The court has stated that a tenant's "persistent and wilful refusal" to co-operate with the covenants under her lease would be reason enough to allow her landlord to oppose her request for a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (Youssefi v Mussellwhite 2014).
The tenant had a protected lease of house, shop and premises. When she served a request for a new lease, the landlord opposed it under section 30(1)(c) on the basis that the tenant:
- had allowed a creeper to grow on an external wall (in breach of her obligation to repair and maintain the premises);
- was persistently late in paying rent;
- repeatedly refused to allow the landlord access to inspect the premises; and
- had failed to use the premises as a shop, which was in breach of the lease.
The court not only considered the breaches of covenant individually, but also whether it would be unfair to the landlord, having regard to the tenant's past behaviour, if the tenant were "foisted" on the landlord for a new term.
Where the focus lies: the catch-all of section 30(1)(c)
In respect of the obligations to repair and maintain and to pay rent under sections 30(1)(a) and (b), the court could only consider whether, looking forward to the hypothetical new term and focusing solely on that breach, it would be unfair to the landlord if the tenant was allowed a new lease.
However, although the repairing covenant was deemed to not be serious enough to warrant refusing a new lease (the neglect to repair had to be substantial, whereas the removal of the creeper would have only cost about £350), the tenant's breach of the access covenant alone meant that a new tenancy ought not be granted.
Under section 30(1)(c), the court was entitled to focus on not merely "other substantial breaches" but also "any other reason connected with the tenant's use or management of the holding". The history of the matter demonstrated the tenant's persistent and wilful refusal to allow the landlord access to the premises. The judge clearly considered that it would be unfair, and therefore prejudicial, to expect the landlord to continue with the current tenant as her tenant in light of her behaviour.
What's the loss?
The lease also contained a positive obligation to use the premises for a stipulated purpose, but the tenant had not attempted to start a relevant business and had clearly had no intention of doing so.
Although the reason for user covenants might normally be to preserve the value of the reversion or the reversion of adjoining property, the landlord didn't need to show a quantifiable loss because of the tenant's inaction; the very fact that the tenant refused to comply with the lease was prejudicial to the landlord's interests and the breach had been substantial.
Implications
This is good news for landlords of troublesome tenants, who can cite their tenant's behaviour in conjunction with other substantial breaches of the lease as a ground to refuse a new tenancy. Equally, it may be a useful bargaining tool to encourage good behaviour during the term of the lease!
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.