Tenant Found Guilty of Breaching Lease Covenants
📌 In brief
The First-tier Tribunal ruled that a tenant had breached their lease by not following certain covenants, including executing a deed of covenant and providing necessary notices and fees.
⚖️ Legal holding
A tenant must comply with the covenants in their lease, including executing a deed of covenant and providing notice of assignment.
📖 Technical summary
The Tribunal determined that the respondents had breached certain covenants in their lease.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Tribunal determined that the tenant had breached clauses 3(7) and (8) of their lease, failing to execute a deed of covenant and provide necessary notices and fees.
📚 Full judgment Official document
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) Case Reference : LON/00BG/LBC/2019/0034 Property : 28 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Applicant : [redacted] London Borough of Tower Hamlets Representative :
[NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME], Legal Team, [COMPANY]
Respondent : [redacted] [NAME] [COUNSEL] [NAME] (2) Representative : Unrepresented Type of [NAME] : Determination of an alleged breach of covenant under S.168(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Tribunal Members :
Mr [NAME] – Tribunal Judge Mr Duncan Jagger MRICS – Valuer Member
Date and venue of paper determination : 26 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] Date of Decision : 26 June 2019
DECISION
2
Decisions of the Tribunal The Tribunal determines that the respondents have breached clauses 3(7) and (8) of the lease of 78 [ADDRESS] [POSTCODE] (‘the [NAME]’), as detailed at paragraph 12 of this decision. The [NAME]
1. The applicant seeks a determination pursuant to section 168 (4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (the 2002 Act) that the respondents have breached clause 3(7) and (8) of the [NAME] lease. The [NAME] arises from an assignment of the lease on 24 April 2017. It is alleged that the respondents failed to:
(a) enter into a deed of covenant with the applicant, arising from the
lease assignment;
(b) give notice of assignment and pay a registration fee to the
applicant; and
(c) provide the applicant with a verified copy of the relevant transfer
deed.
2. The [NAME] was received by the Tribunal on 25 April 2019. Directions were issued on 02 May 2019. These provided that the case be allocated to the paper track, to be determined upon the basis of written representations. None of the parties has objected to this allocation or requested an oral hearing. The paper determination took place on 26 June 2019.
3. The grounds of the [NAME] were set out in a statement of case dated 09 April 2019. The applicant also relied on official copies of the lease and Land Registry entries for the leasehold title for the [NAME]. The latter are dated 07 May 2019 and reveal that no charges are registered against the [NAME]. The address given for the respondents is the [NAME].
4. The respondents did not file a bundle of documents, as required by the directions, or respond to the [NAME] in any way. Further, they have not responded to the Tribunal’s letters sent to them at the [NAME].
5. The relevant legal provisions are set out in the appendix to this decision.
3 The background 6. The applicant is the freeholder of a block of flats known as 71 to [ADDRESS] (‘the Building’). The [NAME] is on the second floor of the Building.
7. The Land Registry entries reveal that the respondents purchased the [NAME] for £50,000 on 24 April 2017. They have been registered as the proprietors of the [NAME] since 31 August 2017.
8. The Tribunal did not consider that an inspection of the Building or [NAME] was necessary, nor would it have been proportionate to the issues in dispute. The lease 9. The lease was granted by the applicant (“[NAME]”) to [APPELLANT] and [APPELLANT] [NAME] (“Lessees”) on 06 May 2002 for a term of 125 years from 04 September 1989. The respondents are successors in title to the Lessees.
10. Various Lessees’ covenants are to be found at clauses 3 of the lease, including: “(7) Not at any time to assign sublet for a period exceeding twelve months or part with possession of the whole or part of the Demised Premises or permit or suffer the same to be done unless there shall previously have been executed at the expense of [NAME] and delivered to [NAME] for retention by them a Deed expressed to be made between [NAME] of the first part [NAME] of the second part and the person or persons by whom it is proposed to assign sublet or part with possession as aforesaid of the third part whereby the person to whom it is proposed to assign sublet or part with possession shall have covenanted directly with [NAME] to observe and perform the covenants on the part of [NAME] herein contained including the covenant contained in this sub-clause but excluding in the case of a subletting the covenant to pay the rents hereby reserved Provided Always that [NAME] shall not themselves be required to execute such Deed (8) Within four weeks next after any transfer assignment subletting charging or parting with possession (whether mediate or immediate) or devolution of the Demised Premises to give notice in writing of such transfer assignment subletting charging parting with possession or devolution and of the name and address and description of the assignee sub-[NAME] chargee or person upon whom the relevant term or any part thereof
4 may have devolved (as the case may be) and to deliver to [NAME] or their Solicitors within such time as aforesaid a verified copy of every instrument of transfer assignment subletting charging or devolution and every probate letters of administration order of the Court or other instrument effecting or evidencing the same and to pay to [NAME] a fee of Twenty five pounds (or such other sum as shall from time to time be determined by the Council in respect of each such document or instrument so produced) for the registration of every such notice together with any Value Added Tax payable thereon of the current rate for the time being in force” The applicant’s case 11. The applicant states that the respondents have not entered into a deed of covenant in connection with the [NAME] purchase in April 2017. Further, the respondents have not given notice of assignment, paid the registration fee or produced a verified copy of the transfer deed. The Tribunal’s decision 12. The Tribunal determines that the respondents have breached covenants in the lease by failing to:
(a) enter into a deed of covenant with the applicant, as required by
clause 3(7);
(b) give notice of assignment and pay the registration fee to the
applicant within four weeks of the lease assignment (or at all), as
required by clause 3(8);
(c) deliver to the applicant a verified copy of the transfer deed dated
24 April 2017 within four weeks of the lease assignment (or at
all), as required by clause 3(8). Reasons for the Tribunal’s decision 13. The respondents have not contested the [NAME] and the Tribunal accepts the contents of applicant’s statement of case, which is supported by the official copies of the lease and recent Land Registry entries for the [NAME].
