search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
FOCUS


Fair share Will a ‘new normal’ see fire safety responsibility


shared evenly in landlord/tenant partnerships? Warren Spencer puts forward the case


A


S THE Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 [FSO] applies to all workplaces and practically all commercial premises,


the responsibility for fire safety usually rests with the employer which has control of the premises. This imposes a substantial financial burden upon occupants who may not own the premises they are required to maintain and invest in. Where employers are the tenants of


premises they occupy, they have historically been required by their landlords to ensure all statutory compliance. But as we continue into the next decade, and enter into the ‘new normal’, those responsibilities are likely to be shared more evenly.


Landlord/tenant interface


The relationship between landlords and tenants has always been uneven. From a legal point of view, there are few relationships that are as one sided. I cannot think of any other contractual situations where the supplier of a service or product receives payment


36 JULY/AUGUST 2020 www.frmjournal.com


up to three months in advance, where one party has the right to increase prices without reference to the other, and where the consequences of non performance can result in such swift and far reaching court proceedings. Historically, tenants and in particular


commercial tenants, have been in a very weak position. But the 21st century digital revolution and now the COVID-19 crisis are likely to level the playing field. Tens of thousands of commercial premises are lying empty, with no prospect of them being occupied in the short to medium term. To their owners, premises without occupiers


are liabilities rather than assets, requiring mortgages, rates and insurance to be paid, but bringing no return.


Time for change?


Tenants should now be in a much stronger position to negotiate their tenancies. So is it time to get rid of the following old chestnut clause (which is found in so many leases)?


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60