Rent review and later payments proffered by tenant

[yeahbutno]

Hi

This continues to a certain extent a thread which was running on the old forum.

Currently dealing with ...ahem...a few issues. Anyone have any thoughts on the following please?:-

1) Rent review. A rent review has been agreed verbally with the tenant, but due to his delaying tactics, now needs to be backdated several months. He still hasn't signed the rent review memorandum, but the issue is that the backdated increase forms part of the rent arrears which are causing us to consider forfeiture action. Will the court discount the rent increase amounts?

2) Payments. (I may have misunderstood this!) Once we formally start legal proceedings, it has been suggested to me that I should refuse any payment made by the tenant, basically because it would be seen as our acceptance that the lease is continuing. Surely ther4e must be a way to accept payments under certain circs? Also, as the tenant has our bank details, and makes his payment by direct credit, how do we "refuse" such a payment?

TIA!

[Editor]

The procedure depends very much upon the precise wording of your lease re the review procedure and whether there are strict time-scales "time is of the essence".
You would normally write formerly (trigger notice) stating the new rent, at least six months before the review, though this does not matter if time is not of the essence. Providing you follow all procedures correctly, the new rent should prevail anyway failing a counter notice from your tenant.
It's probably best to use a local chartered surveyor who knows the comparables and the procedures.
Finally, if no agreement can be reached, most leases have provision for arbitration.
However, as your tenant is already in arrears, is there really much point in going for an increase at this stage, as you indicate?
Perhaps you should consider instructing bailiffs and follow-up with forfeiture proceedings?
I don't see why accepting rent should affect the situation, as your tenant already has a tenancy and security of tenure, though I'm prepared to be corrected on this?