Landlord responsibilities - leaky roof...

[Caboose]

We've got a long-term lease on a warehouse. Typically in such leases, the tenant is responsible for the entirety of the warehouse. We negotiated away responsibility of the roof to remain with the landlord. In the wording of the contract, the landlord is to use reasonable endeavours to keep the property water-tight.

The roof is at/nearing the end of its life, it is ~50 years old and it leaks. We've lost ~£3k in equipment in the past few months due to various leaks. They send someone out every couple of months to do spot-fixes (with limited success). But it is rare for us to have less than a few buckets out catching leaks at any one time, and it is only a matter of time before a leak breaks something worth £20k+ (we use a lot of specialised electronics).

At what point are spot-fixes to a sieve no longer considered "reasonable endeavours"? Are there any guidelines/protections out there for tenants, to this effect, or is "reasonable endeavours" a magic "open to interpretation" bullet?

The prospect of carrying out major works has triggered the landlord into voicing that the contract would need to be renegotiated to account for the associated cost...

 

[eteb3]

• ‘Reasonable endeavours’ suggests that some effort or action must be taken to achieve the objective in question. That effort is somewhere beyond trying without enthusiasm or only trying once, but less than leaving no stone unturned

See https://c-link.com/blog/best-endeavours-vs-reasonable-endeavours/

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

The detail would be in the contract/lease.

They cant reasonably renegotiate the lease if the terms go against them - would they renegotiate if you had problems?

 

[Solvelaw]

This was in my view (as a commercial property specialist) the wrong way to word a carve from your full repairing and insuring responsibilities. The covenant should not have been qualified in this way as it allows the landlord too much wiggle room. It might be worth exploring with the landlord their position and your position informally to see where you could go. Ultimately the contract cannot be unilaterally varied but the disadvantage.

 

[eteb3]

in my view (as a commercial property specialist)

Is there any chance that “reasonable” is to be read in the context of the known business of the lessee?

possibly a supplier of plastic furniture is owed less strenuous efforts than a manufacturer of precision electronics

 

[Solvelaw]

The rest of the clause states water tight... will it go and then imply that the landlord has to replace the roof? - this depends on the entirety of the lease and how it is constructed. The danger is that there is no express obligation so then it has to be argued that it is implied, there are not very many implied terms in commercial leases, hence they tend to be so lengthy.