consumer leases

Retail and commercial leases in a COVID-19 world

by

This post is available as an info sheet: download here

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a devastating effect on retail and other businesses, most of whom occupy leased premises, and will continue to do so for some time.

Tenants are not able to pay rent. Land owners who rely on that rent to service their mortgages, will soon fall into default.  Land owners who do not have mortgages, or would normally have surplus income from rented properties, which they rely on for living and other expenses, will also be in financial difficulty.

In most cases, tenants that are unable to pay rent as a result of the pandemic, are at risk of having their leases terminated.  Rent “abatement” clauses in most leases only apply where trading is affected by physical damage and it is unlikely that the common law doctrine of “frustration” will assist tenants to walk away from their lease commitments.  It’s also very rare for leases to contain “force majeure” clauses and for those that do, it’s rare for them to extend to events like this pandemic.

The Commonwealth, State and Territory governments have signalled their intention to support an environment where businesses can “hibernate” during the worst of the COVID-19 crisis and come back to life after it is over. The National Cabinet has released a statement that it intends to agree to a ‘common set of principles’ that will underpin and govern an Australian response to these issues. However, States and Territories will need to act separately as they each have jurisdiction in relation to retail and commercial leasing issues within their States and Territories.

In NSW the state government has passed amendments to the Retail Leases Act 1994 and Residential Tenancies Act 2010 empowering the relevant Minister to make regulations under any relevant Act which may provide for the following matters, for the purposes of responding to the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • prohibiting recovery of possession by a lessor/owner/landlord
  • prohibiting termination of a lease or tenancy by a lessor/owner/landlord in particular circumstances
  • regulating or preventing the exercise or enforcement of another right under the relevant Act
  • exempting a lessee/tenant or class thereof from the application of any provision under the relevant Act.

On 30 March the Victorian premier issued the following release via Twitter:

‘Today we announced a ban on rental evictions. From hospo to retail, if you’re struggling to get by due to coronavirus you won’t be evicted just because you can’t pay the rent. It’ll last six months – and it means one less thing to worry about for Victorians doing it tough’

The Victorian government will soon pass legislation to give effect to this ban or moratorium, and it is expected the legislative approach will be similar to that taken by NSW, giving broad regulatory powers to the relevant Minister.

The implications for land owners of this proposed moratorium on tenant evictions are uncertain and potentially prejudicial to land owners.  We will need to wait for more details from the State and Territory governments as to how they propose to deal with these issues, but there is a limit to how far these issues can be addressed by legislation and regulation.  For these reasons, the Prime Minister and State Premiers have urged land owners and tenants to talk to each other and endeavour to reach agreement on terms that will make this “hibernation” workable for both of them.

There are some common issues which may be relevant for consideration in discussions between land owners and tenants. These issues will depend on the circumstances of each lease, and the details of the legislative and regulatory measures implemented in each State and Territory.

Eviction – the proposed moratorium is on “eviction”, meaning a land owner will not be able to terminate a lease and take back possession during the moratorium period. It does not appear, at least at this stage, to provide for a release or waiver of rent during that period.

Waiver of rent? – consideration will have to be given as to whether the rent is to be waived for the moratorium period, or some other period. If the rent during that period is not waived, then it continues to accrue (with interest) and in theory a land owner would be entitled to commence a termination process immediately after the moratorium period ends.While many tenants will find it very difficult to pay rent during this period, waiver of the rent will have the effect of passing this commercial loss fully to the land owner, who may receive no corresponding relief for loan liabilities, other than deferral (see below). Other possible arrangements that could be considered by the parties, include waiver of default interest, deferral of the rent payment, possibly with repayment over time, subject to the business achieving certain post-pandemic performance hurdles or a restructure of future rentals, release of part of the debt or a combination of these measures.

Performance security – where tenants are in arrears, should land owners have the right to access performance security (e.g. cashing a bank guarantee) to apply to the rental arrears, without necessarily terminating the lease? No mention has been made so far in public announcements on this subject.  It is possible, if not likely, that land owners will be prevented from accessing security with respect to pandemic related defaults.

Pre-pandemic defaults – there will be existing tenant defaults, and possibly enforcement and termination proceedings already in train, with regard to pre-pandemic defaults. As yet, it is unclear whether these will be affected by the moratorium.  Will these be “frozen” until the end of the moratorium period?  If so, this could be prejudicial to a land owner and possibly postpone the inevitable, and tie the land owner’s hands in the meantime.

Bank concessions – the Australian Banking Association has announced that Australian banks will provide a range of relief measures to certain land and business owners during the 6 month moratorium period. Land owners with total loan facilities not exceeding $10m, will be granted loan repayment deferrals (with interest capitalised), on condition they undertake not to evict current tenants for rent arrears as a result of the pandemic.

Small business owners (many of whom are tenants) impacted by the pandemic will also be granted loan deferrals for a corresponding period.

It will be important for land owners and tenants to clarify with their financiers whether they are offering relief, exactly what is being offered and what the terms of that relief will be.

Based on the public statements so far, the required undertaking not to evict tenants during the moratorium period will not prevent land owners simply postponing rental payments during the moratorium period, and not waiving them.

Early re-start – it may be that the impacts and restrictions associated with the pandemic subside earlier than currently anticipated. If a tenant is able to commence trading again after, say 3 months, should rent recommence, or perhaps partially recommence at that time (or perhaps a month later)?   If partially, on what basis will that rental portion be determined?  If an arrangement is agreed for early recommencement of rental (whole or partial) will this affect concessions granted to the land owner by the bank, and result in an early end or partial removal of the loan deferment concessions?

