CLOSE SEARCH
We acted for a leaseholder seeking a statutory lease extension. A formal notice was served proposing a premium of £11,000 and the landlord responded with a higher figure of £16,000. Following negotiations between the parties’ surveyors, the premium was agreed at £14,000 and the lease terms were settled.
Despite agreement being reached, the landlord and managing agents repeatedly delayed progress towards completion. This is unusual in a statutory lease extension, as the legislation provides a structured process with clear deadlines and obligations on both parties. However, lack of cooperation can still arise, particularly where there is a history of poor communication between the landlord, managing agents, and leaseholder.
Under the statutory process, the new lease must be completed within four months of the terms being agreed. In this case, the delays placed our client at risk of losing the benefit of the agreed lease extension altogether and having to restart the process at further cost. To protect our client’s position, we commenced court proceedings before the statutory deadline expired. The application prompted the landlord and managing agents to engage properly and the lease extension completed shortly afterwards without the need for a hearing.
The matter also highlights why leaseholders may wish to consider the statutory route from the outset where there are concerns about delay or non-cooperation, including where:
the parties have been unable to reach agreement informally;
there is a history of poor communication or delays by the landlord or managing agents; or
the leaseholder requires the protection of a formal legal timetable and court-backed remedies.
Although the premium and lease terms had been agreed, the transaction stalled because of repeated delays by the landlord and managing agents.
It can be difficult to determine the landlord's true intentions, as some representatives may deliberately delay proceedings hoping the leaseholder misses the statutory deadline, resulting in the claim being withdrawn. This would leave the leaseholder forced into informal negotiations, potentially facing a higher premium or a 12-month wait before restarting the statutory process.
In this case, the landlord’s and agents’ lack of cooperation placed the leaseholder at serious risk despite all key terms already having been agreed.
To protect our client’s position, we issued an application to the County Court before the completion deadline expired.
The application ensured the leaseholder’s statutory rights were preserved and prevented the claim from failing because of the landlord’s delay.
The court application immediately changed the position. The landlord and managing agents became significantly more responsive and cooperative, allowing the lease extension to complete before the hearing took place.
Once the new lease was completed, the court proceedings were withdrawn.
Our client successfully completed the lease extension without losing the benefit of the agreed terms or having to restart the process.
The matter demonstrates the practical protection offered by the statutory lease extension process. While informal lease extensions can sometimes appear quicker at the outset, they do not provide the same safeguards if a landlord delays or refuses to cooperate.
Where there is a history of poor communication, repeated delays, or uncertainty about the landlord’s willingness to progress matters, the statutory route can provide important protection and leverage to ensure the transaction reaches completion.
Get in touch
If you would like to speak with a member of the team you can contact us on:
