Landlord & Buy-to-Let Magazine | Page 28

For latest show news visit www.landlordshow.info feature ask tom ... Resident Agony Uncle, Tom Entwistle, answers readers’ questions. Tom Entwistle is a founding director and editor of LandlordZONE.co.uk He has been a private investor in residential and commercial property for over 30 years. Q Agreeing Legal Fees & Costs – How can I limit the legal fees I will have to pay to my head landlord, when I request permission to make alterations to a leasehold flat I own and rent out? Dealing with professionals and their fees can often be a frustrating business, whether this is for conveyancing or other matters, so it is almost always a good strategy when dealing with lawyers to try and negotiate not a specific fee, but a maximum amount from the outset. A common irritation for leaseholders (and this includes many landlords as well as commercial tenants) when seeking consent under the terms of their lease, relates to the fees demanded by head landlords, their solicitors and managing agents. Most commercial leases and longleaseholds contain requirements for leaseholders to obtain a landlord’s consent to carry our various activities, for example; lease extensions, lease variations, assignments or subletting, or making alterations to the premises. Understandably, restrictions are in place to give freeholders a degree of control as to what happens to the premises. However, to the leaseholder’s benefit these requirements are caveated by the requirement for the landlord to act reasonably when considering the leaseholder’s application, with permission not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. such fees can be justified as ‘reasonable’, and it is often fair to say that, in some cases, they may have a point. Rather than the amount being agreed as a specific figure, it should be limited to maximum amount. It is usual that leaseholders are asked at the outset to provide assurances to cover fees (usually by way of a solicitor’s undertaking) when at that stage the head landlord (or their agents and advisors) has done no administrative or legal work. That way it ensures that a leaseholder’s liability is capped and also provides some leeway for argument in the event that the quoted figure subsequently appears excessive, given the amount of work actually carried out. Is it fair that the head landlord’s solicitor should ask for its costs to be covered in the sum of some high amount, when it may turn out that only a couple of hours’ worth of legal work is needed for drafting and agreeing a simple form of licence? It is common in these circumstances for a leaseholder to eventually receive a bill from a head landlord’s solicitor for the exact amount of the fee quoted, which often bears no resemblance to the time spent - money for old rope for the lawyers involved! This is a real problem for leaseholders involved in an application, but they should be careful. Leaseholders are often in a weak bargaining position as it is usually the case that time is pressing and they need to act quickly, otherwise they would delay matters unnecessarily by querying the level of costs. On the other hand, head landlords have a statutory right to require a leaseholder to pay any reasonable costs incurred in connection with such an application. In these circumstances, most leaseholders come to the view that it is better, on balance, to agree to pay the raised costs rather than risk delays, not to mention adding even more costs by arguing with the lawyers. There will usually be a reference to ‘reasonable costs’ when a leaseholder makes an application for consent, but often the fees appear excessive. Faced with this, leaseholders will be asking how However, it is worth bearing in mind in these circumstances that any assurance to cover fees (either by way of solicitor’s undertaking or otherwise) should never be carte blanche approval. The leaseholder is then perfectly entitled to request a breakdown of the head landlord advisor’s time spent in dealing with the application, because a head landlord is required to justify that the costs incurred are ‘reasonable’ in the circumstances. However, bear in mind the advantage is with the head landlord and his advisors, as it is usually not too difficult to justify a fee as being “reasonable in the circumstances” given the amount of variables involved, particularly the hourly rate of the particular advisor. A London solicitor may charge twice as much as, say, one in the provinces; fees can vary considerably. At the end of the day, head landlords or their advisors often have little difficulty with the burden of proof in establishing reasonableness given the variables involved. Furthermore, given the overall amounts involved and the possibility of increasing the bill, it is usually not worth the time, effort and costs involved in going to court over the matter and trying to convince a judge who is in the right. A leaseholder does have recourse to challenging the head landlord’s costs, both at the outset (i.e. prior to providing an undertaking) or at invoice stage. However, as has been said above, from a practical and evide