VadeLab
AllowedFirst-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)·

Tribunal Rules Respondent Breached Lease Conditions in London

Case No.

📌 In brief

The First-tier Tribunal decided that a tenant breached their lease by not following the proper procedures for assigning the lease and notifying the landlord. This decision was based on the evidence presented by the landlord, which the tenant did not challenge.

⚖️ Legal holding

A tenant must comply with lease conditions regarding assignment and notification to avoid breaches.

Topics

tenancy breachlease compliancenotification requirements

Provisions

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 1993 s.168(4)Law of Property Act 1925 s.146

📖 Technical summary

The Tribunal found that the Respondent breached lease conditions regarding assignment and notification.

📜 Headnote Official document

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) ruled that the tenant breached lease conditions by failing to provide a copy of the deed and a notice of assignment as required by the lease. The decision was based solely on the evidence provided by the claimant, which was not contested by the tenant.

📚 Full judgment Official document

OUTCOME: Allowed

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BG/LBC/2019/0037 Property : [ADDRESS], [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] Representative : In house Respondent : [redacted] : In house Type of Application : Application for declaration of breach of covenant Tribunal :

Tribunal Judge I Mohabir

Date of Decision : 8 October 2019

DECISION

Background 1. This is an application made by the Applicant pursuant to section 168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 1993 (as amended) (“the Act”) for a determination that the Respondent has breached one or more terms and/or conditions in its lease.

2. By a lease dated 6 May 1994, the Applicant granted a lease of the Ground Floor Flat Plot No.5 at [ADDRESS], Bow, London, E3 known as [ADDRESS], Bow, London, E3 (“the property”) to The [COMPANY] (“[NAME]”) (“the headlease”). The term granted was 125 years from 1 June 1992.

3. By an underlease dated 6 May 1994 [NAME] granted an underlease of the property to a [NAME] on the same terms and for the same term and commencement date as the headlease.

4. It appears that the Respondent became the registered proprietor of the headlease on 24 December 2015. In addition, a [NAME] became the registered proprietor of the underlease on 20 September 2004.

5. Clause 3(7) of the headlease provides that the tenant shall not assign or sub- let the property for more than 12 months or part with possession of the whole or part of the property unless the tenant has previously executed a Deed made between the landlord, tenant and sub-tenant in which the latter covenants to perform the covenants of the tenant including the payment of rent.

6. Clause 3(8) of the headlease provides that within 4 weeks after any transfer, assignment, sub-letting, charging or parting with possession of the property, the tenant is to give notice of such to the landlord. In addition, the tenant is to provide the landlord with a copy of the conveyancing document and to pay a registration fee of not less than £20.

7. It is the Applicant’s case that the Respondent has variously breached clauses 3(7) and (8) by failing to provide a copy of the Deed that was entered into between it and [NAME] when the headlease was assigned to the Respondent together with a Notice of Assignment and separately also when the underlease was assigned to [NAME] [NAME].

8. Subject to the Tribunal’s decision, the Applicant intends to serve a section 146 Law of property Act 1925 notice on the Respondent seeking to forfeit the headlease together with the attendant costs.

9. On 15 May 2019, the Tribunal issued Directions. These have not been complied with at all by the Respondent nor has it engaged with these proceedings in any way despite reminders from the Tribunal about the risk of not doing so. In addition, the Tribunal put the underlessee on notice as to the proceedings but she has also not responded in any way.

Decision 10. The Tribunal’s determination took place on 8 October 2019. It was based solely on the evidence filed by the Applicant, which has not been challenged by Respondent.

11. In the circumstances, the Tribunal had little difficulty in finding that the Respondent has breached clauses 3(7) and (8) of the lease as set out in paragraph 7 above.

Rights of appeal

By rule 36(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Property Chamber) Rules 2013, the tribunal is required to notify the parties about any right of appeal they may have. If a party wishes to appeal this decision to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), then a written application for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case.

The application for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the person making the application. If the application is not made within the 28-day time limit, such application must include a request for an extension of time and the reason for not complying with the 28-day time limit; the tribunal will then look at such reason(s) and decide whether to allow the application for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The application for permission to appeal must identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates (i.e. give the date, the property and the case number), state the grounds of appeal and state the result the party making the application is seeking. If the tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further application for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

📊 How courts decide similar cases

Among 11 similar decisions in this collection:

A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The tenant breached the lease by failing to provide a copy of the Deed for the headlease assignment.
  • The tenant breached the lease by failing to provide a Notice of Assignment for the headlease assignment.
  • The tenant breached the lease by failing to provide a copy of the Deed when the underlease was assigned.
  • The tenant breached the lease by failing to provide a Notice of Assignment for the underlease assignment.
  • The tribunal based its decision solely on the applicant's evidence because it was not challenged.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The tenant failed to comply with the tribunal's directions.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The Tribunal decided that the Respondent breached lease conditions by failing to provide necessary documentation related to assignment and subletting.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about the Respondent's failure to provide a Deed and Notice of Assignment as required by the lease agreement.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided that the Respondent had breached the lease conditions because they failed to provide the required documentation within the specified timeframe.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 1993, specifically section 168(4), was applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The argument that mattered most was the Respondent's failure to provide a Deed and Notice of Assignment as required by the lease agreement.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was for the person who brought the case, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

For someone in a similar situation, it means that compliance with lease conditions regarding assignment and subletting is crucial to avoid breaches.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The evidence that mattered was the failure to provide a Deed and Notice of Assignment as required by the lease agreement.

Official source: First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) — headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and is reproduced from its published records. VadeLab is not affiliated with, and this page is not endorsed by, that court or tribunal.