Any legal experts here?

Associate
Joined
6 Nov 2005
Posts
2,317
Location
Aberdeenshire
I dont know if its allowed, sorry if its not.

So here's my situation. I leased a commercial propperty back in April this year, a garage with lifts and mot equipment. 10 weeks into the lease the property was burned to the ground by two local youths.
My tools were insured, so I got some money for my losses.
It would be my understanding that the building, and any equipment already present at time of lease would have been upto my landlord to insure.
Being so early into my lease, my company had made very little money, certainly not enough to pay a lease for a building that had burned to the ground, and I couldn't make a living in. My landlord was unable to provide alternative premesis.
We came to a verbal agreement that I wouldn't pay rent till he rebuilt.
The building is almost complete now, and now he is saying that it is my responsibility to put new ramps and MOT equipment into the premesis if thats what I want. This will cost over £50k, and I really can't afford it, and I have told him so. His arguement is that he leased me a building, anything in the building already was just a bonus.
I have been helping with the rebuild, and have more than £1k of my tools and equipment in the building, which he gave me a key for, but has now changed the locks and is denying me entry.
He is now demanding the full 5 year lease up front before allowing me entry.
I don't understand why he has suddeny turned on me like this.
At the moment the only option i see is to let the company go bust.
Only discovered locks changed this morning, and unable to get legal advice today.

Any advice, opinions etc would be appreciated.
thanks.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Nov 2005
Posts
5,709
You need to look at your lease, it will have said if equipment is part of the deal. I’d be surprised if 50k of equipment is not on there but you never know.

Pretty sure he can’t hold your tools hostage, that’s ridiculous.

He’s probably turned because it sounds like you’re going to back out and maybe he can’t afford the 50k, or maybe he’s got 50k from insurance and would rather keep it than let someone else profit from it.

Have you read your lease document? Without knowing what’s in there it’s difficult to advise.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
6 Nov 2005
Posts
2,317
Location
Aberdeenshire
The lease states that I am responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the premesis, but does not specifically list equipment covered.
The larger point is, should I be expected to have been paying a lease for a building that didn't exist anymore, due to no fault of my own?
 

RxR

RxR

Soldato
Joined
16 Aug 2019
Posts
3,296
Location
Australia
In addition to the above advice I'd call a locksmith and pay to have the premises opened to retrieve your tools and equipment.
 
Tea Drinker
Don
Joined
13 Apr 2010
Posts
18,416
Location
Sunny Sussex
My guess is someone else paid for the mot equipment previously and its effectively cost the landlord nothing. Now you're asking for new and he doesn't want to fork out. I expect he's wanting to lease his nice new building to someone else and wants you out.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
32,910
Location
Northern England
My guess is someone else paid for the mot equipment previously and its effectively cost the landlord nothing. Now you're asking for new and he doesn't want to fork out. I expect he's wanting to lease his nice new building to someone else and wants you out.

My guess too. It's all down to what's in your lease...
 
Associate
OP
Joined
6 Nov 2005
Posts
2,317
Location
Aberdeenshire
My guess is someone else paid for the mot equipment previously and its effectively cost the landlord nothing. Now you're asking for new and he doesn't want to fork out. I expect he's wanting to lease his nice new building to someone else and wants you out.
He bought the premesis 3 years ago, all equipment lost was already there. The only money he spent in the time he owned the property was on a new roof as the old one was beyond repair. This was before I started renting. I worked for the company that previously rented from this landlord from the time the landlord purchased the property.

He expects me to see out my 5 year lease, and also replace the lost equipment. I can't afford to do both.
 
Tea Drinker
Don
Joined
13 Apr 2010
Posts
18,416
Location
Sunny Sussex
He expects that? He is clearly a fool.


I'd expect that yes.

If someone wants a building altering or improving I'd expect to lock them in till at least the investment is paid back or vice versa if I was leasing a building for a lower cost and invested into equipment or modifications I'd expect the landlord to lock into a long lease

The landlord could probably get a reasonable amount without the investment as an empty unit.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
35,487
A few ‘obvious’ questions here to questions to get you started, in relation to the lease, if you are looking for an ‘academic forum based answer’ on the info provided.

Edit - Really though, instruct a property litigation lawyer ASAP. These are questions that you are not necessarily going to interpret correctly.

How is premises defined? Does the lease, at ANY point, refer to the equipment? Are there any references to fixtures and fittings? What do those provisions say? What are your repairing obligations made in reference to? What are your yielding up obligations in respect of the end of the term?

What do the insurance obligations say? Do they relate to the premises or the building? What are the landlords reinstatement obligations? Any sensible lease should provide that the tenant’s rent is suspended when there is damage by an insured risk until such damage is reinstated and the premises is no less commodious than it was prior to the date of damage to reasonable satisfaction, and further provide that you may terminate if the landlord has not taken steps to do so within a specified time period.

Also, the landlord sounds like an absolute moron if he has changed the locks and thereby taken steps to exclude occupation and forfeit the lease, if he hasn’t followed the provisions of the lease - what a boob.

You should instruct a lawyer immediately.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
The lease states that I am responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the premesis, but does not specifically list equipment covered.
The larger point is, should I be expected to have been paying a lease for a building that didn't exist anymore, due to no fault of my own?

You should have insurance to cover you. You are responsible for the lease. Even if the building doesn't exist technically the land is yours as you are leasing it. So you have to pay the rent due.

The only reason you wouldn't pay the rent is if he kicked you out to refurbish, extend, maintain the property. So you may have an argument under this. If you are paying the lease then you need free access and use of the property. If you don't then I would say rent isn't due.

