2016 review with B.]
2
(2025 May) – Currently, I’m acting as expert witness for a head lessee of a block of shops in a village near St Albans. It’s an unusual rent review involving a dispute with the freeholder about the amount of ground rent. Despite a previous review involving different parties, there is no documentation on how the rent was arrived at.
Whenever I write a report, I include a potted history to provide a sense of place – and help keep the memory alive. I found a postcard of the block shortly after it was built, but could only guess what the site had been used for before. My guess was almost right. The local history society has sent me photos of what was there before, including a photo of the man whose building it was. His café had been named after the distance the village is from London.
A few years ago, I was instructed by Chipping Norton Town Council (Oxfordshire) to value the rents for a rifle range and a football ground in its community centre at Greystones. Curious to find out what an old house used as offices and nowadays owned by a private landlord, I found it had been a hunting lodge, the 52 acres gardens. The CN local history society sent me a copy of the auction catalogue from the 1950s, when the property had been sold to the council. I contacted the agents for the owner of the offices and asked them to ask their client to contact me, as I thought that perhaps the owner would like to have the history of the building. He did. So now he knows – which he didn’t before.
If you’ve ever done any work at the Kings Cross London end of Caledonian Road N1, you may have heard the name Stukey as the local developer. Unlike his contemporaries who sold the properties they built, he kept the circa 200 he built: shops, flats and houses. Probably cost next to nothing by modern standards, worth a fortune nowadays. For about 10 years I’ve acted for the tenant of the pizza restaurant at 14/16 – the rent there alone circa £60K. Also, I acted for the tenants at no 10 and 50. The latter (50) the trustees had sold to a developer who wanted to get rid of the tenant and succeeded.
Tenant: HSBC plc
Ground floor banking hall, first floor ancillary offices, on-site parking at the rear.
Occupied by my client’s family since circa 1950 for their multiple retailer bakers. In 1973 let to Midland Bank plc on two leases: for 20 years until 1993, and a reversionary lease from 1993 to 2013. RR-5 yearly, upward only. No breaks. In 2008, revised rent £20,000 pax.
The first time an expired Lease involved LTA54 on renewal in 2021. s26 notice request at £15,000 pa for 5 years, 6 months rent-free, TB at year 3. Agreed £21,000 pa, no rent-free, term 5 years, TB at year 3. ITZA 441.46 equating to Zone A £47.57 including parking space.
Having acted for the freeholder since 1993, I sold the freehold investment for approximately 20 YP (just under 5%). In August 2023, 74 High Street (also let to HSBC plc) sold for 5.85%.
(2023 Sep) Acting for Mark & Sons Ltd, the Freeholder-Landlord of a public house in London SW19, I have helped achieve its objective for the rent payable for the protected rent debt period defined by The Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022. This Act has a short life for the dispute procedure. Application for arbitration had to be made between 25 March 2022 and 24 September 2022. Unusually for arbitration, which is usually private, the award is published on the accredited body’s website, in this case, the RICS
https://www.rics.org/dispute-resolution-service/drs-services/covid-rent-arrears-arbitration
(Gouldbourn 3 – 13/07/2023 (PDF 0.20MB)
The Arbitrator was Simon Gouldbourn BSc MRICS ACIArb of KLM Real Estate, London W1.
Unusually, (the Act permits otherwise), commercially sensitive information is not excluded. If you are interested in reading the award, then you may do so.
(2023 Mar) – Acting for Yellowdice Limited, the Tenant of a nightclub in London SE11, I have helped achieve its objective for the rent payable for the protected rent debt period defined by The Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Act 2022. This Act has a short life so far as the dispute procedure is concerned. Application for arbitration had to be made between 25 March 2022 and 24 September 2022. Unusually for arbitration, which is usually private, the award is published on the accredited body’s website, in this case, the Consumer Code for Online Dispute Resolution (CCODR) – https://www.ccodr.com/crcas-awards. If you are interested in reading the award, then you may do so. Still, likely, it won’t tell you anything because, under the Act, commercially sensitive information can be excluded from the Award, as has been done in this case.
Acting for a Subway franchisee, I was instructed to negotiate the 2011 rent review. The landlord also owns the adjoining property let to Starbucks and we were told that the rent on renewal there had been agreed on more favourable terms in order to deter Starbucks from leaving. The landlord’s surveyor proposed a hefty increase which could be softened if my Client would agree to a rising rent.
Before my Client had taken the assignment, the previous tenant had agreed the 2007 review coupled with a personal concession on rent payable. The concession expired on the 2011 review date so my Client had no choice but to pay more in any event.
After I was instructed, the landlord’s suggested softening of proposed increase was withdrawn and the full market rent required which the surveyor was adamant should be based, pro-rata, on the Starbucks rent.
The lease plan states the agreed areas overall so the surveyor dismissed any idea the shop should be valued in zones. However, Portobello Road shop rents are zoned, also I discovered that the lease plan had been extracted from a shop-fit drawing that had been prepared for the previous tenant before the lease was granted and which also showed a different layout.
I proposed various figures in the hope of getting the landlord to agree and on one occasion the offer would have been accepted in principle, but I then withdrew it after new evidence came to light. By then, the landlord had implemented the dispute resolution procedure in the hope of pressuring an agreement. I concluded it would be best to allow the referral to go ahead and independent expert determine the rent.
The time-frame in the lease by which the independent expert had to determine the rent was tight and the parties would not agree to any deviation from the timetable. In my submission, I pulled out all the stops.
Much to the consternation of the landlord and its surveyor, the outcome was favourable to my Client. The passing rent before the review was £43,500 pa, the landlord’s proposal £56,000 pa, and the Determination £45,700 pa.
