Beckett & Kay

In an ideal world, we would log all FTT decisions relating to enfranchisement. Even if we were able to keep up with the numbers, which we can't, it's not usually easy to gauge what issues were involved without reading the decision. We would probably need two full-time members of staff to do it! We can comfort ourselves with the thought that FTTs do not bind one another in their decisions.

You'll have to trust us when we say that Exhibit 2 faithfully summarises all you need to know about the detailed claim. The claim is in relation to covenants for repair only, and is therefore capped by "limb 1" of s18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927[1]. The parties have agreed everything except two things - an unheard of situation in the real world, but that's what we assume. The differences relate to: the new ceiling that was going to be put in once the lease expired; and time losses (in the Contractual Claim only).

It is common sense, as well as an established standard of valuation, that the front of a shop - the part seen by passers-by - is worth more than the back. It follows from this that a shop with 15m of frontage and a depth of 8m commands a higher rent than a shop of 8m frontage and depth of 15m. The method valuers have developed to deal with this is called zoning.

However, commissions or other pecuniary reward or other advantage received from anyone other than the Client which are not permitted by any relevant regulator to be received or retained by the Registered Firm, and for which the Registered Firm has to account to such Client, will be regarded as client money for the purposes of this Scheme and so will not be excluded by reason of this sub-paragraph.