Upload
willem
View
62
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
KEYSTONE LAW SEMINAR NOVEMBER 2013 DILAPIDATIONS - DIMINUTION VALUATIONS. DIMINUTION VALUATIONS. In the latter part of the 19 th Century, established rule of law equated damages for failure to yield up in repair to reasonable cost of remedial works - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
KEYSTONE LAW SEMINARNOVEMBER 2013
DILAPIDATIONS - DIMINUTION VALUATIONS
In the latter part of the 19th Century, established rule of law equated damages for failure to yield up in repair to reasonable cost of remedial works
Such was “irrespective of the extent to which, if at all, that accorded with the landlord’s real loss”
Generally attributed to Joyner -v- Weeks (1891), with Lord Esher MR justifying on grounds that:
“It is a highly convenient rule. It avoids all the subtle refinements with which we have been indulged today, and the intensive and costly
inquiries which they would involve”
DIMINUTION VALUATIONS
Fry LJ added:
“I cannot help observing that the rule so laid down is one of great practical inconvenience. It is more
simple than the inquiry to what extent the reversion is damaged….there is….a complexity about it which
unfits it…”
Of course that rule – as still effectively applies in Scotland – can result in L being over compensated
DIMINUTION VALUATIONS
Crucially, it overlooks – as do anti-section 18 propagandists – that ‘Cost’ and ‘Value’ are not the same thing
By reverse analogy, imagine adding a £50k Amdega oak conservatory to a 1930’s semi ex-Council house in Wigan………
But the misconception that they equate is oft laboured. That they are interchangeable. One can selectively pick from case law, of course, but as a valuer, Landau -v- Marchbank features eminent common sense in noting that
“the fact that repairs are necessary is not in itself (conclusive) evidence of damage to the value of the reversion.”
DIMINUTION VALUATIONS
The two Limbs of s18 (1) are, as a reminder:
First Limb“Damages for a breach of covenant or agreement to keep or put premises in repair during the currency of a lease, or to leave or put premises in repair at the termination of a lease, whether such covenant or agreement is expressed or implied, shall in no case exceed the amount (if any) by which the value of the reversion (whether immediate or not) in the premises is diminished owing to the breach of such covenant as aforesaid.”
DIMINUTION VALUATIONS
Second Limb“…and in particular, no damage shall be recovered for a breach of any such covenant or agreement to leave or put premises in repair at the termination of a lease, if it is shown the premises, in whatever state of repair they might be, would at or shortly after the termination of the tenancy have been or be pulled down, or such structural alterations made therein as would render valueless the repairs covered by the covenant or agreement.”
The Courts have consistently held that the Second Limb is the actual intention of actual Landlord, whilst First envisages the hypothetical sale (letting) to notional purchaser/tenant
DIMINUTION VALUATIONS
Depending on the ‘age, character and locality’ of the property (after Proudfoot -v- Hart), certain bone fide repair (or reinstatement) items might have little or no impact upon lettability, hence value
But how do valuers ‘objectively’ articulate and explain their conclusions?
For there is no rule book. No RICS Practice manual
Dowding & Reynolds provide helpful worked examples and guidance. Many valuers draw analogies with ‘Red Book’ valuations. Few seem to truly reflect actual market conditions for the actual property type (or very similar). In particular, because of our obsession with ‘comparables’, many cling to very tenuous comparables (see Living Waters), being all that might be available in a ‘transactions famine’.
DIMINUTION VALUATIONS
DIMINUTION VALUATIONS
What is our approach? Firstly, sound and thorough
‘detective work’ as to: landlord’s intentions, local market etc
Has landlord’s agent sold premises to a speculator who capitalised on the difference between costed dilaps and actual open market value impact? (see Wrightstock House example later)
The ‘value affective’ approach in practice seeks to √ and X items in the Scott Schedule, the latter being items which do not, in our experience, affect lettability/value. Each case on its own merits. Examples to follow
‘Gilding The Lily’. ‘Silk purse from a sow’s ear’.
At the RICS Dilapidations Forum Conference 2012 (speakers including Nicholas Taggart, Landmark Chambers; Stephen Jourdan, Falcon Chambers; and David Gilbert, valuer at Lambert Smith Hampton), this approach was supported.
