Space Strategies and Legislation - Case Study Example

Space Strategies and Legislation – rights and obligations of landlord 1. Introduction The development of works on maintenance on buildings has to be based on specific criteria: the nature of rights of the persons involved is of crucial importance in order to identify their extension of legal responsibility in regard to the buildings various parts. Furthermore, the landlord has different rights and obligations from the tenant; his right on his property can be characterized as absolute – referring to the right’s protection against the violations by third persons; moreover, the obligations of the landlord in regard to the status of the lease are important – increased compared to the obligations of the tenant. Current paper focuses on the examination of the rights and the obligations of the Blackwell Estates Plc in regard to its property (building) cited in the City of London (65 Gresham Street); because a series of works of maintenance are going to be developed in the particular building, it is necessary to identify the rights and the obligations of the owner (Blackwell Estates Plc) especially towards the rights and the obligations of the Youens Finance Ltd (Tenant), the sub-tenants and the Corporation of London (owner of the adjoining property, 63 Gresham Street). It is concluded that the owner need to take specific measures in order to ensure that his rights are adequately protected; on the other hand, the owner has to undertake the responsibility for any severe damage on the structure of the building (including its walls) but only under the terms that he could be aware of the relevant damages and failures – otherwise, he can claim his exception from any relevant compensation. 2. Advice on space strategies and available legislation Of critical importance is the identification of the status of the building at the date when its use was given to the tenant – through the lease agreement; at that particular point – referring to the date that the lease was signed – the owner had the responsibility to keep the property free from any legal or physical damage (or failure); the above fact can be verified through the relevant tenancy agreement; in accordance with the events described in the case study no issue of failures and damages of the building had been identified at the point when the lease began – at least if such a case existed then the tenant - Youens Finance Ltd – would have highlighted this fact earlier; in order for such a claim to be valid it should have been proposed at the point when the tenancy agreement was to be signed. Afterwards, the responsibility of the owner in regard to the status of the building would still exist but it should be proved that the owner had been careless regarding the checking of his property status; it would be also necessary that the specific failure would be possible to be identified – otherwise, no responsibility of the owner for the specific failure should exist; in the above case, two different parties: a) the supervisor – architect and b) the contractor of the building would be asked to compensate the damages caused because of a severe failure of the particular property – the existence of asbestos could be the basis for such a claim. At the next level, another issue that needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that various persons seem to have interest on the particular building; apart from the owner and the tenant there are also the sub-tenants and the owners of the joining property – who under certain terms they could have rights in regard to the maintenance works developed in the building of 65 Gresham Street in the context described analytically below. The rights and the obligations of the landlord in regard to the works of maintenance that are going to be developed in the building of 65 Gresham Street will be explained into separate sections in the sections that follow. The existed legislation will be used as the basis for the identification of these rights and obligations – in the case study no reference is made to the terms of the tenancy agreement – that could possibly affect the answer given in regard to the rights and the obligations of the building’s owner. It is assumed that all terms are aligned with the existed law – which will be the exclusive source for identifying the rights and the obligations of the parties of the specific agreement – with a specific reference to the owner of the building. On the other hand, in current case study the issues that appear in regard to the building’s status and its failures do not involve only in the owner and the tenant but also to third parties – with which the owner is not directly related – for instance, the subtenants and the owners of the joining property. The relationship of the above parties cannot be identified through a tenancy agreement; in this context, the existing property law will be used in order to identify the rights and the obligations of Blackwell Estates Plc (owner of the building of 65 Gresham Street). 