I am doing a problem question and im slightly confused regarding some of the issues. ive been asked whether the Landlord can recover the outstanding balance of rent arrears from the original tenant. here are the basic facts: the lease was made in 1997 therefore it falls under s.1 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act 1995 - a lease granted on or after January 1, 1996 is a “new tenancy”. L gave T a 21 year lease, at £200,000 per year subject to review in the 7th and 14th years. The two covenants were - that the premises would be used as office premises only - not to assign without the consent of the Landlord, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. in 1999 the tenant requested consent to assign the lease to T2 (tenant 2). the Landlord consented to the assignment only on the basis that T (or who i will call T1 the original tenant) enters into an AGA (authorised Guarantee Agreement) for T2. So basically if T2 fails to pay rent the responsibility lies with T1. In 2003 T2 asked the Landlord to Vary the lease to allow it to the property to be used as a retail outlet . This was agreed and a supplemental deed was drawn up sanctioning the change of use. In 2004 the rent underwent its first review, which is 7 years after the lease was made. The rent increased to £400,000 and was agreed, the wording is that it was increased 'in part attributable to the relaxation of the user covenant'. A few months after the rent review t2 entered financial diffciaulties and large rent arrears built up In 2009 (5 years after T2 started having these financial difficulties), the Landlord accepted a surrender of the lease from t2 in exchange for T2's stock. When the stock was sold off, the money they made fell short of the actual arrears, but would have been sufficient to cover arrears at the pre-rent review rate. The question is basically can the Landlord try to recover the remainder of the money from the original tenant (t1) (the guarantor) even though they recovered the money at the pre-rent review rate. The questions i ask are - the rent was increased because of 'relaxation of the user covenant', now im not entirely sure what it means, but from my research you can only increase rent in respect of the area's market value. So it appears that there has been an unreasonable increase in the rent. But does it matter because they agreed to it? secondly the covenant said that 'the premises would be used as office premises only' yet the lease was varied by t2 and the Landloard. Can T1 claim that the variation of the lease makes the contract void and he doesnt have to pay the outstanding rent arrears accrued by t2. Finally is there something significant between the large gap from 2004-2009 when there were financial difficulties and nothing was done about it. On another issue i was also asked if i had been advising the Landlord from the start what would i have made him do differently. So basically im guessing this means what way will i have made the landlord even more protected. Another point i want to ask is if T2 surrendered the lease and the Landlord accepted it, then he has basically cancelled the lease and said ok you no longer have any obligations as long as you give us your remaining stock. They sold the stock and didnt make enough money back but because the lease is terminated now they can't go back to T2 and ask for more, so they want to claim the remainder from T1, but can they do that?? surely they can't because they agreed to terminate the lease with T2.

I joined my local La Fitness Gymn in July and at first i signed up for some information online and in doing so i entered my number and stuff, next day i got a call from them saying if i wanted to have a look at the gym, i didnt really want to but they were very pesuasive i agreed to. I went the next day they gave me a tour and then tried to make me sign up on the day, i didnt want to but i asked them if i could sign up for a month only because i didnt want any long term agreement as i was going back to university in september. They told me orally that i could do a rolling contract monthly and i could cancel when i wanted. So they printed off the document, took my card details and told me to sign the contract, i didnt really look at the contract and signed it. Now a few months later i see i kept getting charged monthly so i called them up and told them it wasnt on, they told me i signed a year contract and i couldnt cancel, so i asked them to cancel my membership for after the end of the year, so i got a letter confirming cancellation of the membership after the year. But i still wasnt happy so i cancelled by direct debit. I then got a letter from ARC demanding payment of around 250 quid. I ignored it. Then got a solicitors letter from Trevor Nunn demanding payment. What should i do? continue to ignore it, or write them a letter back, they've tried phoning me but i refuse to answer any calls from numbers i dont recognise, so they texted me saying plz contact us and quote this reference number. I havent done it yet. I wanna complain that they harassed me into signing a contract i didnt agree to, i agreed orally to rolling contract and their manager deviously got me to sign a long term year contract. I am a poor student without a job my only income is from the government for my university loan which i spend on food and books and living. This is out of order.