DIMINUTION VALUATIONS
Instructions can be at an early stage or once negotiations have progressed/been exhausted
Protocol requires Section 18 (1) valuation to be sent with Schedule
Can assist LL early to provide advice on whether to undertake works, and which works could be defended/challenged from a Section 18 (1) perspective
Jervis v Harris clause?
DIMINUTION VALUATIONS
Example 1 - 20-26 George Street, Croydon
CLAIM – £423,306.82
B.S REC – £300 - £350,000
SECTION 18 VAL – £200 - £220,000
SETTLEMENT - £220,000
CROYDON
CROYDON
Example 2 – Unit 50c, Queensmere Centre, Slough
CLAIM - £52,059.27
SECTION 18 VAL - £Nil
Example of excess of supply relative to demand
Half of units within same mall vacant
SLOUGH
Example 3 – Broadmead, Bristol
LL CLAIM - £115,000
T’S B.S ASSESSMENT - £60,000
Radius S.18 - £40,000
Settlement - £40,000
Property let by LL to a temp tenant at lease expiry
Much of internal fit out (changing rooms, racking etc) used by temp tenant
Therefore, if anything, has had a POSITIVE impact upon value
Example 4 – Jasper House, London
CLAIM - £1.2 million
SECTION 18 VAL FOR T- £250,000
RESULT (at Mediation) - £380,000
Section 18 assisted in settlement – in particular to dismiss LL’s claim for loss of rent (large amount of secondary offices on market nearby)
Example 5 – Brixton Way, Shrewsbury
CLAIM - £661,306.47
SECTION 18 VAL - £175-£200,000
SETTLEMENT - £325,000
LL agreed letting immediately after expiry
Detailed analysis of Heads of Terms identified certain works required by ingoing tenant
But not all of LL’s Claim - therefore not all works will be ‘value affective’
Example 6 – 36-38 Plume Street, Aston
CLAIM - £218,000
SEC 18 VALUATION - £26,500
Industrial Unit – c 20,000 sq ft
Limited marketability in any event
Number of ‘repairing’ issues simply do not impact upon reversionary value including:
Dented / scuffed cladding Decs to internal
metalwork/columns Mortar joints Works to boundary walls Carpets/decs to internal
offices Spalled/cracked yard
surface Replacement of tired
kitchen fittings
Example 7 – Vicarage Lane, Blackpool
Section 18 on behalf of Landlord
Landlord’s Claim - £80,000
Tenant’s Offer - £nil
Sec 18 Valuation - £50,000
Settlement - £50,000
When faced with offer of £nil, no other option but to obtain S.18
Purchaser had negotiated ‘back-to-back’ surrender, with the tenant agreeing to pay some £400,000 comprised thus:
Rent/Rates - £150k Dilapidations - £250k
B.S for previous Landlord had served Terminal Schedule at £625k, with former Tenant’s B.S assessing £300-£350k.
Purchaser then spent about £100,000 on relevant/most appropriate works (‘value affective) before selling again.
Wrightstock House, Worsley
Refurbished property then sold for £870,000 with vacant possession
Gross mark up for first purchaser of about £330k – illustrating ‘cost’ and ‘value’ not the same
Wrightstock House, Worsley
Common view – if LL has done the works then he has crystallised his claim
Not always the case, especially in such a weak market
What if the LL has done the works?Cost = Value?
Example 8 - Canterbury Landlord had undertaken works
and relet to a new tenant. Seeking cost of works to justify Claim
Cost of Works - £150,000
Section 18 - £70,000.
Had done considerable decorative works to upper parts – not used by new tenant
Settlement - £75,000
Example 9 – Black Horse House, Tunbridge Wells
Landlord spent £400k and relet
Claim - £195,000
Section 18 - £110,000
Relet at £12.63 psf
Local evidence suggested that rent of £14 psf could be achieved on basis of new carpets and redecoration only. Therefore, some of LL works not ‘value affective
Settlement - £120,000
Litigation, Arbitration or Mediation Predominantly Mediation these days Non-cognate Mediator’s generally using ‘reality
check’ of huge litigation costs to promote settlement
We promote use of a cognate Mediator Settlement more likely or failing that better
informed to litigate
www.mediatenotlitigate.co.uk
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Tempers the opportunist….
Conclusion