Real Estate Management Report: Summer Property Holdings Limited

Introduction

Summer Property Holdings Limited seeks to inculcate the available marketing programs and the special promotions from the available advertisements to maximize occupancy and adjust the rental rates to clients such as Clean Dog Ltd. This write-up analyses the options available for Clean Dog Limited and critically assess the suitability of this tenant for the vacant. According to De Hert, and Papakonstantinou (2016), the lease establishes the relationship between the estate managers and the tenants. Through the estoppels of conveyance, the landlord or the estate manager will thereby act in the capacity of the property owner by legally possessing of the property under the terms of an acceptable valuable consideration.

Offer made by Clean Dog Ltd and the suitability of this tenant for the vacant unit

Citing that the offer made by Clean Dog Ltd is categorically stated as outside the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act, Summer Property Holdings Ltd may be held liable for future restrictions and provisions bounded by the act. The issuance of a commercial lease within the act offers protection to the tenant (De Hert, and Papakonstantinou 2016). It is suspicious and in most occasions not advisable that the tenant would want to convey their preferences outside the act (Jianfu 2007). Securing the lease inside the act ensures that when the Clean Dog Limited Lease expires, Summer Property Holdings Ltd cannot forcefully ask Clean Dog Limited to leave facing an adverse effect of the foreclosure of the company business. In addition, the issuance of the property lease inside the act means that when negotiating the commercial lease for the business premises offered by Summer Property Holdings Ltd cannot bar the automatic renewal of the rental lease. It is advisable for Clean Dog Limited, to act upon the lease secured ‘within the act’. Clean Dog Limited will thus not be forcefully evicted if they secure a longer lease term with Summer Property Holdings Ltd.

There are several implications of signing the lease outside the act. First, it benefits Summer Property Holdings Ltd in that they have the freedom to choose what they will do with the building once the lease agreement with Clean Dog Limited is over. Under an outside the act agreement, Summer Property Holdings Ltd may negotiate the terms with Clean Dog Limited or any other new tenant willing to take up residency.

Citing that the lease agreement offered by Clean Dog Limited, thus making it favorable under the terms of the Summer Property Holdings Ltd provisions, there are several exceptions may it be deemed fit for inclusion. In the case where Clean Dog Limited may breach the lease in the rent in terms of huge arrears or treat the premise in a manner that reflects a state of despair. In the aforementioned case, even if presided within the act, Summer Property Holdings Ltd has the legal upper hand to repossess the premise and takes up the developments of the building to reinstate it into its former state. However, even with the provision of the within the act laws, Clean Dog Limited and Summer Property Holdings Ltd need to follow through their set notice procedures and thereby evict the tenant (Clean Dog Limited), since they have offered the agreement outside the act.

Recommendation to Summer Property Holdings Ltd, as to whether the offer should be accepted, declined or a counter offer proposed.

Based on the offer made by Clean Dog Limited (tenant), Summer Property Holdings Ltd, it is advisable to lease the premise. First, there is evidence of the footfall dwindling that suggests that are struggling to pay their rent. However, through the provision of holding the lease agreement outside the act, Summer Property Holdings Ltd can repossess the premise any time the arrears are unsettled. However, under the advisement that Clean Dog limited is offering to lease the premise rather than pay the rent, Summer Property Holdings ltd must exclusively stipulate in the agreement over the terms at which they would repossess he premise over unpaid dues.

Indubitably, the asset is integral to Summer Property Holdings thus leasing it is a wiser decision as compared to renting it to Clean Dog Limited. The security and guarantee offered by the lease offered by Clean Dog limited is important, and thus ensures Summer Property Holdings business has what it needs. In the short term, in cases where the leasing company (Summer Property Holdings), does not need an asset in their business year round then renting would be a better option. However, renting may cost more for Summer Property Holdings given the short term period. On the contrary, in the long run, the total cost to will be lower since Summer Property Holdings won’t have the asset for many years after.

However, even the current lease agreement, it is crucial for Summer Property Holdings to carefully asses the six crucial steps before taking up the lease. The initial step taken by Clean Dog limited, before taking the contract, the company must undergo an evaluation of the property to identify if it meets their needs. The requirements are as clearly defined before taking up the lease. Similar to the steps followed through by the tenant (Clean Dog limited), the second step is looking for the ideal tenant that matches the requirements. An ideal tenant is one that offers to fulfill the aforementioned building requirements and can be able to pay the rent on time (Mantelero 2013). The final step is deciding the lease applicant that most likely matches the needs offered by the vacant position (De Hert, and Papakonstantinou 2016). The final step steps involve presenting the agreed terms of engagement to the tenant and the final signing of the lease agreement.