The Lease did not require the independent expert to give reasons for the determination and he did not. After the determination was released, the landlord’s surveyor sought reasons, but I objected as there was no benefit to my Client and the landlord capable of forming his own opinion of how the rent had been arrived at.
The premises, in Notting Hill Gate, London W11 were let in 2004 at £50,000 per annum exclusive for a term of 20 years, with 5 yearly rent reviews. The tenancy is outside the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.
In July 2010, the first tenant (a franchisee of Subway) assigned the tenancy to a new franchisee. Before the assignee took over, negotiations for the December 2009 rent review were on-going, both first tenant and the landlord professionally represented. The landlord, represented by Savills, had proposed £80,000 and after extensive negotiations including Calderbank offers the landlord wanted £72,000 pa whereas the first tenant’s surveyors were at £57,000 pa. The landlord, having initiated the dispute procedure, referred the review to an Independent Expert. Even though the assignee had only just taken over the lease, the review negotiations had reached the stage at which it was necessary to make a decision whether to agree £72,000 pa or allow the Independent Expert to proceed. The fees quoted by the first tenant’s surveyor for acting for the assignee on referral were in the region of £4000 plus VAT, excluding any fees payable to the Independent Expert if the determination of rent were at or greater than the landlord’s Calderbank offer.
The assignee contacted me and I was instructed to deal with the review including the dispute resolution proceedings. (Unlike most surveyors, I do not charge any extra for ‘going to arbitration’ and my total fee (exclusive of VATt) was under half the amount that the previous tenant’s surveyor would’ve charged). Before the instruction was formally confirmed, the Landlord’s Surveyor telephoned the assignee direct and intimated £60,000 per annum exclusive would be acceptable.
Some information was passed on to me but otherwise I started from scratch. I inspected the premises and made enquiries I considered necessary. The Independent Expert preliminary procedures were underway. I found several points in the interpretation of wording and phrasing of the lease that did not appear to have been explored, so I issued a Calderbank offer at £57,500 pa to protect my Client’s interest on costs. The Landlord would not accept the Calderbank offer, the Independent Expert was asked to proceed.
Acting as advocate, I presented the Independent Expert with submission of seventeen pages, 7350 words. Because the Landlord owns the entire parade in which 31 is located, together with numerous other shops in Notting Hill Gate, the Landlord’s Surveyor had all the evidence. One could have the impression the landlord was invincible. However, the Landlord’s Surveyor was acting as expert witness; a role that, in my view, exposes a surveyor to a need for a considerably more accuracy and compliance with technical expectations. My counter-submission, twelve pages and 5400 words, followed by re-examination (five pages, 1800 words) of the expert witness surveyor’s reply.
The determination was £53,630 per annum exclusive. The landlord paid all costs of the Independent Expert.
Acting for a successful multiple retailer in East Anglia, the premises are on an under-lease from Homebase Ltd. Like many large companies, Homebase has a residual estate: numerous properties that it used to occupy, but which have long since been conveyed to others. (Around the time of my involvement, according to April 2009 accounts, in the public domain, the parent company of Homebase, Home Retail Group plc, made £117.3M provision for onerous lease charges.) In this case, Homebase wanted to assign its lease with an indemnity for the remainder of the term for a difference in repairing covenants, so my Client would be no worse off.
Terms were agreed in principle. At the onset, I said I should not recommend my Client instruct solicitors until the freeholder’s consent had been obtained. The head-lease contains a surrender-back clause, also I did not want my Client to incur costs unnecessarily. Homebase applied for licence to assign, a draft was submitted by the freeholder’s solicitors, and I was told by the surveyor acting for Homebase consent had been given. However, what was not disclosed until much later on was that the freeholder had not actually given consent, because it was still awaiting reply to its enquiries about my Client’s accounts. [Whether the freeholder’s solicitors, in having issued a draft licence, was enough to deem consent was never resolved: that would’ve meant applying to court for a declaration, which Homebase would do provided contracts to assign were first exchanged, (on condition if the application failed then the transaction would abort)]
As the conveyancing progressed, I started thinking further ahead. Even if the freeholder were shown to be unreasonably withholding consent, I felt my Client would be off to a bad start if the landlord were ordered to consent against its will. No matter the impersonality of business tenancy law, the human aspect in the ongoing relationship between landlord and tenant is important. Then there was the question of personal surety. The underlessee has no surety, which would mean, on expiry of the head-lease when Homebase’s interest ends, and the under-lease is renewed direct with the freeholder, there would be no need for surety in future. (The under-lease is inside the 1954 Act so has renewal rights.) In the head-lease, the freeholder can require personal surety for a limited company assignee. My Client offered an associate company, but not a personal surety. Had the matter gone to court, it is possible the court would have ordered a personal surety with any licence to be granted, which would mean my Client would have been worse off.
The difference in repairing covenant could also cause problems. The under-lease contains a schedule of condition, whereas the head-lease is full repairing. The cost of the difference is estimated at £100,000, at least. I got Homebase to agree to extend the indemnity beyond expiry of the term into any holding-over period, but that benefit would only have practical effect if the freeholder were to serve a schedule of dilapidations whilst Homebase were around. There would be nothing to stop the freeholder waiting until Homebase were out of the picture before serving it on my Client. Similarly, if my Client did not want to renew, then its terminal obligation would be limited. Also, by taking on the head-lease, the under-lease could have been extinguished, losing the benefit in having the schedule of condition continue on renewal of the lease direct with the freeholder.
I concluded the risks outweighed the benefits, so I recommended withdrawing from the transaction.
I have agreed the 2003 and 2009 rent reviews at nil increase, a saving of about £87,000 pa.