Lease Assignment

From a broader perspective

The report explores the activities of Summer Property Holdings Limited and offers recommendations and conclusions regarding the real estate actions. Diverse management issues are explicitly explored by the report in a bid to establish an effective means of solving them. In essence, the report addresses four distinct tasks which revolve around the real-estate property of the Summer Holding Limited company. The first problem emanates from a lease agreement by a new tenant who wants to open a dog parlour in one unit. The second is an assignment of the lease situation where a current tenant faces a difficult financial situation and negotiates the assignment which is still pending waiting for approval. The third is an issue raised by a client on the conformity to the General Data Protection Regulations. The last one involves a tenant who has failed to pay the service charges. Diverse recommendations and conclusions are hereby reached by the property management which assist in effectively managing the portfolio of real estate properties of the Summer Property Holdings Limited.

While providing applicable solutions

The lease request for the first case was accepted under the conditions given. In the second situation, the assignment of the lease was approved with a few conditions included. The third case was solved by explaining the steps taken to ensure the GDPR are followed strictly. For the last case, the tenant was advised to pay the service charge or face legal action.

Section One

In a bid to endorse effective real estate property management, the discussion section explores, analyses and gives conclusions and recommendations for each of the four management problems encountered by Summer Property Holdings Limited. The discussion provided under different tasks provides a comprehensive organization of recommendations for the different real estate activities. Moreover, while the discussion explicitly explores the environment under which the four real estate issues occur, critical distinct conclusions are provided through the discussions. In this regard, an appropriate solution is hereby offered in the bid to improve real estate property management. Further, this section will seek to give directions on the issues raised by the tenants and provide advice for the issues they raise.

Task A

Introduction

While exploring the first task under the Summer Property Holdings Limited, Clean Dogs Limited has offered a five-year contract worth 25,000 euro per year for the unit on the 27th High Street. The tenant wants to rent the ground floor and basement for a dog grooming parlour while being outside of the 1954 Act. The unit under consideration has previously been vacant. Racoon Office Supplies currently holds the lease of the unit on the property’s first floor for office space. As part of the property manager’s work, the body and discussion section seek to organize, clarify and give directions regarding the property issues raised by the clients.

Body

The tenant’s offer rent price of 25,000 euro per year is an acceptable offer as it is congruent with the amounts paid, per square inch, by the other tenants. The contract offers a medium-term period that is optimal for business. Upon assessment of the company’s business plan, financial statements and credit ratings (Abrahams & Zhang, 2009), the tenant is established to be capable of paying the rent for the unit. Given the nature of their business, it is improbable that it will cause disruption to other tenants or destruction of the property in any way. In essence, the tenant plays an imperative role in taking care of the premises while under the tenancy. Upon conducting a personal review, the assessment established that the alterations required in the setting up of the business will not interfere gravely with the original layout of the unit. While the unit is strategically located on the ground floor of the building, it provides an ideal positioning for the business operations of the tenant. Additionally, given the accessibility of the basement from the building’s compound, the transportation of the client’s dogs into the parlour requires minimal arrangements and costs. Notably, the tenant has no criminal record that might have otherwise obstructed the tenancy agreement, and screening for eligibility and suitability of the tenant as stipulated in the laws of tenant selection have been met. (Hallenborg, 2003)

Conclusion/Recommendation

Through performing critical tenant assessment, the report seeks to provide a decision pertaining to the acceptance of the new tenant into the premises of Summer Holdings Limited. In the light of the discussion of the assessment findings, it is recommended to lease the property to the tenant with the imposition of a few extra terms added to the contract. The tenant’s offer should include the percentage of the service charge to be imposed at 16.67% in line with the lease agreement of the property. Furthermore, the unique nature of the business requires extra safety and health measures. (Quelch, 2016) These should be the constant provision of safety gates to prevent movement of the dogs to other parts of the establishment. The tenant is also required to set up necessary measures to prevent interferences in other businesses in neighbouring units, which includes ensuring of noise cancellation sections installed in the unit and the required housekeeping to prevent odours.

Task B

Introduction

The current task emanates from the incapacity of the Hardware & Rope Supplies Ltd to pay their overhead costs. Notably, following a drastic decline in football activities, the company’s performance is adversely affected which accounts for the risk of forfeiting the rent payments by the company. The current tenant of 26th High Street’s ground and basement unit currently has a contract which expires in 2024. The tenant operates a retail store and pays a service charge of 16.67 % while being covered by the 1954 Act. In essence, the 1954 Act purposes to protect tenants from evacuation from a premise unlawfully (Scarlett & Wilcox, 2018). Given the circumstances, the tenant has extended an offer to assign the leasehold interest to Dougal & Barney’s Café who plans to establish a small coffee shop in the unit. While the conditions pertaining to the tenancy of Hardware & Rope Supplies Ltd will be retained, the present section objectively seeks a sustainable solution and thereby provides a ruling on what steps will be taken to solve the situation.

