Please Note: This Article is 8 years old. This increases the likelihood that some or all of it's content is now outdated.

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 and in future for the rent reviews to be to the open market rent. Where that initial rent is higher than the market rent, it is essential for the wording of the rent review clause 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 passing 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.

Evidence is what another tenant has agreed to pay for their property. The property may belong to the same or a different landlord. The weight that would be given to the evidence for use as a comparable will vary depending on 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 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 negotiation, 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 and barter. 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 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 review clause drafted to imply an uplift 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 this year, 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 would 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 review 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! And hardly surprising that tenants who are prudent enough to take professional advice are content to be advised by their surveyors.

Please Note: This Article is 8 years old. This increases the likelihood that some or all of it's content is now outdated.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here