Sherrards’ Real Estate Litigation and Residential teams worked together to help our client to get vacant possession.

Vacant possession means the property must be empty on the day you complete your purchase or sale of it. 

The £5million property in Kensington had been sold subject to contract, however, there was a tenant in the property who was refusing to leave which was jeopardising the sale.

Proceedings were issued in the High Court.

Michael Lewis and his team worked hand in hand with our Residential Real Estate department in order to provide vacant possession and a successful outcome for our client and the sale of their property.

Being connected to the internet is something we almost take for granted these days. Tenants looking to move into new premises are likely to assume that adequate connections will already be available or reasonably straightforward to set up.  This isn’t necessarily the case and before you find yourself unable to get your business up and running in your new premises, check out the position as you may need to enter into a wayleave agreement.  It is worthwhile doing this and getting the landlord involved as soon as you can.

While modern buildings should have fibre optic cabling installed, older buildings may not. Having connection at a level and speed required for business purposes may mean entering into a telecom agreement (a wayleave agreement) with the service provider for the installation, or upgrading, of cabling within the building.  This can take time and involve multiple parties.

While tenants should have rights to connect into existing service media in the building in their lease, this may not extend to new cabling.  This may mean seeking the consent of the landlord to run cabling through common parts of the building. The telecoms provider will also want to know they can access and maintain their kit once installed and connected.

A wayleave agreement or telecoms lease will usually need to be entered into between the tenant, the service provider and the landlord. The landlord will want to be involved in the process to protect their position as far as possible to ensure that the service provider only has the rights they are entitled to and the landlord can control as best they can removal of the kit from their building when required.

Landlords should be aware that telecommunications providers have statutory rights which are heavily weighted in their favour. It can take over 18 months to secure the removal of telecommunications apparatus from premises with the landlord needing to prove grounds to do so.  Operators are also allowed to assign their rights, upgrade the equipment or share with other providers without the landlord’s consent.

Before refurbishing or redeveloping a property in the medium to long term, a landlord will need to factor in the rights of telecoms providers within the building if their equipment is to be removed. There need to be adequate ‘lift and shift’ provisions in place in any wayleave or telecommunications lease to require providers to move the equipment to allow the landlord to refurbish the premises. 

To find out more contact law@sherrards.com 

The High Court in, Kettel and others v Bloomfold Ltd [2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch) granted an injunction to a group of tenants in a block of flats preventing the landlord from developing land where the tenants’ car parking spaces were located.  The Court ruled that the car parking spaces granted to the tenants as part of their long leases were easements and the tenants were entitled to an injunction preventing the landlord from carrying on the proposed development because the landlord was not entitled to unilaterally terminate the easements.

An easement is a right to use or pass over land, and not a right to possession or joint use of the land with the party that has granted the easement.  In addition, an easement cannot be claimed if its effect would be to deprive the party that has granted the easement the benefits of owning the land.  In other words, the right will not be an easement if it prevents the owner of the land in question having any reasonable use of the land.

The Tenants had been granted long leases of flats in the landlord’s existing development, which included a right to use a specific parking space.  In the leases, the landlord had reserved the right to develop its neighbouring property, even if this affected certain rights enjoyed by the tenants.  The landlord wanted to commence a new development on land which included the car parking spaces allotted to the tenants and required the tenants to accept different parking spaces elsewhere.

The Tenants sought an injunction to prevent the development, arguing that they had been granted rights to use the car parking spaces which amounted to exclusive possession, and which in turn deprived the landlord of all reasonable use of the land on which the car parking spaces were situated.  The landlord argued in return that the tenants did not have exclusive possession of the car parking spaces, and so the rights to use the car parking spaces were easements.  Therefore, the landlord further argued, if the proposed development deprived the tenants of their right to use the car parking spaces, the tenants should be awarded damages.

The High Court granted the injunction to the tenants.  The Court held that the tenants had not been granted exclusive possession of the car parking spaces and that the rights granted merely prevented the landlord from parking a car in the car parking spaces.  It did not prevent the landlord from doing anything else with the land, such as passing over it or laying pipes or service media beneath it for the existing block of flats.  Therefore, the landlord was left with reasonable use of the land.  However, there was no right set out in the tenants’ leases for the landlord to unilaterally vary the position of the car parking spaces.  In other words, the landlord could not on its own extinguish the easements that had been granted by granting equivalent easements to the tenants on a separate piece of land.  The landlord was entitled to temporarily obstruct the car parking spaces to carry out its maintenance obligations at the existing block of flats, but it could not extinguish the easement by requiring the tenants to park their cars elsewhere.  The Court therefore granted the injunction as an appropriate means of preventing the landlord from unilaterally terminating the easements, and the landlord was prevented from carrying out its proposed development.

This case confirms that where tenants are granted specific parking spaces within their lease, do have a legal entitlement to use the parking space.  Therefore, developers in granting new leases will need to consider and include a right to alter and indeed terminate the tenants parking rights, where there is a potential for development of that land further in the future.

To find out more, please contact Caroline Vernon. 

In recent years, there has been a surge in articles produced on Japanese Knotweed, a highly invasive and fast growing bamboo-like plant which seems to be haunting many gardens in Britain. It was introduced to the UK in the 1820s for its ornamental qualities but has since proved to be a hot topic as it is extremley costly for landowners and developers, causing structural damage, growing between concrete and blocking drainage systems. It is nearly impossible to eradicate and requires professional Japanese Knotweed contractors who have access to very powerful weed killers.

It has now reached the point where those affected by Knotweed are applying to the courts for compensation. The latest position adopted by the courts is to provide compensation in circumstances where there has been a loss of amenity but not where homeowners claim diminution in value.

This position follows a case that has been widely circulated in the news – Williams & Waistell v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd. In 2017, two adjoining bungalow owners brought a claim against Network Rail for allowing knotweed to spread from the railway land up to the boundary and under their properties. The knotweed had not caused any physical damage to the bungalows so there was no basis for a claim in that sense. However, the bungalow owners alleged it had caused the properties to suffer a diminution in value and had stigmatised them. Mortgage lenders are very careful and are hesitant to lend on such properties.

The pair claimed that the presence of the knotweed had encroached on their properties, interfering with their quiet enjoyment and causing a loss of amenity by reducing market value. The judge found that Network Rail’s breach of duty and failure to properly manage the situation once they had become aware of the risks, had led to damage and continuing nuisance. The court awarded each claimant £10,000 for diminution of value and £4,320 for treating the knotweed to prevent further ingress.

Network Rail sought to challenge this decision at the Court of Appeal. The original judgment was upheld but it is important to highlight that the Court of Appeal based their decisions on different reasons to those given by the judge last year. The court determined that the parties affected could not succeed in a claim solely for private nuisance as a result of diminution in value. They could, however, be successful in a claim for nuisance caused by encroachment of the knotweed because of a reduced ability to enjoy the amenity of their respective properties.

To find out more information, click here to contact Michael Lewis.