Body

In the attempt to provide the assignment of leasehold to a tenant, a signed consent from the legal owner of the property is critical (Shaffer, 2006). The assignment is allowed to proceed with all the rights and obligations being transferred to the third party. It is also possible to include sub-leases and restrictions on assignments. From a broader perspective, the tenancy of Hardware & Ropes Supplies Ltd has thus far been without the need for review. However, the current situation arises from the shifting of terms agreed by the Hardware & Ropes Supplies Ltd to the new tenant. In principle, the sufficiency of the terms negotiated with the previous tenant does not extend to cover the new tenant. Despite both establishments being retail stores in nature, Dougal & Barney’s Café will be handling products meant for human consumption. While engaging in the handling of human food, the contemporary public health standards must be achieved in order to run smoothly and in an ethical manner. As a result, some adjustments have to be made to the unit. As Summer Property Holdings Limited is not responsible for the termination of the contract with Hardware and Ropes Supplies Ltd, the costs for installation of the new systems will not be funded by Summer Holdings Limited. The terms of the agreement of assignment of the leasehold do not, as presented, cover all the requirement to be considered complete.

Further, Hardware & Ropes Supplies Ltd possessed a contract due for review in 2024, and it would be a perfect opportunity to effect pending review onto the contact at the time of this assignment of leasehold. The coffee retail shop will, however, not cause any disruption to the other tenants. The maintenance of the unit will also remain under the care of the new tenant as previously negotiated in the contract with Hardware & Ropes Supplies Ltd.

Conclusion/Recommendation

Following the distinct conditions and nature of tenancy activities with the Summer Holdings Limited, the report seeks to explicitly review the assignment of leasehold by Hardware and Ropes Supplies Ltd to Dougal & Barney’s Café and thereby provide critical conclusion and recommendations. The agency approves the assignment of the lease with the imposition of a few extra additions that were to be reviewed in 2024 upon expiration of the current contract. Following the successful assignment of the lease, a comprehensive means of distributing the cost required to structure the unit so it meets the regulations for the Dougal & Barney’s Café business. Recommended changes include additional ventilation units and wastes disposal mechanisms in line with public health requirements. There should also be an imposition on the contract to restrict the subsequent assignment of the particular unit.

Task C

Introduction

Considering the institutionalization of new laws governing the handling of clients’ data, diverse capacities of property owners are impacted due to these contemporary laws (Scarlett & Wilcox, 2018). While the guidelines are applicable to all individuals in the EU and European Economic Area, the rules supersede the data protection directive and include new regulations governing the processing of personal data. In the current task, a client requests for detailed information pertaining to the steps taken by Summer Property Holdings Limited to comply with the new rules. Although the rules are fairly new, the implementation of these rules by the Summer Holdings Limited is at the primary stages. Notably, the new regulations have instigated a widespread revision of privacy policies across the world including within the Summer Property Holdings Ltd. These rules are important as they provide the guidelines for the interaction with clients’ data. In a bid to effectively resolve the contemporary situation, the client will be provided with the requested information on the agency’s compliance with the GDPR.

Body

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides an explicit protection and control of critical data to the client. Failure to comply with these regulations or breaching of data endorses attract hefty fines in the tune of 2% of the firm’s global turnover (capped at 10 million euros). Additionally, in a bid to promote effective handling and securing of data, these new regulations require the appointment of a Data Protection Officer for every company (Calder, 2018). The Data Protection Officer is the person in charge of the company’s data protection strategy and implementation of the new regulations. The new regulations stipulate that necessary steps must be taken to ensure the protection of data. The highest possible privacy setting should be set as the default option. Processing of personal data is also prohibited by the GDPR unless the data subject provides a consent. (Calder, 2018). In the same manner, the clients have full rights to withdraw from the said agreement at their discretion. (Voigt & Bussche, 2017) As the definition of personal data extends across a large area including email addresses, photos, other contact information and details of any aspect of the clients’ life, it is inevitable that summer Property Holdings Limited will have such data from its clients for business purposes. The company is compliant with the new rules as it would be criminal to operate otherwise. In this report, the concerns of the clients on data safety and GDPR compliance, in general, will be clarified. The information held by Summer Property and Holdings Ltd. In the ‘Right to Rent’ (Rose, 1973) agreement includes names, passport photos, addresses and payment records of the tenants

Fundamentally, the Summer Holdings company actively engages its staff members in training and capacity building to seal the loophole caused by the human element in data handling. Moreover, while the company does not employ the client’s data in marketing, the client’s information is hereby explicitly protected from misuse. Distinctively, the email information will not be shared with third parties for marketing services but will still be used to send and receive documents from Summer Property & Holdings Limited. However, if the client should sign up for promotional emails for the agency’s other products, they will receive promotional content.

