The Law Commission should review technical amendments to Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954

Transcription

1 Law Commission 1 st Floor Tower Post Point Queen Anne s Gate London SW1H 9AG 28 th October 2016 Dear Sirs, The Law Commission should review technical amendments to Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Since November 2015, representatives of industry bodies; the British Property Federation, the British Retail Consortium, Corenet, the Federation of Small Businesses and Revo ( formerly the British Council of Shopping Centres) have been working on reforms to Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the Act). The outcome is the attached paper which is submitted on behalf of all five bodies ( The Landlord and Tenant Act Working Group ). Many landlords and tenants of business premises are dissatisfied with the administration of the Act. Although no reform has occurred since 2004, the business context for the landlord and tenant relationship has changed, in some sectors significantly, since then. It is now timely to examine how the Act could be improved to remove delay, cost and resource inefficiencies in the way the Act works. This submission contains five recommendations designed to do this. We undertook a consultation over the summer of industry stakeholders. The results are incorporated into an appendix to the submission. The Law Commission can therefore see where support for reform lies. The Working Group also conducted a data gathering exercise. The data supports the Working Group s findings that lease renewal proceedings account for more than 1,000 court applications every year and cost business millions in pounds of legal costs alone. The result of the exercise is also incorporated in the Appendix. Overall, the recommendations, industry responses and data confirm the Working Group s belief that the recommended reforms could considerably reduce the time and cost burden on the court system and stakeholders. We therefore recommend that a Law Commission review of Commercial Leasehold Law should consider these efficiency based amendments to the Act. We would be delighted to discuss any aspects of the paper and the underlying work in more detail with the Law Commission or any other stakeholders. WE HELP THE UK REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY GROW AND THRIVE To see a full list of our members and find out more about our work, visit our website at Or call us on for a chat Registered number: England Registered office: St Albans House 5th Floor, Haymarket London SW1Y 4QX

2 A list of the Committee Membership is set out below. Chair: Dion Panambalana, Hogan Lovells Acting for: Federation of Small Businesses Gregg Warren, Federation of Small Businesses Dominic Williams, Hewdon Consulting Acting for: Revo Roger Cohen, Berwin Leighton Paisner PACTs representation: Douglas Stevens, Douglas Stevens Litigation Specialist/professional support: Tim Reid, Hogan Lovells Acting for: British Property Federation John Duxbury, M&G Simon Webb, Workspace Acting for: British Retail Consortium Jim Hubbard, British Retail Consortium Charles Parkin, Mackays Acting for: Corenet Rachel Dickie, Legal and General Christopher Pickering, Source 8 Industrial Sector representation: Carol Rix, SEGRO British Property Federation: Sam Downes Yours sincerely, Dion Panambalana Real Estate Partner, Hogan Lovells & Chair of the Landlord and Tenant Act Working Group WE HELP THE UK REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY GROW AND THRIVE To see a full list of our members and find out more about our work, visit our website at Or call us on for a chat Registered number: England Registered office: St Albans House 5th Floor, Haymarket London SW1Y 4QX

3 LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 WORKING GROUP Proposed Changes to Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY to improve business efficiency, reduce delays and save costs Submission dated 28 October In the knowledge that the Law Commission would consult on its 13 th programme of law reform, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 Working Group (the "Working Group") was formed in 2015 and currently comprises members drawn from commercial and institutional landlords, commercial tenants and a selection of their respective representative bodies. 1.1 The main objectives have been to identify amendments to the statutory processes under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 ("the Act") which will: (b) (c) (d) (e) reduce the costs incurred by landlords and tenants in dealing with the statutory regimes; simplify unnecessarily complicated processes; make processes clearer and simpler without disadvantaging either party; generally reduce the business resources landlords and tenants must deploy to deal with the Act; enable disputes to be resolved by specialists. 1.2 Given that the wider and more general question about whether tenants should have the benefit of security of tenure at all is contentious, we have not tackled that. 2. The Working Group focussed on areas where both landlords and tenants could agree that there was a need for change. This meant our deliberations were completed in time to consult with members, ensuring wider industry support, before making this proposal to the Law Commission. The questions most directly relevant to the recommendations are in the Schedule. The rest are in the Appendix. 3. The Act has for some time been seen by occupiers and owners alike as being in need of reform. There has been some disagreement over the years as to what should be done and whether the principle of the Act should be reviewed or whether we should seek to improve its administration. This is the first cross-industry group to succeed in agreeing reforms. That is because the Working Group has focused on improving efficiency for both owners and occupiers by tackling unnecessary process, additional cost and wasted resource for owners and occupiers, Government, via the Court system, and industry generally. We are confident that if the Law Commission accepts this project, there will be ample scope for it to deploy its skills in stakeholder dialogue and consensus building.

