Residential Conveyancing Solicitor Ben James discusses the proposed changes below….

Dating back to feudal times, more particularly the reign of King Henry VIII, chancel repair liability concerns the cost of maintaining church chancels – the eastern end of the church, where the altar is located.

Despite reform in October 2013 when property lawyers thought that chancel repair was going to be abolished and assigned to the history books by having its overriding status removed on the title register, this did not come to pass where land had not been transferred for a period of time and the first purchase for value after October 2013 was your own purchase of land. This means that some can still be called upon to fund repairs, and although rarely enforced, the liability can be financially ruinous.

The Law Commission now wants to ensure that chancel repair does not bind purchasers of land unless it is registered and therefore visible to purchasers on the title register, avoiding the need for chancel repair searches and/or insurance.

The Law Commission proposes the following:

• Clarify that a buyer of registered land will only be bound by CRL if it is noted on the title at HM Land Registry;
• Clarify the effect of the first registration of unregistered land on CRL;
• Recommend that the amendments should apply retrospectively so that they apply to transactions since October 2013, potentially cleaning up murky titles;
• Put an end to uncertainty about the effect of land registration on CRL.

These proposals will surely be welcomed by property lawyers although it will be interesting as to how HM Land Registry approach registrations going forward.

The consultation is open until 15^th November 2025.

Ben James is a Solicitor within our busy Residential Conveyancing team, based out of our Coventry office. Please contact our friendly team for all of you property needs.

The post Chancel repair indemnity policies – a thing of the past? appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Landlords or Tenants (as the case may be) may be reliant on successfully exercising a break clause to protect their future business interests. In either case, the parties to a lease may be alarmed to discover just how difficult it can be to successfully exercise a right to break, with, break clauses often being a source of many disputes between Landlords and Tenants. As such, we cannot stress more highly the importance of seeking timely expert advice before serving, or upon receiving, a break notice.

The right to break may arise on one or more specified dates, or it may be exercisable at any time during the term of a lease on a rolling basis. Whenever a right to break is exercised, care needs to be taken to avoid the problems which can be caused for landlords or tenants who risk losing their right to bring their lease to an end by failing to validly exercise their right to break.

Break clauses often come with conditions and it is important any such conditions are complied with when exercising the option to break. Such conditions could include;

• The tenant must have paid all the rent (or all payments due under the lease).
• The tenant must have performed all its covenants under the lease.
• The tenant must not be in material breach of its repairing covenants.
• The tenant must give vacant possession.
• The landlord must have an intention to redevelop the property.

A right to break can be lost because of a breach of a condition, or in not ensuring a condition is satisfied at the appropriate stage whether it be prior to the notice being served, or on the break date – care must be taken.

The requirements as to the form and service of the break notice must also be strictly complied with. Generally, a notice sent by the wrong person, or to the wrong person, will be invalid and therefore careful attention must be given to who has the entitlement to send or receive the notice. The break clause may include a particular form of notice which must be used and by not doing so, an alternative form of notice which would otherwise be valid, could be rejected by the receiving party. Where no form of notice is provided it is vital that the form of notice used is properly drafted.

Sometimes mandatory notice provisions setting out how the break notice must be sent to the other party, and when it will be deemed to have been received, will apply. In other cases, the general notice provisions in the lease will apply. Again this is something which needs to be carefully considered.

Whether you are tenant or landlord exercising or at the receiving end of a right to break, seeking expert legal advice in dealing with any aspects of a break clause at the earliest opportunity can help ensure the right to break is successfully exercised and that any lengthy and costly disputes are avoided. For further advice or assistance, please contact a member of our Commercial Property team on 024 7653 1532.

Imelda Kavanagh

About the author

Imelda Kavanagh joined Brindley Twist Tafft & James in Coventry in 2015.  She is a solicitor in the Commercial team and deals with a wide range of commercial property matters.

The post Break Clauses in Commercial Leases – What you Need to Know appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.

Answer: The starting point is to check whether your tenancy was authorised by the Bank? I.e. did your Landlord obtain written authorisation from the Bank to let out the property or in the alternative does he or she have a buy to let mortgage which may imply that the tenancy was authorised.

If the tenancy was authorised then it is likely to be binding on the Bank. The Bank may still take possession of the property but they may have to do so subject to your occupation. The practical effect of this is that you would be allowed to remain living in the property subject to the terms of your tenancy agreement but you would see a change in the identity of the Landlord. It is possible for the tenancy to be brought to an end but in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement.

If the tenancy was not authorised then tenants have much fewer rights. The Landlord may be able to come to an acceptable arrangement with the Bank to avoid repossession however if this is not possible then it is likely that the Bank will take possession of the property.

Under the Mortgage Repossession (Protection of Tenants Act etc) 2010 (the “Act”) an unauthorised residential tenant is however entitled to request that possession be delayed for up to two months during which time they should try to find alternative accommodation.

The unauthorised tenant should approach the Bank’s legal representatives with a copy of their tenancy agreement and should request that the Bank provides them with an undertaking pursuant to the Act that they will not take possession of the property for a period of up to two months.

In the vast majority of cases the Bank will grant this undertaking because if it does not then the tenant may apply to the Court for an Order that possession is delayed for up to two months. The Court must consider the circumstances of the tenant and whether there is an outstanding breach by the tenant of a term in the unauthorised tenancy agreement. The Court is likely to make this Order provided that this relief has not been granted previously in the same proceedings.

The tenant may also have a claim against the Landlord for breach of the covenants in the tenancy agreement.

The post Focus on the Mortgage Repossession (Protection of Tenants Act etc.) 2010. appeared first on Brindley Twist Tafft & James.