Conclusion/Recommendation

While the task encompasses a client’s query regarding the adherence to data protection and confidentiality laws, the report provides the extensive initiatives undertaken by Summer Holdings Limited in compliance with the set laws. Following the appointment of a Data Protection Officer, new measures are enforced within the company to ensure the security of the data including data encryption and data anonymization. While the Data Protection Officer informs the clients in the case of a data breach, necessary measures will then be explicitly employed in a bid to mitigate the repercussions of associated with the given breach of data. In this regard, the diverse actions of the Summer Holdings Limited depict the privacy concerns of the company towards their clients and hereby attests to the client that the new laws are followed.

Task D

Introduction

The Flying Pheasant Transport Services, a tenant in the 1st Floor of the 28th High Street, has been noted to have failed to pay the service charge for September 2018 quarter. While their contract is valid till December 2024, the contract terms dictate that they are required to pay a service charge of 16.67%. Although the Flying Pheasant Transport Services have completed their rent payments, the service charges have not been paid due to their complaints stating that the service charges are unreasonable. Further, the tenant cites their small office space and also claim to have never required maintenance as justification for their actions. Following the raised issue by the tenant, the report seeks to explicitly explore the situation in the attempt to provide an appropriate and applicable recommendation on how the agency will react to the tenant’s actions.

Body

In principle, a service charge is usually levied to all tenants at a constant rate to cater for repair service and other overhead costs such as cleaning and security that Summer Property Holdings Ltd. handles on behalf of its tenants. (Freedman, et al., 2012) . Notably, the service payments encompass the costs of repair rather than profits to the company. While the Flying Pheasant Transport Services may have never directly requested the maintenance services, other dependencies they use in the premises have indeed required repair services. In the same manner, critical services provided to them have also been as a result of every tenants’ payment of the service charge. Notably, the system of billing of the service charge accounts for the independence of the charge on the size of the unit taken by a tenant. In the same regard, a modest number of tenants have also requested little to no maintenance on their units despite dutifully complying with the payment of the sum under question.

The security and cleaning services have continually been provided to all the tenants. There are also the maintenance costs for standby generators and water and sewerage systems. All these costs are drawn from the service charge entirely.

It was also clearly stated in the contracts between the tenant and Summer Property Holdings Ltd. In September of 2015 that the service charge would be payable at a predetermined rate and failure to do implies the breach of contract. In principle, the engagement in a breach of contract endorses diverse legal and relational consequences whose implications can be severe. The service rate cannot be revised as it was agreed upon after meticulous calculation and given the minimum possible value. The service charge acts as a form of insurance for each individual tenant against unforeseen damage to their property. In light of these facts, it is important that the clients ensure the payment of the service charge.

The proper communication channels for the addressing of the issue were also not followed. It is improper to take action without involving both parties in the agreement as this can result in misunderstandings. (Wyatt & Ralphs, 2003)

Conclusion/Recommendation

While the report seeks to solve the issue caused by the neglect of service charges, the Flying Pheasant Transport Service has been deemed to be in breach of contract. An allowance has been extended to the tenant until the end of the quarter to ensure the payment of the sum in full. Failure to follow this directive will result in legal action against them. They will be sued for an amount equal to their contact till 2024. A written notice regarding the current issue will be sent to them detailing the circumstances that have resulted in their request being rejected and the way forward.

In a bid to guide the Flying Pheasant Transport Service on the effective action to take, the report recommends the completion of the service charges within the extension period. While avoiding the fines associated with the delayed payments, the Flying Pheasant Transport Service will avoid legal actions and repercussions associated with the breach of contract. Moreover, given that the Summer Holdings Limited seeks to sue the tenant for an equal amount of the contract till 2024, the completion of the service payments will mitigate the adverse losses due to this particular legal action.

Bibliography

Abrahams, C. & Zhang, M., 2009. Credit Risk Assessment. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Calder, A., 2018. EU GDPR. 1st ed. London: IT Governance Publishing Limited.

Freedman, P., Shapiro, E. & Slater, B., 2012. Service Charges and Law Practice. 1st ed. s.l.: Jordans Publishers.

Hallenborg, M. A., 2003. New York Landlord’s Lawbook. 2nd ed. New York: Arvato Services.

Quelch, J. A., 2016. Consumers, Corporations and Public Health. 1st ed. s.l.: Oxford Publishers.

Richard, H. & Sawtell, D., 2017. A Practical Guide to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Illustrated ed. s.l.: Law Brief Publishing Limited.

Rose, J., 1973. Landlords and Tenants. New Jersey: Transaction Books.

Scarlett, D. & Wilcox, J., 2018. Property Asset Management.. 12th ed. s.l.: Taylor and Francis.

Shaffer, B. C., 2006. The Sublease and Assignment Deskbook. s.l. ABA Publishing.

Voigt, P. & Bussche, A. v. d., 2017. The EU General Data Protection Regulation. s.l. Springer International Publishing.

Wyatt, P. & Ralphs, M., 2003. GIS in Land and Property Management. New York: Spon Press.