4 Based on those objectives, the Working Group has identified four areas, and five recommendations, within the Act, where it believes relatively straightforward reforms will be of significant benefit to both landlords and tenants. The recommendations are: (b) (c) Replacing the current "contracting-out" warning notice and tenant declaration procedure (by which statutory security of tenure is excluded in relation to a new lease before it is granted), with a warning in a prescribed form on the front of the lease (and possibly, in addition, next to the signature or execution section) in similar terms to the existing notice, describing the statutory rights the tenant will be giving up. Amending section 38A(1) of the Act so that leases expressed to be for a fixed term "including any period of holding over" are treated for the purpose of the contracting-out provisions in the Act as being for a "fixed term" so that security of tenure can be effectively excluded. Fixing the commencement date of a renewal lease in all cases under the Act as being either: (i) (ii) the first day immediately following the end of the contractual term of the existing lease; or the first day immediately following the date of expiry of a statutory section 25 notice or section 26 request. (d) (e) Fixing the valuation date for all renewal leases (for the purpose of calculating the rent payable under the renewal lease) to coincide with the commencement date of the renewal lease, as set out in 4(c) above. Some sort of arrangement whereby the parties can obtain to an early neutral (non-binding and "without prejudice save as to costs") evaluation of the renewal rent, and referring all unresolved disputes on the renewal rent to a valuation specialist rather than a Judge in the County Court. 5. The Working Group has considered the interim report published by a working party of the Civil Justice Council in May , which recommends the allocation in future of a wider category of "property disputes" to specialist judges either in the County Court or a First Tier Tribunal in Civil Justice Council and supports its recommendations. In addition the following procedural and administrative changes would improve efficiency, reduce delays and reduce costs for the parties to the lease renewal procedure, and for Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service ( HMCTS ): 1 The Interim Report of the Working Group on Property Disputes in the Courts and Tribunals (Civil Justice Council) (May 2016)

5 - 3 - (b) online administration of the renewal process, as opposed to administration by the County Courts, in line with the Civil Justice Council's current consultation on automation and digitisation of litigation processes; and Specialist Judges and/or Tribunal members (rather than the County Courts) dealing with lease renewal disputes. 6. This paper is structured as follows: Executive Summary in this Section A; (b) Background information and then the recommendation in Sections B, C and D; (c) (d) Schedules 1, 2, 3 and 4 contain the questions asked and the responses to the specific recommendations and some other relevant data gathered; and The Appendix contains:- (i) (ii) all of the Consultation Questions asked over the summer (the answer to Question 2 confirms our assumption at 1.2 above); and the information we received in respect of a data gathering exercise.

6 - 4 - B CONTRACTING OUT OF SECURITY OF TENURE BACKGROUND 7. The ability to exclude leases from security of tenure is a valuable tool for tenants and landlords looking for more flexibility in their leases and is widely used. However, the process of contracting out presents a number of administrative problems, delays and due diligence uncertainties that do not constructively benefit either party. The Working Group has identified two instances where contracting out can be improved for the benefit of both the landlord and tenant without causing detriment to either. 8. The process for contracting out should be sufficiently clear to ensure the tenant does not contract out lightly or do so without understanding the consequences of doing so. Originally, that meant the landlord and the tenant jointly obtaining an order from the Court. This was changed in 2004, to remove the County Court's involvement, and the landlord now needs to serve on the proposed tenant a "warning notice" in a prescribed form. The tenant then serves on the intended landlord a declaration confirming it has received the warning notice. 9. Although the process of serving a warning notice and responding with a statutory declaration should ensure that the proposed tenant has obtained all the legal advice needed, in reality that may not actually be the case. The Working Group does not propose to make suggestions on how to maximise the chances of a tenant obtaining legal advice, which is an issue outside our remit. The Group focuses instead on the current contracting-out process, which is unduly complicated. 10. Also practically, changes made to the lease during the period between the declaration being made and the lease subsequently completing mean that the form of the lease to which the warning notice and the declaration relate, may not be "substantially" in the same form as the lease entered into. Ultimately, that could mean the contracting out was invalid. To avoid this, common practice is to repeat the process which is commercially inefficient as it increases delay and cost. 11. After the process has finished and the lease is in place, when the landlord s or tenant s interest is subsequently traded, it is common to find that the notice or the declaration or both are not kept safely with the relevant papers. Therefore assignees and subsequent landlords will not be aware whether the right process was undertaken before the lease was "contracted out".

