The Buyer needs to be satisfied that all requisite consents were obtained for all past assignments, alterations, additions and changes of use. This enquiry does not ask about consents to the grant of underleases and occupational licences as these are dealt with in CSPE.2 Supplemental pre-contract enquiries for commercial property subject to tenancies). The Buyer needs to make sure that it will not become liable for any past breach of tenant's covenant and cannot be required to remove any alterations or additions. In relation to alterations, the Buyer will also be concerned to establish that there are no alterations which, because they were unauthorised, can be rentalised by the landlord at the next rent review, so increasing the rent.

The past refusal of a consent is relevant because it will give the Buyer an indication of the likely attitude of the landlord towards applications for consent, both generally and for particular applications.

The information which the Buyer receives in reply to this enquiry will assist it in deciding whether the contract should provide for the Buyer having any involvement or control in any current applications for consent.

This information might be relevant in assessing definitions in the Lease about the extent of the landlord's estate. For management purposes the landlord may choose to manage the Development of which the Property forms part with another neighbouring development of which it is also the owner. The information may also indicate to what extent facilities used by the Development are or could be used by a neighbouring development.

These enquiries are concerned with car parking and other facilities that are not expressly granted by the Lease. This may have been because the landlord did not want the tenant to have a formal right to use the facilities or the facilities were not available at the time the Lease was granted. The Buyer will need to know before committing to the Transaction whether it must make special arrangements with the landlord for the continued use of those facilities.

Where a landlord establishes a ground to refuse to renew the tenant's lease, the amount of compensation which the tenant can claim depends on the length of time the tenant has occupied the premises and whether the premises were occupied by a former tenant but for the purposes of the same business.

If the tenant exercises the right to renew the Lease, the parties may agree the terms or refer the decision to the court. In deciding what rent should be paid, the court will disregard improvements made by the tenant, even if the improvements were made before the grant of the current lease, provided the improvements were made not more than 21 years before the date when the application for the new lease was made and provided the tenant was not under any obligation to the landlord to carry out the works.

Even if the Lease is not renewed, the tenant may be entitled to compensation at the end of the term for improvements which it made and which added to the value of the Property. The right to this compensation arises under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, and is dependent on the tenant having served the landlord with notices before carrying out the improvements, and having given the landlord the opportunity to do the works at the landlord's expense and to rentalise the cost. The compensation will not be greater than the increase in the value of the Property attributable to the improvements or (if lower) the cost of the works at the end of the Lease term.

The Buyer is likely to become a dutyholder for the purposes of regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006 (CAR 2006) when it completes the acquisition of the Property. It will then be under a duty to assess the Property for the presence of asbestos and to prepare a written plan for the management of any asbestos that may be in the Property. The Buyer is unlikely to be in compliance with regulation 4 merely by relying on the Seller's assessment or written plan, but any information that the Buyer can obtain from the Seller will be useful and will improve the Buyer's ability to address issues arising from asbestos, particularly in the case of an emergency, in the period between completion and the Buyer being able to conduct full surveys and carry out any necessary works to comply with the CAR 2006.

However, on the acquisition of leasehold property, the landlord's written plan will provide valuable information about what works the landlord may need to do to comply with its liabilities under regulation 4, and so may be able to charge the tenant for under the service charge provisions. It may also give an indication of the landlord's likely attitude to proposed alterations to the Property, and the need for the landlord to gain access to the Property to carry out works to remove or make safe asbestos in the Property.

Enquiry 5.9 refers to both the CAR 2006 and the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 (CAWR 2002). This is because the Seller's period of ownership may have begun before the CAR 2006 came into force on 13 November 2006. Regulation 4 of the CAR 2006 was replicated without modification from regulation 4 of the CAWR 2002.

For more information on CAR 2006 and CAWR 2002, see the guidance notes for Enquiry 8 in CPSE.1.

There is a presumption that where a rent review clause stipulates that certain parts of the rent review procedure must be completed by a specified time, time is not "of the essence" and therefore a failure to observe those time limits does not have any consequence. The following are exceptions to this rule and illustrates where time will be of the essence and the time limits will be binding on the parties:

The Buyer will need to review the rent review terms in the light of what has happened in practice.

The Buyer is interested in the involvement of managing agents in the management of the Property and any Development of which the Property forms part.

The Seller should give the Buyer a copy of any regulations.

The Seller will remain liable for all arrears of rent due up until the assignment when the Lease is transferred to the Buyer and this is so whether or not the Lease is a new tenancy under the 1995 Act. The Buyer's interest in whether there are any current arrears does not stem, therefore, from a concern that it will inherit a liability for the arrears: it will not.

The potential problem for the Buyer is that after the assignment the landlord can still forfeit the Lease for non-payment of those arrears even though the Buyer, as the current tenant, is not liable to pay them. This will not be the case, however, if the landlord has waived the right to forfeit for those debts by, for example, granting a licence to assign. In practice, once the Buyer knows the position the parties should come to some arrangement with the landlord before the licence to assign is granted.

Section 17 of the 1995 Act limits the right of the landlord to recover arrears of payments due under the lease from a former tenant or its guarantor. Former tenants and their guarantors under pre-1995 Act tenancies and former tenants under new tenancies who have entered into authorised guarantee agreements, must be served with notice of liability in a prescribed form within six months after the payment becoming due, or the landlord loses the right to recover that payment from them.

If a tenant does something which gives rise to a claim on the landlord's insurance, then as it is the landlord rather than the tenant who is the insured, the insurance company may pursue its own claim against the tenant who caused the loss, to recover the amount of the insurance claim. This is known as the insurance company's right of subrogation. It is considered to be unfair to the tenant if at the same time the cost of the insurance premiums is paid by the tenant.

A tenant will usually therefore try to negotiate that the insurance company waives its rights of subrogation. In practice that is believed to be the common law position where the tenant pays the insurance premium, following the case of Mark Rowlands Ltd v Berni Inns Ltd [1986] QB 211, but the position is not free from doubt.