The landlord wanted to raise this Camberwell shop’s rent by more than half. We acted for the tenant, agreed a fair figure, and kept the whole thing out of arbitration.
The landlord wanted to take the rent from £13,500 to £21,000 a year, more than half as much again in a single review. We were acting for the tenant, the person who would actually have to pay it.
The shop sits on Camberwell New Road, a busy South London arterial with a proper working high-street feel rather than a prime retail pitch. At review, the rent is re-set to its open market rental value, on the assumptions and disregards the lease itself sets out. The two opening figures were far enough apart that this was never going to settle on the first letter.
We read the review clause first, then looked at the market. Three things shaped our case:
When the rent could not be agreed by negotiation, the landlord applied to have the dispute referred to arbitration under the review clause. By then we had already built the file as though a third party would decide it. The evidence schedule, the analysis and the basis of value were all ready to go in front of an arbitrator.
Which is exactly why it never had to. With a solid case on the table, and the time and cost of a hearing plain to both sides, the review settled by agreement at £16,700 a year. That was an increase the tenant could live with, and a good deal less than the £21,000 asked for. No hearing, no award, and no arbitrator’s fees to pay.
Agreed by negotiation, even after the landlord had applied for arbitration. The reference was never heard. Preparing as though it would be is what settled it.
£16,700.
A ground-floor shop on a busy South London arterial. It is a working high-street spot, the kind of place where the right local evidence, properly zoned, is what really decides the rent.
