This is from:
Date: 12 April 2018 at 15:04
Subject: RE: Lease for 142
To: GSL 142nd , David Worth , Stuart Mcdonald
Cc: Mr Alan Cull , Victoria Dugdale , Andrew Waters
It was a pleasure to meet with you all last evening to discuss the forthcoming Lease renewal negotiations anticipated for 142nd Scout Group.
As requested we set out a brief summary of the discussions and recommendations made.
We understand the Group are concerned regarding the uncertainty surrounding use of the site and quite rightly are seeking to secure a new lease from the Church in order to progress future investment.
The Group are protected under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 and hold “security of tenure” which prohibits the Church from simply evicting the Group at expiry of the Lease.
The Church are required to give you a minimum of six months’ notice by service of a S25 Notice. Within that notice is will detail their proposals upon which the Group can either agree or serve a counter Notice (Section 27 Notice). Following which negotiations would ensue. If no decision is reached an extension can be agreed between the parties or, an application made to the Court for such an agreement.
Your protection under the Act allows you to holdover on the terms of the current Lease until such time as the Church serve the above Notice and negotiations commence. Until such time as a new lease by agreement is implemented the terms of the old lease will prevail.
In terms of rental this will be determined by valuation however, it will be based on a Ground Lease only, as the Scouts erected the Hall themselves, this would be excluded from the negotiations in determining a fair / market rent.
The Charities Commission allow a registered Charity to agree a low level rental with another Charity where it is deemed appropriate and acceptable.
Alan did enquire of you as to the Sponsorship with the Church and we understand that this appears to now be none existent. Unfortunately, the Lease refers to the Sponsorship as a requirement of the current Lease. Whilst it would appear that it is the Church that have not exercised this obligation, we understand that the Group have made enquiries in the past. Any documentation held in this respect would be beneficial in the event that the Church used the Sponsorship Clause as a reason not to offer a new Lease (this would be unlikely and certainly not sufficient grounds).
It is our recommendation to the Group that it would be in their best interests to sit back and wait for the Church to make their move.
Trusting the foregoing information is of assistance and should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate in contacting us.
Simon McDonald MRICS