Landlord and Tenant Law - Coursework Example

Landlord and Tenant Law Introduction The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 was created with the objective of protecting boththe interest of the landlord and the tenant. The act contains provisions that depict the nature at which tenancy can be handled within a period of time in which a contract exists. The Act recognizes the landlord as the owner of the property and the tenant as the party to which the property’s authority may be transferred to. From the arrangement, the duties of both parties are included at the time in which they are in agreement. The Act contains provisions of requirement of the tenancy that may be put in place by the landlord and the court. The rights of the tenant are also included and the extent at which they could exercise their rights. The paper will discuss two tenancy related cases in relation to the Landlord and Tenant Act. In addition, the paper will provide solutions are provided by the Act. Question 1 The agreement between Zak and the landlord is based on a license basis and not a lease. The main difference is that a tenant under lease is passed on the interest in the unit or land by the landlord. For this reason, the tenant is given the right to occupation. Consequently, in the instance where the landlord breaches the tenancy agreement, the tenant may sue for damages and continue to reside in the unit. On the other hand, a license arrangement is a short occupancy agreement between the landlord and the tenant with no creation of interest in land. The license does not provide the right for occupation to the tenant. Specifically, the licensed person does not one the unit but owns the right to use the unit as agreed by the parties. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act only leases are addressed as both parties may be found liable for breach and damages. Under the Act licenses are not covered under tenancy thus making licenses less legally bounded. In the case of Zak, he may use the unit in the agreed period, extend as well as minimize the period in which he may require the unit. In this arrangement, the determining factor is the ability by Zak to fund the use of the unit as desired by the landlord. Consequently, Zak may extend his use for the unit for his desired period of one year at the approval of the landlord. This arrangement is possible in continuous short term agreements throughout the year. For instance, Zak may provide an offer to the landlord that he uses the license for six months after which they could review the arrangement and increase the license for another period of six months. In an argument by Brennan (2014) the use of a license for occupancy is extremely versatile making the tenancy reviewable at a desired time. The author further points out that the tenant may offer the landlord money based on both the time he requires a unit and time he will be in need of the unit (Brennan, 2014). However, the decision to extend the use of a tenancy is based on whether or not the landlord may agree to the offer. This is based on that the tenant is not provided with any right whatsoever on the property. For this reason, the landlord may deny the tenant the license at any point. In the situation where the tenant may require a unit under license for a long period of time, they may pay for the unit for the desired period. In this form of arrangement, the monetary of the license provide the tenant with the right to use unit for the desired period. Morris (1999) asserts that by paying for a license for a specific period of time extends the licensing agreement and at the same time excludes the tenant and the landlord from being under the Landlord and Tenant Act. From the argument it is accurate to point out that Zak may extend his tenancy for one year mainly because he can afford the weekly payment demanded by the landlord. Zak’s extension may, however, be limited in regards to his ability to influence the agreement to his favor. For instance, the landlord may increase the licensing price as well as reject the offer by Zak. Zak may also decide to pay the weekly fee for a period of one after which the unit may be available for use for the whole year. In this arrangement, the landlord may not limit the time for usage of the unit within the year. The ability by Zak to use the unit is also justified by the fact that licensing is not limited to any specific period. Licensing is entirely under the authority of the landlord and the agreement the parties involved have reached. Regardless of the nature of the agreement, the Landlord and Tenant Act do not limit licensing agreements. The Act, however, provides for breaches that may arise during the licensed tenancy. For instance, Zak may be found liable for damages on the unit as well as refusal to pay the weekly charges. The elongation of the licensing agreement is based on the current terms and conditions. Specifically, the authority of Zak over the unit is based on the fact that the unit in question is not leased. For this reason, it may accurate to point out that the existing terms of the agreement should be changed to allow Zak to extend tenancy under the license. Bright (2007) points out that if the terms of an existing license may be limiting to an extension of the agreement, the parties in question should develop a new agreement that exclude the limitations. The author further asserts that in the instance where either of the parties decline amendment of existing agreements, the license extension would be entirely based on a new agreement (Bright, 2007). This may be less preferable