2.1 Dilapidations The building is in a relatively satisfactory condition; the works of maintenance suggested by the Youens Finance Ltd refer mostly to the change of the use of spaces in the building; moreover, in 2001 works of maintenance were made on the specific building and since then there was no claim for damage or failure to the building’s structure or decoration (status of the walls); Youens Finance Ltd has submitted an application to the owner for the development of a series of works of maintenance – focusing on the change of the use of spaces as noted above; there is no reference in the specific document to dilapidations – it is assumed that the building presents minor dilapidations – justified in the context of its normal use; normally, there is no responsibility of the owner for the maintenance of dilapidations; only if in the tenancy contract such an agreement exists, the specific claim can be set to the owner; the tenant can proceed to the maintenance of dilapidations in the part of property that has been rented to him. Since there is no reference to the terms of lease contract in regard to the dilapidations, it is assumed that the owner is not obliged to fix them now; in the future, he could be obliged to proceed to these works if the dilapidations were expanded at such point that a threat for the health could exist. 2.2 Works to the Party Wall The Party Wall represents the point of contact with the joining property; in this context, the works made on this Wall could be controlled as of their alignment with specific criteria: a) no major risk for the property cited in the other side of the Wall would exist, b) no risk for the building’s structure would resulted and c) the works of maintenance on the specific Wall should be approved and monitored by a supervisor-contractor ensuring that the process will be in accordance with the one approved by the owner (Robson et al., 2005, p.12). For the works related to the specific Wall, the tenant has asked for the consent of the owner; this means the following: a) since the return of the signed document – approval of the works of maintenance – to the tenant, the responsibility for these works belongs to the owner; for this reason, the owner could add a specific term in the above document – authorization of works of maintenance: that a supervisor of the owner will be present in all works of maintenance developed in the property; moreover, the owner could state that he would not recognize the validity of works of maintenance made without his representative – supervisor to be present; this is a scheme protecting the owner from potential violation – even minor – of the agreement between him and the tenant in regard to a series of works of maintenance. The above issues involve in the development of all works of maintenance, i.e. not only in the works to the Party Wall but to all works of maintenance included in the document submitted by the Youens Finance Ltd (see also the Party Wall etc Act 1996) 2.3 Building Works As noted above, Youens Finance Ltd. has asked for the consent of the owner in regard to all the works of performance that will be made on the specific building. Since the approval of the owner is acquired, the works can proceed with no delay; the document of approval can be used as a proof that the responsibility for the works is shared between the owner and the tenant – under the condition that the terms of the document of approval / authorization are strictly held; in other words, for any violation of the specific terms, the responsibility for the relevant works will be transferred to the violator. In accordance with the above, the responsibility of the owner in regard to the works of maintenance developed in the specific building by the tenant is limited to those works permitted by the owner – through the document of authorization; for any further work or for any work developed in violation of the relevant document, the responsibility will belong to the violator of the specific document (see also the Building Act 1984) 2.4 Asbestos The existence of asbestos in a building – because of its consequences – can lead to claims for compensation only based on the unwillingness exposure to the specific material. As this material is related with the building in terms of its structure, the responsibility of the owner for the existence of this material cannot be fully justified – at least at the first level. In any case, the contract and the supervisor of the building can be considered as responsible for using this material in constructing the building. The owner of the property could be possibly ask to compensate the people that were exposed to the material but only under a specific term: that the owner knew about this material and accepted its usage in the specific building – i.e. there is a willingness of the owner for the use of asbestos in the construction of the building – the above fact needs to be clearly proved; from a different point of view, the owner could be considered as being responsible for the use of asbestos in the case that a person acted as his representative was present – supervising – during the construction of the building. The fact that the tenancy contract of the people that suffered the damage has been signed between them – as subtenant - and the tenant do not have any influence on the allocation of responsibilities among the persons that participated in the construction of the building; in fact, the tenant might have no responsibility towards the sub-tenants for the asbestos since the existence of this material could not checked – as noted in the case study the material was revealed after the beginning of works on the wall. 2.5 Health and Safety matters All buildings need to be constructed and maintained in order to meet the terms of health and safety stated in the relevant law; health means the public health, including any fact or material that can put in danger the health of people living in a specific property or the health of the public in general – for instance, in case that toxic material is disposed to the ground (Taylor & Francis, 2009, 