It's not his fault either it got burnt down. Therefore rent is still due. But it may not be if you don't have full access. He should not have changed the locks and not given you new keys. He has broken the agreement. So no rent is due from the point he did this.

You need a lawyer to look through the lease agreement.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
He bought the premesis 3 years ago, all equipment lost was already there. The only money he spent in the time he owned the property was on a new roof as the old one was beyond repair. This was before I started renting. I worked for the company that previously rented from this landlord from the time the landlord purchased the property.

He expects me to see out my 5 year lease, and also replace the lost equipment. I can't afford to do both.

If he gave you the equipment for free and is not part of the lease and you need the equipment then you need to buy it. But it will be yours. There is no need to replace.

If it's included in the lease then you are renting the equipment from him and if not insured then you need to check lease to see what the terms are.

My terms would be that equipment needs to be well maintained and given back in a fit state similar to the state it was given in. I would also then charge you extra for leasing said equipment from me. Therefore it would be your responsibility to replace.

So it all comes down to the lease.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
24 Sep 2005
Posts
35,487
If he gave you the equipment for free and is not part of the lease and you need the equipment then you need to buy it. But it will be yours. There is no need to replace.

If it's included in the lease then you are renting the equipment from him and if not insured then you need to check lease to see what the terms are.

My terms would be that equipment needs to be well maintained and given back in a fit state similar to the state it was given in. I would also then charge you extra for leasing said equipment from me. Therefore it would be your responsibility to replace.

So it all comes down to the lease.
Eh.... if he has a lease of premises that includes the equipment (expressly or by virtue of such equipment being a landlord’s fixture) then such equipment would probably be covered by the insurance provisions and, on the assumption that the landlord is agreeing to insure the premises, it would be the landlord’s responsibility to reinstate it to a condition the equivalently commodious.

Or, if the premises is not deemed to include the equipment, and there is no express obligation to the contrary, it’s highly likely the lease obliges the tenant to make good the premises and not any tenant’s fixtures and fittings.

The equipment is either part of the premises or it isn’t. If it is, it’ll probably be covered by the insured risks provisions in respect of fire. If it isn’t part of the premises, and the tenant has simply taken the premises with such equipment in situ, it would be unusual for the tenant to be obliged to reinstate it - the tenant’s reinstatement would be optional, since the reinstatement provisions would most likely cover the premises only.

The landlord can’t have it both ways. Or it would be extremely onerous on the tenant if it did.

OP this is why you should ignore all of us and go and see a lawyer :p
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Posts
12,305
As an aside, what was your contingency if any of the equipment malfunctioned?

Was there prior agreement that this would fall to the landlords responsibility, or did he basically say if it breaks it's your problem.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
As an aside, what was your contingency if any of the equipment malfunctioned?

Was there prior agreement that this would fall to the landlords responsibility, or did he basically say if it breaks it's your problem.

It's always the tenants problem usually. They have to maintain and replace. With commercial buildings
 
Associate
OP
Joined
6 Nov 2005
Posts
2,317
Location
Aberdeenshire
As an aside, what was your contingency if any of the equipment malfunctioned?

Was there prior agreement that this would fall to the landlords responsibility, or did he basically say if it breaks it's your problem.

It's always the tenants problem usually. They have to maintain and replace. With commercial buildings

The way the lease is worded is i'm responsible for the maintenance and reasonable upkeep of the fixtures and fittings.
I don't see how i'm responsible for replacing them before handing the keys back, whether its now or at the end of the lease.
If he didn't have his equipment properly insured, it's not up to me to put my hand in my pocket to replace his equipment.
If the equipment is included in the lease, he must provide it again, if it isn't included then surely i dont have to replace it.

Also with regards to what i am actually leasing it says "the workshop" at {address}
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,494
Location
Gloucestershire
If you enter a contract for lease of a premises, which includes the equipment within, then the lease of the equipment is baked into the contract, whether the contract says so or not (implied contract terms). Unless there was an exclusion in the contract or surrounding correspondence saying as much.

Ideally, you'll have a paper trail of checking whether the existing equipment would be present during the lease, or photos of it in situ as part of the pre-lease documents. It would be quite easily provable that it was part of the agreement.

Maybe the contract said you would have to insure equipment, in which case you're ****** though.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Nov 2005
Posts
5,709
The way the lease is worded is i'm responsible for the maintenance and reasonable upkeep of the fixtures and fittings.
I don't see how i'm responsible for replacing them before handing the keys back, whether its now or at the end of the lease.
If he didn't have his equipment properly insured, it's not up to me to put my hand in my pocket to replace his equipment.
If the equipment is included in the lease, he must provide it again, if it isn't included then surely i dont have to replace it.

Also with regards to what i am actually leasing it says "the workshop" at {address}
He hasn’t said you’re responsible, he just said if you want equipment go and buy it yourself as you’re lucky it was there in the first place.

If the success of your business relies on the equipment he let you use, you really needed that specified in the lease, the fact you’re not sure what’s in the lease means you’ve probably messed up.

If the equipment is specified in the lease, he has to replace it.

If the equipment isn’t specified in the lease and all you’ve done is lease a building, you’ve got a problem.

There’s a chance someone with legal training could find a loophole but if the equipment isn’t mentioned in the lease it’s going to be hard
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Feb 2004
Posts
8,096
Location
North East
IANAL, but my interpretation would be that it sounds like the equipment was a bonus, which he doesn't intend to replace in the new property and was never specified in your lease, hence, if you want the same equipment, you'll need to buy it, but it's yours, so you could remove it when you vacate.
 
Back
Top Bottom