Law Commission consultation on business tenancies: modernising security of tenure

We invite consultees’ views about their experience of Grounds A to E, and in particular whether there are problems with their operation in practice that we should address in our final recommendations for reform.

There are three requirements that a landlord must satisfy in order to rely on Ground F:

1. the landlord must hold an intention;
2. to carry out redevelopment work on the termination of the tenant’s tenancy; and
3. the landlord could not reasonably undertake the work without obtaining possession.  

We make no proposals to reform the first and third requirement. In relation to the second requirement, we invite consultees’ views on whether the existing list of works that can be relied on by a landlord to satisfy Ground F – demolition, reconstruction and substantial construction – is sufficient.

We also invite consultees’ views on three options to reform the list of works: 

1. Option 1 –  expanding the categories of works that can satisfy Ground F and including a purpose/motive filter (paragraph 8.141 and following). 
2. Option 2 – expanding the categories of works that can satisfy Ground F with no purpose/motive filter (paragraph 8.156 and following). 
3. Option 3 – replacing the categories of works that can satisfy Ground F with a general test based on whether substantial works are intended (paragraph 8.160 and following). 

Please explain why.

We invite consultees’ views as to: 

1. Whether the options to reform Ground F set out in Consultation Question 36 would enable landlords (if they wish to do so) to bring properties to the standard required by the MEES Regime.

Please explain why.

2. Whether it would be appropriate specifically to reference the MEES Regime in Ground F to enable landlords to bring properties to the standard required by that regime.

Please explain why.

We provisionally propose that the rule in Nursey v Currie be abolished, so that proposed alterations to the holding before a landlord enters into occupation will not be a relevant consideration for the purpose of satisfying Ground G. Do consultees agree?

Please explain why.

We invite the views of consultees as to whether the potential for purchaser-landlords to benefit from a tenant’s goodwill on successfully opposing renewal on Ground G is a problem that needs reform (bearing in mind the existence of the five-year rule). If so, how can the law be changed to address this problem?