7 - 5 - RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 1: REPLACE CURRENT STATUTORY DECLARATION PROCESS WITH A WARNING ON THE FRONT OF THE LEASE AND BY THE SIGNED PAGE 12. The Working Group therefore recommend that the current contracting out warning notice and tenant declaration procedure should be replaced with a warning on the front of the lease in similar terms to the existing notice, describing the statutory rights the tenant will be giving up, on the front of the lease. It will be no less obvious to the tenant when reviewing and signing the lease that it is giving up the right to renew, than if it had gone through an extra, earlier process and signed a statutory declaration. The tenant would have no less opportunity to take legal advice on the implications of giving up that right. This proposed system would be better in terms of: (b) (c) (d) costs; administration; delay; and not having to address lost documents since there are no extra papers to keep with the lease. Practically also, if it is on the front of the lease, it is less easy to ignore than if it is anywhere else. Alternatively, you could add the warning to the execution block (or have it in both places). 13. Contracted out leases comprise a significant proportion of the business leases in England and Wales. It is vital that the process is as streamlined as proper policy considerations allow.

8 - 6 - RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 2 THE TERM CERTAIN 14. This is a more technical change but an important one. The contracting out process is designed to exclude security of tenure rights under the lease. Section 38(4) of the Act allows the parties to exclude that right in relation to any lease for a "term certain". 15. It has commonly been a drafting convenience for the lease to say that the term of the lease also includes any period of holding over (whether by statute or at common law or by agreement). Prior to 2008, that was not thought to be problematic. 16. However, the 2008 case of Newham Borough Council.v.Thomas-Van Staden held that if a lease defines the "Term" as including any period of holding over when the fixed term ends, the term is not of a "certain" length (because as a matter of fact it won't be) and security of tenure under section 38(4) is not effectively excluded for the whole of the lease term, not just the extension period. This is widely recognised as an unintended consequence of the combined effect of the common drafting described above and the wording of section 38. It has wide-ranging implications for landlords and tenants who believe (incorrectly) that they have excluded security of tenure and should be fixed. 17. There are a number of ways in which section 38 could be redrafted to deal with this problem and we would invite the Law Commission to consider how best to do this.

9 - 7 - C START DATE FOR THE RENEWAL TERM AND VALUATION DATE BACKGROUND 18. One of the most contentious elements when renewing a lease is the new rent. Either party may intentionally try to delay the valuation date at a time of market volatility to achieve a better outcome for themselves. Our data suggests that in a majority of cases Court applications concerning a lease are to do with lease renewal. The Working Group believes fixing the valuation date and the term start date will go a long way to removing contention in the lease renewal process. This will save money for business, simplify process, narrow the points of debate and reduce the administrative time for the Court. 19. As a matter of law, neither the landlord, tenant, nor the Court have any discretion as to the date on which a renewal lease will commence. The date is prescribed by section 33 of the Act and might be any one of the following: (b) If no proceedings have been issued by the time the parties are ready to complete the renewal lease, the date will be decided by the landlord's notice under section 25 (i.e. the date after the date specified in the notice) or the tenant's request for a new lease under section 26 (i.e. the date specified in the request): If renewal proceedings have been issued in the County Court, the commencement date will be the date 3 months after the proceedings have been disposed of (i.e. 3 months after trial or 3 months after the proceedings have been discontinued). 20. The main issue with section 33 which has been identified by the Working Group is that, in the vast majority of cases, the landlord and tenant do not have any regard to section 33 of the Act when fixing the commencement date for the renewal lease. In many cases, the parties simply agree on an arbitrary date, being a date shortly after the form of the lease has been agreed and once the document is ready for completion. In other cases, the commencement date is backdated to a date chosen by the parties (such as the day immediately after expiry of the contractual term of the original lease) irrespective of section 33 or the dates specified in the notice or request. 21. A number of practical problems can flow from leaving the parties to agree between themselves what the commencement date should be. 22. First, it is possible that this is symptomatic of the landlord or tenant being poorly advised as to the operation of section 33 in each scenario. Landlords or (more likely) tenants might therefore be agreeing to a new term which is less beneficial to them than the term to which they are entitled under section 33 of the Act. For example, a tenant might issue a Part 8 Claim for the grant of a new lease and subsequently settle those proceedings by agreeing the form of the new lease. Whilst entitled under the

