Decision details

To serve a 2nd section 25 notice to grant of a new lease of 86- 88 Woodbridge Road, Guildford on the terms set out below.

The legal team have advised that following the original S.25 notice having been served in Jan 2022 by the Council, the tenant’s lawyer has challenged its validity. The original notice had stated the name of the original tenant (Trillium) and had not been served on the current tenant to whom Trillium had previously assigned the lease, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities.

Following Counsel’s opinion having been obtained, it has been recommended the Council serve the 2nd S.25 notice on the current tenant to protect its interest ‘without prejudice to the validity of the original S.25 notice served’. Should it be proven that the original notice is invalid, the original S.25 notice would then fall away and the replacement 2nd S.25 notice would take effect to protect the Council’s interest. Should the original notice be found to be valid however, then the 2nd S.25 notice will consequently be of no effect.

The current lease is protected under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the Act) and the contractual term expired on 23rd March 2021. A notice under Section 25 of the Act must be served to bring this contractual term to an end. The notice must indicate whether the Council is prepared to grant a new term, and if so, the basic details must be quoted.

The proposal is that a new lease be granted broadly on the same terms as the current lease with the following terms and conditions:

- 10 year lease term
- 5 year Tenant only break
- Initial quoting rent to be £541,343 pa

If you have any queries, then please contact Vince Sibley who will be happy to provide further information.

To serve a 2nd S.25 Notice following challenge of the original S.25 notice served in order to protect the Council’s interest in progressing this lease renewal following expiry of the contractual term.

The decision meets the statutory / policy requirements for the Council and the alternative option of relying on the original S.25 notice served would leave the Council at risk in relation to negotiations on this lease renewal progressing if the original S.25 was subsequently proven to be invalid.