for the tenant since the landlord may increase the value of the license of decline the offer to extend the license. For this reason, Zak may require to change the conditions of weekly payment and availability of the unit under the license. Consequently, Zak may prefer to increase the length of payment to a long-term basis and demand authority of the unit under the licensing agreement. Case on Extending of Tenancy Agreement CBS United Kingdom Ltd v. London Scottish Properties Ltd [1985] 2 EGLR 125 In this case, the main objective was to determine the authority of the landlord to determine the new terms of a new lease. Specifically, the landlord wanted to limit the period at which the tenant may extend their tenancy. CBS United Kingdom Limited filed a case that limited the authority at which London Scottish Properties would determine the length of their lease extension. The landlord argues that the property would be of less value if a less lease is granted. In addition, the landlord limited the lease extension to 14 years. On the other hand, the tenant wanted a lease extension of a period less than 14 years. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act; the owner has the right dictate the nature of a new lease agreement. However, the new conditions should be reasonable and based on facts. In this case, the judge agreed to the argument that the property would have a diminished value if a lease of less than 14 years is granted. For this reason, the only way CBS United Kingdom could be provided with a lease extension is by agreeing to acquire a lease of more than 14 years. Question 2 As the contract by William ends on 31 December 2015, the termination of the agreement should be legally done at the end of the contract time. For the landlord, the contract should be respected until the last day of the year. However, the tenant may decide to extend the contract after the final date, or terminate the contract before the end of the tenancy period. In an argument by Morris (2007) the Act protects the tenant from eviction before the contract. This is aimed at protecting the welfare of the tenant. Part A In the occasion where William seeks to terminate his tenancy on 31st December, he could wait until the contract runs down and moves from the unit. Hopkins (2010) asserts that the tenant is provided with the authority to retain his current tenancy agreement as long as the tenancy period agreed is not past. Within the period, the landlord may not put pressure on the tenant whether to extend or minimize their tenancy period. Garner & Firth (2010) point out that the period stated for tenancy can only be extended or terminated from the deadline by the tenant. In another alternative, William may notify the landlord that he may wish to terminate the tenancy agreement on the contact deadline day. In this approach, the time limit at which the notification is not provided. However, under the Act the tenant has the responsibility to notify on his wish to terminate the contract within 28 days before final contract day. This provision is aimed at protecting the needs of the landlord in regards to searching for new tenants for the vacant unit. However, William may place a termination request at any time within the period of tenancy. In this occasion, the landlord should refrain from putting pressure on the tenant to evict the unit. McQueen (2013) points out that the termination of contract request should not be used a way for the landlord to hasten the process of eviction. The author further points out that regardless of the fact that termination of tenancy is imminent the contract should be implemented until the contracted period is reached (McQueen, 2013). Generally, the decision by William to terminate the contact at 31 December 2015 should be notified to the landlord at any time of the tenancy within one month to the completion of the agreement. This provides time for the landlord to assess the nature of the agreement of assessing damages to properties before the end of the tenancy. Part B In the situation where William seeks to terminate the contract after the end of 31 December 2015, there must be a prior notification at the end of the tenancy period. Robson & Roberts are of the assumption that after the tenancy period, the tenant may continue to reside in the unit after an agreed period with the landlord (99). Moreover, after the tenancy period the landlord may limit the time at which the tenant may reside in the unit. However, if the landlord agreed to a specific time of residing after the tenancy period expires they should honor the agreement until the period elapses. Consequently, William should develop a time or a period when he could be in need of the unit. From this realization, they may request for an extension. In addition, William should realize that the landlord has the right to create new conditions to the existing contract. Robson & Roberts (2005) that the creation of a new tenancy agreement provides the landlord with the authority to include new tenancy requirements and conditions. Similar to the offering of a new tenancy agreement, William has a responsibility of notifying the landlord to his extension plan 28 days before the end of a tenancy agreement. In the instance where the landlord rejects the extension offer, William may be evicted at any time during the extension period. However, in the situation whereby William pays for the Unit and the landlord accepts the payment, William has the rights to extent his use of the Unit until the payment offered is due. In this occasion, William is still protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act regardless of the fact that the agreement is not protected after the contract expires. For this reason, the landlord may not evict William at the end of the contract before serving him a notice. The landlord should provide William with a 28 days’ notice before they could evict him even after the contract has expired. Part C In the occasion where William wishes to extend the termination of the contract after 31 December 2015, they have a responsibility to notify the landlord before the end of the tenancy. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act the responsibility of the tenant to retain tenancy of a unit after the end of the agreed period is after the landlord has agreed to the new request. In an argument by Brennan (2014) the landlord retains the authority to a rented unit after the tenancy period is reached. The author further asserts that the authority of the tenant on a unit is not determined by their ability to afford the unit but by an agreement decided by the landlord (Brennan, 2014). In this case, William’s authority of the unit ends on 31 December 2015; thus the landlord may evict him of an agreed extension to the tenancy is not discussed. William may notify the landlord of their wish to extend their tenancy before the end date of the contract is reached. Specifically, 28 days before the end of the contract William should notify the owner of his plans with the unit. In another alternative, William may decide to increase the tenancy agreement. The offer of the tenancy agreement may be on or before the tenancy period is due. However, the landlord is not bound to accept the new offer. In addition, the landlord may include new conditions to the existing contract such as increasing the renting cost of the unit. Alternatively, William may also provide an offer to extend his existing tenancy agreement. In this alternative, the request may be turned in before the tenancy period ends to allow for the landlord to review the request and provide a binding response. Garner & Firth (2010) assert that the end of tenancy period may be extended only after an offer is made by the tenant and a response by the owner is received before the end of the tenancy period. For this reason, William should write to the landlord to seek for the extension. The landlord may then accept, reject or revise the existing contract agreements. In the instance of offer acceptance, William may then occupy the unit after the current contract expires. Case Showing Landlord’s Authority after Lease Extension Janes (Gowns) Limited v. Harlow Development Corporation [1979] 253 EG 799. In this case, the Plaintiff, Janes Limited filed a case that would hinder the authority of the unit owner, Harlow development to review the rent agreement under the new tenancy agreement. In this situation, the landlord, Harlow Development has decided to increase the rent rate of the unit leased to Janes upon renewal of the tenancy agreement. The agreement would be inclusive of higher rent rates to be paid within the next agreement. However, Janes requested the court to retain the agreements reached in the previous agreement in regards to the payments rates. The court decision was based on the creation of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1954. Under the Act the landlord is only refrained from rent increment within a running period of an existing tenancy contract. In the situation where the contract is over, the landlord may review the agreement reached in the previous agreement even in the occasion of lease renewal. From these provisions, the court ruled that the landlord, Harlow Development Corporation, had the authority to increase the rent charged on the united rented by Janes Limited. Conclusion From the arguments presented, it is accurate to assert that licensing of a unit lies under the authority of the landlord and the agreement reached by the tenant. In Zak’s case, the extension of the license could be extended to an annual basis due to that the timeline for a license agreement is not limited. However, this could only be possible if the landlord agrees to the offer. Additionally, the agreement is not covered by the Landlord and Tenant Cat since it is not a lease. In the Williams’s tenancy extension and termination case, notices and procedures as stated by the Act are mandatory. Both William and the Landlord have the responsibility of providing either notice of contract termination and extension 28 days before the final day of the contract. Under the Act, this provides both parties with time to adjust in the vent of either extension or termination of the arrangement. Works Cited Brennan, Gabriel. Landlord and Tenant Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2014. Print. Bright, Susan. Landlord and Tenant Law in Context. London: Hart. 2007. Print. CBS United Kingdom Ltd v. London Scottish Properties Ltd [1985] 2 EGLR 125 Garner, Simon & Firth, Alexandria. A Practical Approach to Landlord and Tenant. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2010. Print. Hopkins, Leo. The Landlords Handbook: An essential guide to successful residential letting. London: Harriman House Limited. 2010. Print. Janes (Gowns) Limited v. Harlow Development Corporation [1979] 253 EG 799. Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. McQueen, John. Landlord and Tenant Law. London: Straightforward co Ltd. 2013. Print. Morris, John. Principles of Landlord and Tenant Law. London: Cavendish. 1999. Print. Robson, Graham. & Roberts, David. A Practical Approach to Housing Law. London: Psychology Press. 2005. Print. Read More