10 - 8 - Act to a new lease commencing 3 months after the proceedings are settled, that tenant might more typically be required by its landlord to take a new lease either from the date on which the proceedings were settled, or from an earlier date, meaning that the renewal lease will end earlier than would be the case under the Act. 23. Second, if either the landlord or the tenant wishes to apply for an interim rent, that interim rent is payable in respect of the period between: the earliest date on which the landlord's notice or the tenant's request could have brought the existing lease to an end; and (b) the date on which the new lease commences under section 33. If the parties (disregarding section 33) agree a commencement date between themselves other than as prescribed by the Act, that will have a potentially unforeseen impact on the period for which the tenant is liable to pay the interim rent. 24. Third, there is no discretion as to what the valuation date should be under the Act (for the purpose of ascertaining the rent payable under the renewal lease). As a matter of law, the two dates should be the same, which means that there can be tension between the commencement date agreed between the parties (disregarding section 33) and the valuation date prescribed by the Act (see below). HOW IS THE VALUATION DATE FOR THE RENEWAL LEASE CURRENTLY DECIDED? 25. Under the Act and recognised in the case of Lovely & Orchard v Daejan 1978 i, the valuation date (for the purpose of deciding the rent payable under the renewal lease) is the date of commencement of the new tenancy. In other words, the valuation date should be decided in one of the following ways: (b) if proceedings have not been issued, the parties should agree (or have decided for them) what the market rent would be on a future date, being either the day after expiry of the landlord's section 25 notice or the date specified in the tenant's section 26 request. if proceedings have been issued, the parties must agree (or the judge must assess at trial) what the market rent would be on the future date which is three months after the proceedings have been settled or decided by the Court. 26. In practice, the approach of landlords and tenants to the valuation date varies considerably, and the parties can take conflicting approaches, which reduces the prospects of their respective surveyors reaching agreement. 27. As described above, landlords and tenants have little regard to the operation of section 33 of the Act for fixing the date of commencement of the renewal lease. For that reason, valuers do not have in mind, when carrying out their valuations in accordance with section 34 of the Act, the valuation date prescribed by statute.

11 If negotiations and proceedings become protracted, a valuation carried out at an early stage for the purpose of section 34 will be less representative, with the passage of time, of the market rent that would be payable on the later commencement date prescribed by section 33. The opposite is also true. Valuers might have a future date in mind when carrying out their analysis for the purpose of section 34, whilst the landlord and tenant might (in contrast) agree contrary to section 33 to backdate the grant of the new lease to an earlier date, meaning that there is conflict between the valuation date and the commencement date. This can be a particular problem during periods of market volatility. 29. Changes in the market, and the availability at any time of comparable evidence supporting either the landlord's valuation or the tenant's valuation can lead landlords and tenants to make complex tactical decisions about whether and when to serve their section 25 notice or section 26 request, preferring either to postpone the date on which the new lease would commence (when more favourable evidence comes to light), or to bring the date forward as soon as possible (and before unfavourable evidence comes to light).

