A landlord鈥檚 promise, a tenant鈥檚 power
When it comes to leases, most people believe that landlords hold most of the power. However, in relation to long residential leases, the tables may well have recently turned in one respect at least following a recent Supreme Court decision.
Generally speaking, when it comes to leases, most people believe that landlords hold most of the power. However, in relation to long residential leases, the tables may well have recently turned in one respect at least following a . Simply put, a landlord is not now free to license works in breach of an absolute prohibition in a lease against carrying out alterations without the agreement of all the other flat tenants in a block where a landlord has covenanted to enforce similar obligations against all the tenants in the block (known as a mutual enforcement covenant).
As a result, it now appears that a tenant has increased control over its landlord鈥檚 decisions. A landlord is no longer freely able to agree works (that may be perfectly reasonable and well intentioned) falling within an absolute prohibition without first obtaining the agreement of all the tenants who benefit from a mutual enforcement covenant. In other words, tenants in a block may now have the power to control certain alterations a landlord may consent to. At the most extreme limits of such power, tenants could potentially prevent alterations occurring altogether since, in a block with a substantial number of flats, it is highly likely that at least one tenant will object to works being carried out.
This case demonstrates just how careful residential landlords in a block are going to have to be when receiving requests to license something which is otherwise absolutely prohibited under a lease. This applies not just in relation to alterations, but potentially extends to any absolute prohibitions under a lease (e.g. those relating to use). Mutual enforcement covenants are not a requirement under the current edition of the Council of Mortgage Lenders鈥 Handbook, so a landlord may wish to consider whether it enters into mutual enforcement covenants in the future, especially given how easy it could prove to breach those covenants.
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Published Article
Johnson et al v FirstRand Bank: Judgment sends warning across financial services intermediation
澳门六合彩资料
Manchester Ship Canal Co Ltd v United Utilities Water Ltd: Opening the floodgates to mass litigation?
澳门六合彩资料
Know your dispute resolution clauses: Key take-aways from Kajima v Children鈥檚 Ark and Lancashire Schools v Lendlease
Opinion
Law Commission initial consultation published on reforming Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954
澳门六合彩资料
New amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules and their impact
Training
Register your interest to join our next Home Delivery Academy
澳门六合彩资料 - Procurement Act
Modification of contracts existing before the go-live date of the Procurement Act 2023
澳门六合彩资料 - Procurement Act
Decisions of the Independent Patient Choice and Procurement Panel
Opinion
Publication of The Renters鈥 Rights Bill: Major changes to the private rented sector are on their way
澳门六合彩资料
Motor finance complaints on hold: Why now is the time for strategic action
澳门六合彩资料 - Procurement Act
Contract management and performance
澳门六合彩资料
Extended s20 voluntary care isn鈥檛 always a breach of human rights
澳门六合彩资料
Alternative dispute resolution: The future of ADR in the UK legal system
Opinion
Settling future claims: Insights from Clifford v IBM 2024
澳门六合彩资料
Multi-occupancy building insurance: Latest tribunal decision
澳门六合彩资料
How can you make a 'deathbed will'?
Opinion - Maternity services
New online system streamlines maternity services at The University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
澳门六合彩资料 - Building Safety Act
Case update: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Homes and Communities v Grey GR Limited Partnership
澳门六合彩资料
Commercial contracts: Top tips before signing on the dotted line
On-Demand - Shared Insights
Duty of Candour review: Submission to the Department of Health and Social Care
Published Article
English Commercial Court rules against Russian exclusive jurisdiction clauses
On-Demand
Solar panels guide: contractual and liability issues to be aware of' webinar
澳门六合彩资料
Changes to the fixed recoverable costs regime
Press Release
澳门六合彩资料 to advise East London Waste Authority on major waste programme
Opinion
R (Willmott) v Eastbourne Council: High Court rules council can deny social housing to disabled ex-tenant over anti-social behaviour
Press Release
澳门六合彩资料 Ireland LLP rank across Dispute Resolution, Intellectual Property and Technology in the Legal 500 EMEA 2024
Published Article
Government's asset sale plan: Short-term fix or long-term disaster?
澳门六合彩资料
Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil Council: A game changing decision for local authorities
澳门六合彩资料
Restrictive covenants 鈥 look before you leap!
澳门六合彩资料
Court of Appeal decision again demonstrates the need for reform of the Solicitors Minimum Terms
Press Release
Landmark Supreme Court decision clarifies the extent of Doctors鈥 Duty of Care
澳门六合彩资料
Proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996
澳门六合彩资料
The downfall of Vesttoo: Fraudulent letters of credit
澳门六合彩资料
Are amendments to be expected for the Arbitration Act 1996?
澳门六合彩资料
The commercial realities of disputes and litigation
澳门六合彩资料
The Supreme Court considers limitation in environmental nuisance claims
Opinion
Vicarious liability of amateur sports teams for player on player injuries
澳门六合彩资料
Part 36 combined offers 鈥 when are they beaten?
Press Release
澳门六合彩资料鈥檚 patent litigation team praised for being 鈥渄ynamic鈥 and a 鈥渕ajor player鈥 in IAM Patent 1000 guide