Tenant screening varies across different property owners. There are property owners that are more strict hence impose strict legislation with regards to the kind of tenant they allow to lease their properties. Summer Property Holdings may come up with a checklist over the ideas of what they expect from the ideal tenant. However, the customization of the checklist must also align with the state law regarding the issuance of lease agreements. The landlord looks at the lease lengths suggested in the contracts (De Hert, and Papakonstantinou 2016). In the case of Clean Dog limited, the tenants are willing to offer a 5 –year unbreakable lease outside the act. It is important to the match the suggested lease years with the state requirements regarding the leasing of property.

Tenant screening also involves identifying whether the tenant can actively settle the maximum security deposits. The case of Clean Dog limited is wanting as the company has already attested to having some financial problems in securing the rent. However, as long as Clean Dog limited can settle the maximum security deposits, Summer Property Holdings need not to reject the viable offer based on speculation. Citing the leasing to at outside the act it, it is important to establish the ground rules with regards to the eviction process (Krumm & Linneman 2001). Similar to the total number of allowable years under a lease agreement, the eviction process is preceded over by the state laws regardless of the different states. Summer Property Holdings can highlight the state as well as their personal terms and conditions when it comes to the eviction process.

In conclusion, Summer Property Holdings must review the tenant’s right to landlord repairs as required by the state. Using the right legal professionals is crucial in ensuring none of the parties is afflicted by the tenant’s rights to landlord repairs. However, the provision must be defined both in the quality and the cost covered by the landlord. According to the suggestion offered by (Krumm & Linneman 2001 and further seconded by the findings of Jianfu (2007), the preliminary screen list for prospective tenants involves a look at the

Criminal background of the tenant

The credit check to assess their ability to settle current and long-term liabilities

The employment verification (in such cases where the leasing tenant will be dealing with animal rights issues)

The previous eviction records to show their relationship with previous property owners

The preferences attached by the previous landlords to see whether the new tenants dully comply or reject the laid down provisions

The payment history to indicate whether they can settle the monthly or the stipulated amount put down of the lease

All in all, Summer Property Holdings manager must keep in mind that one cannot find a perfect tenant that has not defaulted any of the provisions given above. With this regards it is advisable to choose the tenant with at least a majority of the qualities listed above.

Importance of General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as a property manager

The General Data Protection regulation aids in protecting the data f the different tenants leasing or renting properties with a firm. The General Data Protection regulation ensures that private information such as the personal residences of the tenants as well as their contacts are not publicly shared unless mandated by the court or state laws. According to Freybote and Gibler, (2011), the General Data Protection Regulations (“GDPR”) is mostly applicable for large scale types of landlords hat manage a vast amount of data valued by the large clientele under their jurisdiction. Using the General Data Protection Regulations ensures the tenant carefully shifts from the old data protection policies that contained a lot of loopholes that have since lead to termination of the lease or the rent contract.

In countries that have various legislative ties under the British common law, the enforceable Data Protection bill is crucial in maintaining a digital processing tool matches the requirements prescribed under the General Data Protection Regulation. Currently, the General Data Protection Regulations offers the protection of sensitive data for the individuals, the companies and the organizations that share sensitive data with their landlords (Freybote & Gibler 2011). Yet another importance of the General Data Protection Regulations is that it holds the landlords as controllers and processors of the personal data offered by their clients (tenants) (Regulation 2016). The conduct of the landlord dictates whether a particular piece of data is thereby sensitive in the given circumstances (Freybote & Gibler 2011). In the previous years, the information offered both in and the umbrella of General Data Protection Regulations has sparked ferrous debates over the incitement of gender or/and racial bias.

It is important to note under article 4 of the General Data Protection Regulations, there is a generally mislead non-exhaustive definition of type of information made available by the landlord to their tenants. According to Heywood and Kenley (2008), the clause includes the tenants and the guarantor’s name, their telephone numbers, the email addresses as well as the date of birth of the tenants. There are occasions where various premises require one to reveal their marital or religious status (Heywood & Kenley 2008). There are various modifications to the General Data Protection Regulations as per the different preferences of the landlords (Wen & Liu 2009). The general rule of the thumb with regards to the case sensitivity of the General Data Protection Regulations is that if one can be easily identified based on the definition offered by the General Data Protection Regulations, then it is personal information.

The measures must be implemented to make sure that tenant’s data is kept secure

Under the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulations, the principal agents (the landlords) are required to hold the personal information data for their tenants for the right and legitimate reasons. Consequently, the processing of the data must only be for the purposes of analyzing the tenancy agreement and not for any other personal or alternate purposes. The rights of the principal to use the information as they so please are consequently constantly vaguely challenged.