55). The term safety has a broad sense; in fact, safety can be regarded as including the health as a right recognized to all people. Safety can also refers to the structure of the building as this structure could become a threat for the life or the health of the building’s tenants or for the people living in the surrounding region – the case of Asbestos belongs in this category since the specific material can be dangerous not only for the tenants but also for those people living in near buildings; this is the case of the people living in the joining property, cited in 63 Gresham Street. In accordance with the above, the owners and the constructors of the building need to ensure that the building meets all the requirements of the law in regard to the Health and Safety – in all its aspects, including the Fire Safety; in the document submitted by the tenants, no reference is made to issues of Health and Safety; however, it should be noted that issues of health and safety could possibly appear after the beginning of the works of maintenance; the owner need to set relevant terms in the document provided to the tenant – authorization of the works – making sure that there will be no threat for the Health and Safety of the sub-tenants or for the people living in the surrounding buildings. 2.6 DDA The owner is responsible that the building follows all existing legislative texts regulating the various aspects of property rights and obligations; in regard specifically to the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 – which became law in 2004 – the owner cannot be considered as holding responsibility in case that a specific part of the building does not meet the requirement of the above Act. The building was built in 1935; the differentiation of its structure compared to modern buildings can be characterized as expected; therefore, no issue of violation of the relevant law could be established for the owner in case that his property does not meet the requirements set by the law in the above Act – unless the transformation of the building towards the guidelines of the above Act would be easy and cost-limited and the owner – in purpose – avoided to take the necessary measures. 2.7 Rights of Light All buildings need to have light in the context described in the local legislative texts; in this case, light is used not only for the development of the common human activities but also for security – issue of safety as described previously. The level at which lights are used in a particular building – position and number of lights and so on – is usually described in the agreement signed between the owner and the contractor; the owner is responsible to ensure that his property has the lights set by the law; any additional light could be used with no particular consequence; however, if the number of lights or the light produced by them are not enough to guarantee the safety of the tenants, then the owner may be held responsible in case of an accident or of threat of life because of the lack of sufficient lighting in a particular area of his property. In the specific building a series of works will be developed; this means that there will be a need for lighting; the responsibility for the existence and the operating condition of the building’s lights belongs to its owner – unless the case that the failure of a lighting in a particular case took place under conditions that the owner could not check or confront – for instance extreme weather conditions. 3. Conclusion The rights of landlord and tenant in Britain have been based on specific principles – through the decades (Archbold, 1846, 3). In the context of the specific case, it has to be noted that the responsibilities of the owner are within the margins that the law set – the document of authorization of the works of maintenance need to be used as the basis for the development of all these works; no violation of the terms included in the above document are permitted; the responsibility for any violation above the terms set in this document belongs to the tenant. Of particular importance in this case is the monitoring of these works; as explained above the law sets the limits within which all construction works in Britain need to be developed; outside these limits the responsibility belongs to the violators but only under the terms that they have knowledge of the relevant event / violation. As for the third parties – tenants of the surrounding buildings that would possibly suffer a damage of their health of their property, those people could ask for compensation based on the common legal rules of tort in combination with the legislation related with the land law – as listed in the references section. The owner is not responsible towards the sub-tenants apart from issues that are related with the building’s structure; also for issues the responsibility for which belongs to the owner – in accordance with the existing law. References Archbold, J., 1846. The law of landlord and tenant: with all the requisite forms, including the pleadings in the several actions by and against landlord and tenant, and the evidence necessary to support them. Shaw and Sons Duddington, J., 2006. Land Law in the Uk. Pearson Education Robson, G., Roberts, D., 2005. A Practical Approach to Housing Law. Routledge Cavendish Taylor & Francis, 2009. The Law of Landlord and Tenant Legislation Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 (2004) The Building Act 1984 The Building Regulations 2000 The Party Wall etc Act 1996 The Building (Local Authority Charges) Regulations 1998 Read More