LATEST: High Court favours commercial landlords in Covid rent arrears case
Tenant protections imposed during the pandemic have meant delays in legal claims and arrears in rent payments, but this does not mean that the rent is not due, says Tom Entwistle
During the present pandemic significant restrictions have been placed on landlords and their ability to recover outstanding rent.
But the law says that landlords in England and Wales still retain the ability ultimately to recover rent and other sums due to them under commercial contracts. Lease agreements signed between landlords and tenants still stand despite coronavirus legislation.
This is despite government guidance and practice directions restrict some of the landlords’ options in England and Wales.
Please note, the options open to landlords in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different.
It all depends on specific circumstances, but landlords’ options on rent recovery could include recovering sums owed from former tenants, guarantors, recovering rent directly from subtenants, or through debt recovery proceedings.
On 19 June 2020, the government published a code of practice for landlords and tenants of commercial property across the UK, but the code is voluntary and is not legally binding.
The main thrust behind the government’s intention in issuing the code was to promote “transparency and collaboration” between the parties and to encourage landlords and tenants to act “reasonably and responsibly”.
Avoiding rent
Perhaps understandably given the present situation tenants have tried to delay or avoid paying rent, but a recent High Court decision held that a shopping centre landlord was entitled to summary judgment against its retailer tenant for non-payment of rent and service charges.
The tenant’s rent arrears were built-up since April 2020 while the government’s COVID-19 measures restricted trading, and the tenant came up with several reasons why they thought rent payment should be avoided.
The Court’s decision in in Commerz Real Investmentgesellschaft v TFS Stores (April 2021) has been welcomed by commercial landlords after the tenant put forward several weak legal arguments to avoid paying rent during the Covid pandemic.
The tenant (which trades as The Fragrance Shop) argued that the government’s code of practice for commercial property relationships during the Covid pandemic meant court proceedings had been premature, but the Court refuted that argument making clear that the code is non-binding and does not alter legal relations between landlords and tenants.
In addition, the court was satisfied that the landlord had made significant efforts to engage with the tenant, actions that were in-line with the code and practice directions.
No loophole
Another argument put forward by the tenant was that government measures brought in to restrict enforcement by landlords – restrictions on forfeiture, winding-up and CRAR – meant a landlord is not allowed to exploit “loopholes” to recover rent through a money claim. But the Court held there was no “loophole” being exploited – the legislation does not restrict money claims.
In yet another argument, the tenant argued that the insurance provisions of the lease required the landlord to insure against loss of rent for notifiable disease and/or government action.
The tenant argued that the landlord should claim under their insurance policy to cover the rent arrears, or should there be no policy in place, then the tenant had a damage claim for failure to so insure. However, the court held here that the lease did not place such an obligation on the landlord and even if there were such an obligation, it would not necessarily follow that the insurance policy should cover losses of the tenant (as opposed to those of the landlord).
Rent suspension clause
Finally, the tenant argued that a rent suspension clause in the lease should be interpreted such that the rent payments were suspended during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the Court rejected this argument as the wording of the particular rent suspension clause in the lease was considered to apply to physical damage to the property only, not when closed due to legal requirements such as a government ordered lockdown.
This High Court decision will be welcomed by commercial landlords clarifying the position and reminding tenants that whilst the government’s COVID measures restrict many enforcement methods, the overall contractual lease obligations of tenants remain unchanged and tenants can still be pursued through the courts.
©1999 – Present | Parkmatic Publications Ltd. All rights reserved | LandlordZONE® – LATEST: High Court favours commercial landlords in Covid rent arrears case | LandlordZONE.
View Full Article: LATEST: High Court favours commercial landlords in Covid rent arrears case
Post comment
Categories
- Landlords (19)
- Real Estate (9)
- Renewables & Green Issues (1)
- Rental Property Investment (1)
- Tenants (21)
- Uncategorized (11,916)
Archives
- December 2024 (43)
- November 2024 (64)
- October 2024 (82)
- September 2024 (69)
- August 2024 (55)
- July 2024 (64)
- June 2024 (54)
- May 2024 (73)
- April 2024 (59)
- March 2024 (49)
- February 2024 (57)
- January 2024 (58)
- December 2023 (56)
- November 2023 (59)
- October 2023 (67)
- September 2023 (136)
- August 2023 (131)
- July 2023 (129)
- June 2023 (128)
- May 2023 (140)
- April 2023 (121)
- March 2023 (168)
- February 2023 (155)
- January 2023 (152)
- December 2022 (136)
- November 2022 (158)
- October 2022 (146)
- September 2022 (148)
- August 2022 (169)
- July 2022 (124)
- June 2022 (124)
- May 2022 (130)
- April 2022 (116)
- March 2022 (155)
- February 2022 (124)
- January 2022 (120)
- December 2021 (117)
- November 2021 (139)
- October 2021 (130)
- September 2021 (138)
- August 2021 (110)
- July 2021 (110)
- June 2021 (60)
- May 2021 (127)
- April 2021 (122)
- March 2021 (156)
- February 2021 (154)
- January 2021 (133)
- December 2020 (126)
- November 2020 (159)
- October 2020 (169)
- September 2020 (181)
- August 2020 (147)
- July 2020 (172)
- June 2020 (158)
- May 2020 (177)
- April 2020 (188)
- March 2020 (234)
- February 2020 (212)
- January 2020 (164)
- December 2019 (107)
- November 2019 (131)
- October 2019 (145)
- September 2019 (123)
- August 2019 (112)
- July 2019 (93)
- June 2019 (82)
- May 2019 (94)
- April 2019 (88)
- March 2019 (78)
- February 2019 (77)
- January 2019 (71)
- December 2018 (37)
- November 2018 (85)
- October 2018 (108)
- September 2018 (110)
- August 2018 (135)
- July 2018 (140)
- June 2018 (118)
- May 2018 (113)
- April 2018 (64)
- March 2018 (96)
- February 2018 (82)
- January 2018 (92)
- December 2017 (62)
- November 2017 (100)
- October 2017 (105)
- September 2017 (97)
- August 2017 (101)
- July 2017 (104)
- June 2017 (155)
- May 2017 (135)
- April 2017 (113)
- March 2017 (138)
- February 2017 (150)
- January 2017 (127)
- December 2016 (90)
- November 2016 (135)
- October 2016 (149)
- September 2016 (135)
- August 2016 (48)
- July 2016 (52)
- June 2016 (54)
- May 2016 (52)
- April 2016 (24)
- October 2014 (8)
- April 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (10)
- October 2011 (9)
- September 2011 (9)
- August 2011 (3)
Calendar
Recent Posts
- Landlords’ Rights Bill: Let’s tell the government what we want
- 2025 will be crucial for leasehold reform as secondary legislation takes shape
- Reeves inflationary budget puts mockers on Bank Base Rate reduction
- How to Avoid SDLT Hikes In 2025
- Shelter Scotland slams council for stripping homeless households of ‘human rights’