The General Data Protection Regulations offers the provision for data to be processed only within the person’s consent. The aforementioned clause holds in the presence of speculation given no initial legitimate purposes. If it is the plan for Summer Property Holdings to the provision for data to be processed only within the person’s consent, then it is important to ensure that Clean Dog limited are able prove that the consent has been given. Additionally, it is also possible for consent to be withdrawn so stay alert to the General Data Protection Regulation (Krumm & Linneman 2001). Under the General Data Protection Regulations, the burden to safeguard the personal information is thus placed with the landlord. Given a breach of the General Data Protection Regulations by the landlord through the sharing of information, the tenant may report their case to The Information Commissioner’s Office without undue delay. There is a 72-hour provision to present reason as to why and how the violation was committed.

Contentious Issues with Reasons why service charges

Undoubtedly, service charges are part of the costs that will be used by our form to manage and maintain your premises during the period of the lease. The service costs will be shared between the tenant and the landlord in maintaining the premises (Huai-li 2002). In addition, the service charge thus is calculated based on the space that will be leased by the tenant. Real estate property management comprises of four key management responsibilities; tenancy and occupancy, marketing and financial constructs, facility management and administration and risk management practices (Huai-li 2002). The efforts of the property manager must be directed towards improving the returns on investment on the property as well as the actual investment returns to the investor/ property owner (Huai-li 2002). The efforts of the real estate manager are thus act in the best interests of the property owner as estoppels of real estate management (Huai-li 2002). The scope of real estate management cuts across book keeping to more specialized skills in property management (Huai-li 2002). The central role of the real estate manager is merging the operating expenses with the available budget offered. In retrospect, a highly performing real estate manager is one that is well-versed with the firm knowledge and the competitive rental scales in the area.

Recommendations of how to respond to the tenant so that they feel comfortable to pay the service charge invoice.

With regards to the contentious issues raised under service charges with regards to lease agreements, Gibler and Black (2004) offer the following recommendations are advisable;

1. The landlords, together with their respective agents must comply with the different sets of provisions they have dictated in the leases. Any extra provision outside the lease agreement is thereby not allowable.

2. The tenants should consider some of the specific service charges offered under the provision of the lease. In the case where the tenant would so wish to preserve the ability to go against the non-compliant demand with regards to lease charges, the tenants must then consider the advice from a specialist or a professional on whether they are legally allowed to refute the payment of the lease service charges.

3. The parties involved in the issuance and the reception of the service charges must be well aware of the legal requirements for the different forms of the binding agreements prescribed either formally or legally. The requirements must be presented either orally or through official writing. In retrospect, either party in the lease agreement may therefore not act in a manner that does not coincide with the initial considerations.

4. The agents as well as the landlords must review the lease or the contract agreements to attend to any section of contention that may arise due to being left out in the prior preparation of the lease agreement. Overlooking the terms of the first agreement leads to cases of variation within the contract signing.

5. It is important that the contacting parties adequately inform and educate the staff on the risks of estoppels formed through informal contracts as a consequence of the variation.

Bibliography

De Hert, P. and Papakonstantinou, V., 2016. The new General Data Protection Regulation: Still a

sound system for the protection of individuals?. Computer Law & Security Review, 32(2),

pp.179-194.

Freybote, J. and Gibler, K.M., 2011. Trust in corporate real estate management outsourcing

relationships. Journal of Property Research, 28(4), pp.341-360.

Gibler, K. and Black, R., 2004. Agency risks in outsourcing corporate real estate functions.

Journal of Real Estate Research, 26(2), pp.137-160.

Heywood, C. and Kenley, R., 2008. The sustainable competitive advantage model for corporate

real estate. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 10(2), pp.85-109.

Huai-li, Z., 2002. A Web GIS Based Real Estate Information Releasing System.

Engineering of Surveying and Mapping, 1, p.006.

Krumm, P.J. and Linneman, P., 2001. Corporate real estate management. The Wharton Real

Estate Review, (1).

Jianfu, C., 2007. Approaching on the Reform of Public Housing Management. Mechanical

Management and Development, 5, p.068.

Mantelero, A., 2013. The EU Proposal for a General Data Protection Regulation and the roots of

the ‘right to be forgotten’. Computer Law & Security Review, 29(3), pp.229-235.

Regulation, P., 2016. General data protection regulation. Official Journal of the European Union,

59, pp.1-88.

Wen, B.H. & Liu, X., 2009. The Cause and Transmission Mechanism of Financial Systemic

Risk: A Review Based on Asset Price Fluctuation. Journal of Zhongnan University of

Economics and Law, 6, p.015.