LTA 1954 allows T to request a new tenancy from L. The grounds on which L can oppose the application is set out in s30(1):

failure to repair or maintain;

persistent late payment of rent;

other substantial breaches or for ‘any other reason connected with T’s use or management of the holding’;

L has offered reasonable alternative accommodation;

sub-tenancy of part where rent would be more if let as a whole;

L intends to demolish or reconstruct the premises; and

L intends to occupy the premises.

A recent case is of interest because it dealt with opposition on the basis of ‘any other reason connected with T’s use or management of the holding’. This is the second limb of ground C; the first limb applies when there are ‘substantial’ breaches of the tenancy, but the second limb is much wider ranging, it can apply even if T has not been in breach of covenant. This limb was successfully used in a recent case involving a T who had not been in breach of covenant, but had flagrantly flouted the planning laws and had used the premises in breach of an enforcement notice. The court held that since most of T’s activities at the premises were in breach of the planning rules (and thus criminal) he should not be granted a new tenancy.

So, when T requests a new tenancy, do consider whether there has been ongoing behaviour that, whilst it may not have been in breach of covenant, does make it possible to argue that a new tenancy should not be granted (if so, there will be the added bonus that, if ground C applies, no compensation will be payable to T). Fowles v Heathrow Airport [2008] EWCA Civ 757 (access free at www.practicalconveyancing.co.uk). Source: Barlow Lyde & Gilbert.