It is all very well saying that L must respond within a ‘reasonable time’ to T’s request to assign (or sublet). But what if T’s request is insufficiently detailed?


When LTA 1988 came into force, the general view was that if T submitted an incomplete or inadequate application, then it was for L to respond by setting out the information required. That approach was impliedly confirmed by Blockbuster [2003], with the general interpretation of that case being that the onus lay on L to point out to T, in a timely fashion, what the inadequacies were in T’s application (and to specify the information needed). Only then did the clock pause, with it then restarting again when information was received by L. Thus, to be on the safe side, information provided by T had to be processed by L as and when it was received. Thus, the emphasis was upon L responding to T’s inadequate application by asking T to supply further (specified) information. 


Now, however, the emphasis has changed and the result is that if T provides insufficient information, L can simply refuse consent (provided its reasons are stated in writing). This change in approach is the result of RBS [2008] where T made an application for consent to assign. A few days later L’s agents requested ‘relevant financial’ information, and then the next day L sent a letter refusing consent. That refusal was upheld by the court. Importantly, Lewison J dismissed the argument that it is for L to make enquiries of T in order to meet any concerns that L may have; in the judge’s view, the extent of L’s duty is simply to consider the application before it. If there is insufficient information for L to reasonably decide the application, then L is entitled to refuse consent (provided it states its reasons in writing, and promptly). But, those reasons need not include setting out what information it would need in order to complete the process. 


This is not as harsh an approach as might appear. As the judge noted, T can make any number of applications, providing as much (or as little) information as it likes until it gets it right. On the other hand, L is under a duty to act reasonably in response. 


The end result therefore is that if T’s application is inadequate, L can simply respond by saying ‘no’ immediately. See [2010] 258 PLJ 3.