0

Alice bought a lease on a residential property but fell behind on her service charges.

She is threatened with forfeiture, her landlord already having obtained a CCJ in default in respect of the unpaid service charges.

She then makes a payment that is assigned to the most recent quarterly service charge due date, the CCJ debt in respect of quarters past’s service charges still outstanding, which the landlord accepts, seemingly waiving the landlord’s right to forfeit her lease in respect of the breach.

The waiver of forfeiture clearly doesn’t negate the CCJ and debt, but if the landlord was to issue fresh demands for those unpaid previous service charges, or used any other tactics, could those still-unpaid service charges in any way be taken or construed as a fresh breach that could give rise to a new, yet-unwaived right of forfeiture for the landlord?

Improve this question

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

There is no such thing as “seemingly waive”

A waiver has to be communicated, by word or deed, by the waiving party to the other party. Inaction is not communication - the landlord has not waived anything.

Improve this answer
2
  • I get the feeling that this was voted up simply because it rejects my question’s premise but Central Estate Benghazi Ltd. V Woolgar would seem to disagree with this answer. However, apart from that, even if the answer was correct, how does it even answer the substantive question? The contention (I think well founded) is that by accepting the rent without making reasonable and immediate efforts to return it to the tenant constitutes actively communicating through deed a waiver of the right of forfeiture because it isa way of affirming the continuing existence of the landlord tennt relationship.
    – Seeking answers
    Nov 6 at 17:14
  • Lack of timely action can, in general, be waiver.
    – Acccumulation
    Nov 7 at 4:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .