Emma Humphreys & Malcolm Dowden on penalising a landlord for negotiating instead of litigating
In Agricullo v Yorkshire Housing [2010] EWCA Civ 229, [2010] All ER (D) 147 (Mar) a tenant had been in breach of its obligations to repair premises, including the roof and roofspace which also provided cover and protection to commercial premises retained for letting by the landlord.
The landlord had served a notice under the Law of Property Act 1925, s 146 advising the tenant of its right to claim the benefit of the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act 1938. The tenant served a counter-notice claiming the benefit of the Act. Once that counter notice was served, the landlord could not forfeit the lease or recover damages without leave of the court. Nonetheless, the landlord considered that the s 146 notice and the prospect of court proceedings gave it some leverage for discussion with the tenant. That view seemed to have been vindicated when, after protracted and difficult negotiations, the tenant carried out the works. The landlord subsequently sought from
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
