[PeteSpencer]

Our lease is too loose to think about hangar structures. I guess down to negotiation if and when.....

Peter

[Waveflyer]

AIUI. The lease should always determine the rules. If the lease does not cover an issue it might be decided on what is reasonable.
If you put up a hangar and have no written rules about its final disposal you might:
A- Make a deal with the landlord to buy it from you.
B- Leave it there.
C- Be required to take it away and reinstate the site to its former state. With a concrete floor and foundations that could be an expensive option.
All stating the obvious but it’s easier to set out the conditions beforehand rather than get into a dispute, especially bearing in mind you might be dealing with a different landlord if the site has changed hands.

[Flintstone]

So just to be clear.

If (say) a lessee erects a (say) hangar then after (say) 25 years that hangar becomes the property of the landlord?

Is this a general rule of commercial property or does it vary from lease to lease?

What if the erection was not noted down or formalised in any way?

Varies from lease to lease by agreement.

If no formal agreement, I guess it is down to negotiation now and it would be wise to establish some ground rules to go forward.

Which is pretty much where we are now. Shame it wasn’t done sooner.

Thanks.

[profchrisreed]

It's 40 years since I studied land law and I haven't updated it since. But I seem to recall that it works like this:

1. Anything which is permanently fixed to the land becomes the property of the landlord when the lease terminates.

2. Anything detachable (there were complex rules for growing crops too) can be detached by the tenant and taken away.

3. Changes to the land depended I think on the purpose of the lease (from its wording or context if not covered in the wording). I can't recall how far the landlord could object to changes, but I'm pretty sure changes outside the lease purpose had to be put back to original by the tenant on leaving.

Even if the underlying law has evolved, these seem obvious things to negotiate about and write down. Basically, plan for an acrimonious divorce at the end of the lease, and then it won't be acrimonious because you sorted out the potentially contentious issues at the beginning.

[Flintstone]

All good info, thanks Chris.

Of course setting these things out in advance is the best policy. In many cases, as this one, the relationship between landlord and tenant goes back decades and was originally based on a handshake.

I'm sure there are many such arrangements quietly humming along but unforeseen changes can tip things over, as in this case, and often those that have to deal with it weren't involved at the beginning.

[profchrisreed]

Indeed - you have to start from where you currently are of course.

I'm guessing the difficult issue is this hypothetical hangar, and that the rest is just grass. The question (hypothetically) is what happens when the lease expires, because the landlord now wants a termination by notice clause.

Forget law for the moment and think what the possibilities are:

1. There is no agreement about the hangar, so if given notice you could take down/demolish it and dispose of the materials for whatever you could get.

2. If you did that there'd be a concrete pad left. Maybe the landlord could sue for the cost of removal, but by then yours would be a shell company with no assets and not worth suing. Anyway, concrete pads can be useful.

3. A nice hangar could be useful for the landlord's own purposes, even as a cowshed.

All this suggests that the win/win deal is for the landlord to pay something for the hangar on termination, somewhere between what it's worth to you under scenario 1, and what it's worth to him under scenario 3.

The problem is valuing this now, because the lease might run another 5 years or another 50.

My solution would be a clause which says:

a. When giving notice the landlord must also offer to buy the hangar at whatever he thinks it is worth (no minimum, could be 1p).

b. If you don't accept the offer you have the right to take down and dispose of the hangar.

c. The concrete pad stays.

If this happens, it should end up with you both agreeing a figure in the area I indicated earlier. Assuming you haven't fallen out for some other reason, in which case all bets are off!

Any help?

[Flintstone]

Yes, thanks. Some useful thoughts there.

As negotiations are still ongoing I'll pause this for now and report back when we've got somewhere. The walls have ears and all that, what?

[mmcp42]

Yes, thanks. Some useful thoughts there.

As negotiations are still ongoing I'll pause this for now and report back when we've got somewhere. The walls have ears and all that, what?

don't tell him Pike!