Landlord Pays Price for Actions

A landlord who allowed his son to occupy a property after the tenant vacated it half-way through his lease was left to count the cost after a recent decision of the Court of Appeal.

The tenant rented a large house in London, taking out a three-year lease. He was unhappy with the property and vacated it half way through the lease, returning the keys to the landlord, who went to court to claim the rent for the balance of the lease.

The tenant claimed that various repairs to the property that were the responsibility of the landlord had not been carried out, to the extent that the lease was repudiated (the legal term for being brought to an end by non-compliance with the terms of the agreement). The tenant then argued that the landlord had, by his actions, effectively accepted the cessation of the lease ('by surrender'). In this circumstance, the tenant must demonstrate that the landlord's behaviour was such as to prove that he had accepted the lease was at an end.

To that end, the tenant provided evidence that the landlord had carried out a number of equivocal actions such as:

  • accepting the keys from the tenant;
  • entering the property to make necessary repairs and prepare an exit inventory;
  • redecorating and partly refurnishing the property and putting it back on the market to let; and
  • allowing his son to live in the property after the tenant left and before the end of the lease period.
The question before the Court was whether the landlord and tenant had acted towards each other in a way that was inconsistent with the continuation of the tenancy.

Although the landlord's solicitors continued throughout to insist that the tenancy was still active, the totality of the landlord's actions, especially allowing his son to live in the property, was consistent with the landlord having accepted that the lease was at an end.

Aston Bond says, "Problems with tenants are becoming increasingly common. We can help you protect your position when a tenant vacates, ceases to pay rent or causes other problems."

Partner Note
Artworld Financial Corporation v Safaryan [2009] EWCA Civ 303. See www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/303.html.

Telephone: +44 (0) 1753 486 777 (Slough Office)
Telephone: +44 (0) 1189 596031 (Reading Office)