12 RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 3 - FIX THE START DATE AND VALUATION DATE OF THE RENEWAL LEASE WITH ONE OF TWO KNOWN DATES 30. The Working Group recommends that the commencement date of a renewal lease, and the valuation date for all renewal leases for the purposes of calculating the rent payable under the renewal leases, are either: (i) (ii) the first day immediately following the end of the contractual term of the existing lease; or the first day immediately following the date of expiry of a statutory section 25 notice or section 26 request. THE EFFECT OF THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE INTERIM RENT PROCEDURE 31. The Regulatory Reform Order of 2003 (referred to above) also reformed the statutory regime for calculating interim rent. An application can be made at any time and retrospectively, up to six months after the existing tenancy ends, with the interim rent being payable from the earliest date on which the tenant's section 26 request or the landlord's section 25 notice could have expired (eg not earlier than expiry of the contractual term and otherwise 6 months after the notice/request). 32. In the majority of cases (save in limited circumstances), the interim rent will be the same as the rent payable under the renewal lease, so should be decided by a valuation carried out by reference to the valuation date and commencement date prescribed by sections 33 and 34 of the Act. 33. This recommendation should reduce the number of interim rent applications. Courts could see a reduction of around 1,400 applications a year following the proposed changes.

13 D IMPROVING PROCESSES BEFORE COURT AND THE COURT PROCESS ITSELF BACKGROUND 34. Landlords and tenants alike have identified the current Court processes as unsatisfactory. Many County Court judges are not experts in landlord and tenant law nor are they experts in valuation. Consequently, many Court procedures are settled before trial so parties can avoid the possibility of a poor outcome decided by a judge whose expertise lies outside of real estate. 35. For the reasons set out in recommendation 3, the date for valuing the rent under, and the commencement date for, the renewal lease would benefit from reform. The Working Group believes that this would have a consequential, beneficial impact on the process for ascertaining an interim rent (in the majority of cases where a new lease of the same premises is granted to the same tenant), and reduce the number of instances where an interim rent might be disputed, or applied for. 36. A reform which resulted in the valuation date being fixed would help simplify the valuation process, resulting in a reduction in the time and resources devoted by the landlord and tenant to a dispute on what the renewal rent should be. 37. However, rent is typically the main term in dispute between the parties to a lease renewal, and the process of informal negotiations coupled with County Court directions for the exchange of expert witness evidence and statements (a few months before trial) is a major source of both delay and cost. The Working Group therefore recommends the following proposals are considered, which may help to avoid the Court process entirely, saving time and money for both Courts and businesses.

14 RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 4 NON-BINDING VIEW ON THE RENEWAL RENT 38. The Working Group proposes the following reforms to the process for ascertaining the renewal rent in unopposed lease renewal proceedings: (b) (c) Some sort of arrangement whereby the landlord and tenant may refer the amount of the renewal rent to an expert for a non-binding and "without prejudice save as to costs" "early neutral evaluation" ("ENE") of what the renewal rent is likely to be should it be the subject of a subsequent binding decision by a Court or arbitrator. Unless the landlord and tenant have agreed, before the date of the ENE, the length of the new lease (and whether or not it includes break options), the expert valuer would be required to give alternative neutral evaluations for each likely outcome (eg for a 5 year term, or a 10 year term with, or without a tenant break option). Any process should give both the landlord and the tenant an early indication of what an arbitrator or judge is likely to decide on the level of the renewal rent (and so avoid unrealistic expectations as to what they might achieve in later negotiations or at trial, which might unnecessarily extend the process). The Working Group believes some sort of process which resulted in a realistic assessment of the rent at an early stage could go a long way to saving time for businesses and the Courts. The Working Group has however been unable to reach a consensus about whether this process should be compulsory, and recommends that the Law Commission consult on the best way to achieve this.

15 RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 5 NEW SPECIALIST COURTS AND TRIBUNALS 39. Echoing the Interim Report of the Working Group of the Civil Justice Council on Property Disputes in the Courts and Tribunals (see paragraph 5), the Working Group believes that deciding property disputes (or, specifically, unopposed lease renewal cases under the Act) in one place by one Tribunal or one Judge (with specialist property expertise) would have clear benefits. The advantages include: (b) (c) reducing costs for the parties and for HMCTS; providing continuity and consistency in decision making; and resolving disputes more quickly. The Court or tribunal will be a more effective and efficient forum for dispute resolution, but the parties may also be more willing to resolve a dispute between themselves and before trial on the basis that they know it will otherwise be decided promptly by a specialist Court. 40. The Working Group recommends changes in the deployment of judicial resources between the County Court and Property Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal. In particular, the Working Group would welcome: (b) a more streamlined and transparent online system for administering unopposed lease renewal disputes. a system which ensures that disputes under the Act are decided by appropriate specialists. For example: (i) (ii) the renewal rent should be decided by a specialist property valuer (rather than by a County Court judge), and hearings for the disputed new lease terms (except the renewal rent) should be allocated to a specialist (known as a ticketed judge) in the County Court; 41. Allocation of hearings could be to a judge sitting alone in the Property Chamber or (more likely) by a tribunal comprising a judge and members drawn from the valuation, surveying and legal industries. 42. While the Law Commission s role is to look at reform of legislation as opposed to the structure of the Court system, the Working Group understands that the Law Commission would wish to ensure that any reform of the Act is future proofed, in view of possible future changes regarding digitisation of litigation processes and ticketing of cases. On digitisation, we are aware that the Ministry of Justice is planning to pilot the digitisation of Court systems in relation to low value consumer claims; while this policy may take some time to reach the wider Court system it is worth bearing this policy direction in mind when looking at the wording of the legislation.