14. It is clear from the Land Registry entries that the respondents purchased the [NAME] on 24 April 2017. This transaction involved an assignment of the lease. The respondents have not entered into a deed of covenant with the applicant. Further, they have not provided the applicant with a notice of assignment, the registration fee or a verified
5 copy of the transfer deed. The documents and fee were due by 22 May 2017, being four weeks from the date of the respondents’ purchase. The next steps 15. The Tribunal has determined that the respondents have breached the lease.
16. The respondents should remedy the breach, as soon as possible, if they are to avoid further action by the applicant. That action could include service of a notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and possible Court proceedings to forfeit the lease and repossess the [NAME].
17. The Tribunal recommends that the respondents seek independent legal advice upon this decision and the steps that need to be taken to remedy the breaches of the lease. Name: Tribunal Judge Donegan Date: 26 June 2019
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 [NAME] for permission must be made to the First-tier Tribunal at the regional office which has been dealing with the case. The [NAME] for permission to appeal must arrive at the regional office within 28 days after the Tribunal sends written reasons for the decision to the [NAME]. If the [NAME] is not made within the 28 day time limit, such [NAME] 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 [NAME] for permission to appeal to proceed, despite not being within the time limit. The [NAME] 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 [NAME] the [NAME] is seeking. If the Tribunal refuses to grant permission to appeal, a further [NAME] for permission may be made to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
6 Appendix of relevant legislation Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 Section 168 No forfeiture notice before determination of breach
(1) A landlord under a long lease of a dwelling may not serve a notice under section 146(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (c. 20) (restriction on forfeiture) in respect of a breach by a tenant of a covenant or condition in the lease unless subsection (2) is satisfied. (2) This subsection is satisfied if— (a) it has been finally determined on an [NAME] under subsection (4) that the breach has occurred, (b) the tenant has admitted the breach, or (c) a court in any proceedings, or an arbitral tribunal in proceedings pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement, has finally determined that the breach has occurred. (3) But a notice may not be served by virtue of subsection (2) (a) or (c) until after the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the final determination is made. (4) A landlord under a long lease of a dwelling may make an [NAME] to the appropriate tribunal for a determination that a breach of a covenant or condition in the lease has occurred. (5) But a landlord may not make an [NAME] under subsection (4) in respect of a matter which— (a) has been, or is to be, referred to arbitration pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement to which the tenant is a party, (b) has been the subject of determination by a court, or (c) has been the subject of determination by an arbitral tribunal pursuant to a post-dispute arbitration agreement. (6) For the purposes of subsection (4), “appropriate tribunal” means – (a) in relation to a dwelling in England, the First-tier Tribunal or, where determined by or under Tribunal Procedure Rules, the Upper Tribunal; and (b) In relation to a dwelling in Wales, a leasehold valuation tribunal.
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 10 similar decisions in this collection:
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Rules Tenant Violated Lease Covenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Finds Breaches in Lease Covenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Finds Multiple Breaches of Lease Conditions
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) First-tier Tribunal Finds Breach of Covenant in Tenancy Agreement
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tribunal Rules Tenant in Breach of Lease Covenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Found Guilty of Multiple Lease Breaches
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Found Guilty of Breaching Lease Conditions for Short-term Rentals
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Found Guilty of Breaching Lease Covenants
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Found in Breach of Lease Covenants in First-tier Tribunal Decision
- First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Tenant Found in Breach of Multiple Lease Terms
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 respondents failed to enter into a deed of covenant with the applicant after the lease assignment.
- The respondents did not give notice of assignment or pay the registration fee to the applicant.
- The respondents failed to provide a verified copy of the transfer deed to the applicant.
- The Tribunal accepted the applicant's statement of case because the respondents did not contest the application.
- Land Registry entries confirmed that the respondents purchased the property and that the transaction involved a lease assignment.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tenant had breached their lease by not following certain covenants.
Who was involved?
The tenant and the landlord were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the lack of compliance with the lease covenants.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 was applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The tenant's failure to execute a deed of covenant and provide necessary notices and fees was the central argument.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the tenant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they comply with all lease covenants.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The lease and Land Registry entries were important documents.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, the decision can be appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
Yes, it is recommended to get a solicitor for cases involving lease covenants.
