Representation in commercial rent reviews and lease renewals, acting for landlord or tenant across office, retail, industrial and leisure property, from first analysis of the evidence through to third-party determination if it goes that far.
A rent review or lease renewal is, in the end, an argument about evidence. The rent is whatever a willing landlord and a willing tenant would agree in the open market on the review date, but that figure is reached by reading the lease carefully, assembling the right comparables, and presenting them in a way that withstands scrutiny. We have spent twenty years doing exactly that, for landlords and tenants in roughly equal measure, which means we know how the argument looks from both sides of the table.
We act on offices, shops, retail warehouses, industrial units, trade counters and leisure premises, single assets and whole portfolios alike, across London and the South East. Most matters settle by negotiation. The ones that don’t are decided by a third party, and we prepare every case from the outset as though it will be, because that is the only way to negotiate from strength.
At review, the rent is re-set in accordance with the terms of the lease, usually to open market rental value on hypothetical assumptions and disregards that the lease itself dictates. The drafting matters enormously: assumed lease length, whether improvements are disregarded, user and alienation provisions, and the treatment of incentives in the comparable evidence can each move the figure materially. We read the review clause first, then the market. The same open market discipline applies where a property held in a SIPP or SSAS pension scheme is let to the member’s own business, and HMRC requires the rent to be at full market value.
Many review clauses require a notice within a defined window before the rent can be re-set, and the first question on a late notice is whether the deadline mattered. Since United Scientific Holdings Ltd v Burnley Borough Council [1978] AC 904 the presumption is that time is not of the essence in a rent review timetable unless the lease shows the contrary: an express statement that time is of the essence, a deeming provision that fixes the rent or the tenant’s counter-notice figure if a step is missed, or a review timetable tied to a break clause. Where a deeming provision does operate, a missed date can settle the rent for the whole of the review period, which is a large sum to lose to a diary error. Read the clause before assuming either that a late notice is fatal or that it is harmless.
The review date also governs the valuation date. The rent is the open market rent as at that date on the assumptions the lease dictates, not the rent the market would pay by the time the argument concludes, and reviews are often settled a year or more after the event. Transactions completed after the review date are not irrelevant, but they are evidence only so far as they cast light back on what the market would have paid on the day, and they are routinely over-weighted by whichever party the later market happens to suit.
Most business tenancies renew under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part II, which gives a qualifying tenant the right to a new lease and sets the framework for the terms and the rent. The rent on renewal is fixed under section 34 on open market terms, subject to the statutory disregards, and we advise on the statutory timetable, the section 25 and section 26 notices that start the clock, the interim rent payable under section 24A while terms are agreed, and the modernisation of lease terms the Act permits. Where a landlord opposes renewal on one of the statutory grounds, we advise on valuation and, where relevant, compensation for disturbance.
Before any of that, there is a prior question: does the tenancy carry security of tenure at all? Sections 24 to 28 can be excluded, but only by the procedure in section 38A, inserted by the Regulatory Reform (Business Tenancies) (England and Wales) Order 2003. The landlord must serve the prescribed warning notice on the tenant not less than 14 days before the tenant enters into the tenancy or becomes contractually bound to do so, and the tenant must then make the simple declaration in the prescribed form. Where the 14 days are not given, a statutory declaration is required instead, sworn before an independent solicitor. The notice, the declaration and the agreement to exclude must be referred to in the lease or endorsed on it.
Defects are not rare, and they cluster where a letting completed in a hurry: the warning notice served four days before completion with only a simple declaration taken, or the endorsement missing from the engrossed lease. If the procedure was not followed the exclusion is void and the tenancy is protected, which changes the whole shape of the negotiation. We raise it as a valuation risk on both sides at the outset; whether the exclusion in fact stands is a question for your solicitor, and it is worth answering before either party commits to a position on the rent.
Under section 34 the rent is that at which the holding might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing lessor, having regard to the terms of the tenancy other than those relating to rent, and disregarding four matters: any effect on rent of the tenant’s (or a predecessor’s) occupation; any goodwill attached to the holding by the carrying on there of the tenant’s business; certain tenant’s improvements; and, for licensed premises, value attributable to the licence where the benefit belongs to the tenant.
Most of the money is in the third of those. An improvement is disregarded where the tenant carried it out otherwise than in pursuance of an obligation to the landlord and, where it was not done during the current tenancy, where it was completed no more than 21 years before the application for the new tenancy and the holding has been the subject of 1954 Act tenancies throughout. A tenant who fitted out substantially should be paying rent on the premises as they were, not as improved, but establishing that is a documents exercise as much as a valuation one: what was done, when, at whose cost, and under what obligation. Licence for alterations, specification, invoices and the schedule of condition are what carry the argument, and the 21-year limb makes it date-sensitive. Old fit-outs fall out of the disregard.
Where a tenancy continues under section 24 while a new lease is negotiated, either party may apply under section 24A for an interim rent for that period. The application cannot be made more than six months after the termination of the current tenancy, and only one party can have a live application at a time.
How the figure is reached depends on the route. Where the landlord did not oppose renewal and the tenant occupied the whole of the property for business purposes, section 24C makes the rent under the new tenancy the interim rent by default. That default gives way if either party shows that the interim rent so determined differs substantially from the rent the court would set for a tenancy granted at the start of the interim period, or that the terms of the new tenancy differ so substantially from the old that the rent would materially differ; the assessment then moves to what it is reasonable for the tenant to pay under section 24D. In a market that has moved since the contractual expiry, and on a renewal that takes eighteen months to resolve, the interim rent can be worth more than the argument over the new rent. It is often the part of a renewal that gets least attention.
A landlord can only oppose renewal on one of the grounds in section 30(1). Three of them, grounds (e), (f) and (g), involve no fault on the tenant’s part, and where the tenant leaves because renewal is refused on those grounds section 37 gives a right to compensation. It is the rateable value of the holding multiplied by the appropriate multiplier prescribed by statutory instrument, which is 1 where the rateable value is determined by reference to a list in force on or after 1 April 1990. The amount is doubled where, throughout the fourteen years immediately before the termination of the current tenancy, premises comprised in the holding were occupied for the purposes of a business carried on by the occupier.
Because it is calculated from rateable value rather than from what moving actually costs, statutory compensation is frequently a poor proxy for the tenant’s real loss, and on a well-fitted unit it can be a small fraction of it. Both sides should work the number out early. It tells the tenant what a fight over ground (f) is worth against a negotiated departure, and it tells the landlord what redevelopment vacant possession will actually cost.
Part II of the 1954 Act is under review by the Law Commission. Its first consultation paper, in November 2024, asked whether the model of security of tenure should change at all; an interim statement on 4 June 2025 concluded that the existing contracting-out model should stay, and that the duration threshold below which a tenancy falls outside the Act, currently six months, should be raised. A second consultation paper, Business Tenancies: the right to renew, modernising security of tenure, was published on 16 June 2026 and is open until 16 September 2026. It consults on eligibility and that duration threshold, on streamlining the contracting-out procedure, on turnover rents and the interim rent regime, on the ground (f) redevelopment test and energy efficiency, and on which forum should determine renewal disputes.
Nothing in the law has changed yet, and a final report has to follow the consultation before anything does. The practical point for anyone granting or taking a lease now is that the renewal framework may not look the same by the time that lease reaches its first review or its expiry, which is worth weighing when fixing a term length or agreeing to contract out. This section states the position as at August 2026.
If the parties cannot agree, the dispute is referred for determination: by an arbitrator or an independent expert under the rent review clause, by the court on a 1954 Act renewal, or through PACT (Professional Arbitration on Court Terms), which routes a renewal to a surveyor rather than a judge. The choice between an arbitrator and an independent expert shapes how a case should be run, and it is worth understanding before a review gets that far. We prepare and present the case throughout: the statement of case, the evidence, the response to the other side, and the representations at the hearing. Because the file is built to that standard from day one, a credible threat of determination is often what settles the matter on sensible terms. A rent review we handled in Camberwell shows that preparation in practice.
Every instruction is director-led from start to finish: the surveyor who analyses the evidence is the one who negotiates and, if needed, makes the representations. We are deliberately candid about the number: if the review is better settled than fought, we will say so, and if there is genuine value to defend, we will defend it. Fees are agreed in advance and we are happy to discuss conditional and capped arrangements on the right instruction.
Both, and in roughly equal measure. Acting for each side over twenty years is precisely what lets us read a review the way the other party will. We only ever act for one side on a given matter, and we check for conflicts before taking an instruction.
Often, yes. An upward-only clause means the rent cannot fall below the passing rent, but it can still be held there rather than rising. If the evidence does not support the landlord’s proposed increase, a well-evidenced case can keep the rent at its current level, which on a large unit is a substantial saving over the remaining term.
When a 1954 Act tenancy continues past its contractual expiry while a new lease is negotiated, an interim rent is payable for that period, and either party can apply for it under section 24A. Where the landlord did not oppose renewal and the tenant occupied the whole of the property, section 24C makes the new rent the interim rent by default; otherwise, or where either party shows the two would differ substantially, it is assessed separately and can differ from the new rent. We advise on what the interim rent should be and when it is worth fixing by application.
The lease will specify referral to an arbitrator or independent expert; a 1954 Act renewal can be determined by the court or, by agreement, through PACT. We prepare the case from the outset to that standard and represent you throughout, so that the prospect of a determination strengthens rather than weakens your negotiating position.
Fees are agreed in advance of any work. Depending on the instruction we can act on a fixed fee, a time basis, or a conditional or capped arrangement linked to the saving or uplift achieved. We will recommend the basis that is fairest for the matter in front of us.
Usually not. Following United Scientific Holdings Ltd v Burnley Borough Council [1978] AC 904, time is presumed not to be of the essence in a rent review timetable unless the lease indicates otherwise, so a late trigger notice generally still bites. The exceptions matter, though: an express ‘time of the essence’ provision, a deeming clause that fixes the rent when a step is missed, or a timetable linked to a break. Send us the clause and we will tell you which of those you are dealing with.
Only if the exclusion was done properly. Under section 38A of the 1954 Act the landlord must serve the prescribed warning notice at least 14 days before the tenant becomes contractually bound, with a simple declaration from the tenant, or a statutory declaration where that 14 days was not given, and the paperwork must be referred to in or endorsed on the lease. Where the procedure was not followed the exclusion is void and the tenancy is protected. It is worth checking before either side settles on a position; your solicitor advises on validity, we advise on what it is worth.
Where renewal is refused on ground (e), (f) or (g) of section 30(1), none of which involves fault by the tenant, section 37 gives compensation of the rateable value of the holding multiplied by the prescribed multiplier, which is 1 for rateable values on current lists. That doubles where premises in the holding have been occupied for the purposes of a business for the whole of the fourteen years before termination. Because it is driven by rateable value, it often bears little relation to the actual cost of relocating, so calculate it early: it sets the value of the argument for both sides.