16 SCHEDULE 1 CONTRACTING OUT RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 & 2 WHAT DOES INDUSTRY SAY? Would you favour the current contracting out warning notice and tenant declaration procedure being replaced instead with a clear warning on the front of the (to be signed) lease, in similar terms to the existing warning notice, describing the statutory rights which the tenant will be giving up? BPF BRC Revo Corenet Yes 71 4 (1 with caveat) 2 50 N/A No N/A Should the current "contracting out", warning notice and tenant declaration procedure to exclude security of tenure be improved? BPF BRC Revo Corenet Yes No BRC respondent: Prior to warning notice, "lease code" should be enforced with both surveying and legal professions being regulated to ensure disclosure before significant legal costs incurred.

17 SCHEDULE 2 RECOMMENDATION 3: THE TERM AND VALUATION DATE - WHAT DOES INDUSTRY SAY? Should the start date be the end of the contractual term of the lease (unless a Section 25 or a Section 26 Notice has been served in which case it will be the date on which that notice ends)? BPF BRC Revo Corenet Yes N/A No 2 1 notice 2 expiry 9 N/A Should the valuation date be fixed by reference to the end of the contractual term of the lease (unless a Section 25 or a Section 26 Notice has been served in which case it will be the date on which that notice ends)? BPF BRC Revo Corenet Yes N/A No 1 1 no 3 2 notice 6 N/A NOTE ON CONSULTATION RESPONSES 1. Note that a number of respondees said that there might be an adverse SDLT impact on, in effect, backdating the rent in the term. For example, if the term is backdated by 2 years, that is an extra 2 years of SDLT. The Law Commission should also consider this and any appropriate solutions. INDICATIVE IMPACT The applications to Court which we surveyed regarding lease renewal terms mostly concerned themselves with valuation issues. 3 Answer based on respondent s understanding that valuation date cannot be set in the future.

18 SCHEDULE 3 RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 4: AN INDICATION OF THE LETTING RENT EARLY WHAT DOES INDUSTRY SAY? Would you favour a system whereby, at the election of either party at any time, after the end of the contractual term, either party can apply to a property specialist for a non-binding view on what the rent under the new lease should be (to speed up agreeing the rest of the terms)? BPF BRC Revo Corenet Yes 53 4 (1 with caveat 4 ) No Should the application to the property specialist be... BPF BRC Revo Corenet Mandatory N/A Non-binding N/A 4 BRC respondent: I am concerned how the appointments are made and indeed the availability of skill set able to undertake. This work needs to be examined very carefully.

19 SCHEDULE 4 RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 5 WHAT DOES INDUSTRY SAY? Should disputes about the length and/or terms and conditions and/or initial rent of the renewal lease be referred to an appropriate specialist in place of the Court? BPF BRC Revo Corenet Yes N/A No N/A Would you favour an online administration process for landlord and tenant renewals as opposed to administration by the existing individual County Courts? BPF BRC Revo Corenet Yes N/A No N/A INDICATIVE IMPACT (TO BE INVESTIGATED FURTHER BY THE LAW COMMISSION) A survey of 12% of Professional Arbitration on Court Terms [PACT] professionals currently members of their trade association ARBRIX, had conducted 59 procedures since Courts could receive an average of 1,441 applications on average less a year as a result of the changes. Once a case has been pursued to trial, costs start at 2000 and can range up to 50, Preferred specialist landlord and tenant court. 6 For a further breakdown of the indicative data presented, please see our appendix.