However, we believe that the fact that contracting procedures are less cumbersome does not necessarily mean that more homeowners will benefit. Rather, we propose that it will only facilitate the process for landlords and tenants who decide to do so. We have seen no evidence that the cumbersome current process prevents owners from offering leases without operating security. In fact, it is likely that there is now some incentive for landlords not to offer contractual leases, since a lease with a rental guarantee would likely have a higher rent than rent if rent security is excluded. Therefore, we do not believe that the proposals would eliminate the necessary protection by denying the purpose of the 1954 Act. In one of the few section 28 cases (Stratton Limited/Wallis Tomlin Ltd (1985), the Tribunal found that a simple correspondence between the parties` representatives (not identified as “contract-compliant”) was sufficient to constitute an “agreement” for a new lease sufficient to bring Section 28 into force. The procedure is similar to the conclusion of a new tenancy agreement The obligation for the landlord to provide the tenant with a “health warning” about the consequences of agreements outside the tenant`s right to renew and remittance contracts is a new burden for landlords. If the minimum 14-day termination requirement is not met, the tenant`s obligation to sign a legal declaration that he has received, read and accepted the consequences of the notice is a new burden on tenants. We discuss the proportionality of this new charge below.
Tenants and their advisors should therefore be careful when holding contracts for a new tenancy agreement if these contracts do not fully protect the tenant`s right to renew. Some lenders feel that the delays and costs associated with complying with the warranty tendering procedure are not justified, given the relative atrocity of a guarantee necessary for the establishment of a new lease. Under current legislation, the only way to guarantee the conclusion of such leases is to comply with the procedure for granting the guarantee before the conclusion of the bonding contracts. In response to our concerns about the failure of the tenant to report in cases where the 14-day period was met, the department argued that it would be sufficient for the tenant to obtain the notification and that the reference to the tenant should be included or approved in the lease creation instrument. An obligation for the tenant to additionally sign a declaration that he or she read the health warning and accepted the consequences would be unnecessarily painful, according to the department, without supplementing the proposed protection. The Department recalls that such a statement, made outside the lease agreement, would have no legal value, whereas any declaration under contract law would be legally superfluous, since the overall presumption behind a contract is that each party accepts the consequences of each of the conditions: “The tenant must accept the consequences of the contract in accordance with the contract.” The department also states that “… Tenants who did not consider the content of an application would be unlikely to pay more attention when asked to sign such a declaration. Finally, the department stresses that it has “taken into account the need to balance the interests of large and small businesses” and suggests that greater protection for small businesses could lead to unnecessary bureaucracy for larger firms with greater access to legal advice. [23] In addition, the repeal of section 24, paragraph 2, point b), will reduce the burden on landlords and tenants who, due to the requirement of nullity of a rebate until the tenant occupies at least one month.