Outgoings – consideration should also be given to liability for rates, taxes and outgoings. The treatment of these expenses may vary in each case, and depend on the financial ability of parties to pay;

Unoccupied premises – the moratorium is intended to prevent land owners terminating leases and evicting tenants during the moratorium period. Therefore, tenants will retain possession of the premises during this period.  For some leases, for example, stand- alone properties, thought should be given to whether the tenant can make use of the premises for an alternate purpose (perhaps not consistent with the permitted use stated in the lease), and possibly earn alternate income.

As the occupier under an ongoing lease, the tenant will normally have responsibility for securing and protecting the property. Thought should also be given to the cost of security and insurance, and whether the risk and insurance cost associated with an unoccupied building in the pandemic environment may increase;

Extension of term? – given that land owners will face loss of rent for 6 months at least, and the tenant may suffer absence of income for an equivalent period, it may be appropriate that the parties agree that the current term is extended for a term equivalent to the moratorium period, or perhaps longer;

Short term leases – where leases only have a short term left to run – for example, if they expire during the moratorium period or within a short time afterwards, the parties may prefer to end the lease by agreement. Consideration would have to be given to the possible impact on “loan concessions” granted by the bank for the duration of the moratorium period;

Renewal options – if a renewal option has been exercised, for example before the full impact of the pandemic became evident, the renewal will nevertheless be binding, unless agreed otherwise. Where the renewal term is to commence during the moratorium period, with a market rent review to apply, this review may be prejudicial to the land owner.  Apart from the difficulty, and potential unknown impacts on market valuations during the height of the pandemic, it would seem unfair for the starting rent for a renewal term to be determined by reference to market rates at the height of the pandemic, in circumstances where the parties will in effect be “freezing” the lease arrangements for 6 months, with the land owner possibly foregoing rent for that period.

Where an option will be due for exercise during the moratorium period, or possibly during a post pandemic “recovery period”, it may be appropriate for the parties to agree to postpone that renewal. Alternatively, it may be agreed that the tenant commit to the renewal, and possibly an agreed commencing rental, as part of an agreement with the land owner for a range of “pandemic concessions”;

Rent reviews during moratorium period – where rent reviews (such as fixed percentage and CPI reviews) are due during the moratorium period, it may be appropriate that the review is calculated and the rent adjusted accordingly, but not take effect until the end of the moratorium period.

Market rent reviews during the moratorium period will be problematic – see our comments above. It may be appropriate for the parties to agree that market reviews are deferred until after the moratorium period ends, or the tenant is able to recommence trading. It may also be appropriate that a suitable “recovery period” be allowed before a market review, so that the market rent is determined in a more normally functioning economy (as far as that is possible) and not distorted by the extraordinary pandemic conditions; and

Land owner finance issues – any lease variations or restructuring will affect capital value as well as income, and be critical to ongoing finance arrangements for land owners with mortgages. Land owners must liaise closely with their financiers in relation to proposals and negotiations with tenants with regard to these matters, and obtain any necessary consent before concluding any new arrangements with tenants.

 

The National Cabinet has also announced a moratorium on eviction of residential tenants. This article is focussed on retail and commercial leasing, but we acknowledge that many land owners who have invested in residential rental properties will face substantial difficulties where rental income is affected, in circumstances where the land owner is prevented from taking any action.  The JobKeeper support package announced by the Commonwealth Government on Monday 30 March may have an impact on this particular sector, not anticipated when the eviction moratorium was announced. It would be unfair if residential tenants, with the benefit of this income support, were in a better position to afford to pay the rent, but could avoid doing so, while the land owner was unable to take any enforcement action.

The impacts of the pandemic on our society and economy are massive, unpredictable and changing on a daily basis.  The effects on legal and commercial arrangements affecting real estate and leasing will be difficult to predict, but undoubtedly significant.  There are no legal precedents for responding to these momentous events.  The issues are extremely complex and will involve a mix of legal, regulatory and commercial measures.

We will keep our clients updated and assist them navigate the developments in this area. As always, do not hesitate to contact our property team to understand how COVID-19 might be impacting your specific circumstances.

 

Steve Aitchison
Principal
Melbourne
T +61 3 8602 9217
F +61 3 8602 9299
E [email protected]

Francis Qi
Lawyer
Melbourne

Emily Clapp
Graduate-at-Law
Melbourne

Consumer Leasing – a Perfect Storm

by

The recent release by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) of its report on the cost of consumer leases for household goods (Report 447), coupled with other recent changes, is likely to create a perfect storm for the consumer leasing industry in Australia.

The report by ASIC follows hot on the heels of other recent developments in relation to the consumer leasing industry, including:

  • The announcement by Centrelink in May 2015 that it would no longer permit the CentrePay benefit deduction scheme to be used for consumer leases that were not regulated by the National Credit Code;
  • The announcement by Federal Treasury in August 2015 of its planned review of small amount credit contracts. The review includes consideration as to whether additional legislative protections are required for consumers entering into consumer leases – particularly those consumers who are Centrelink recipients;
  • Recent enforcement action taken by ASIC against various providers of consumer leases, particularly focusing on responsible lending obligations; and
  • The passing by the Senate last week of draft legislation designed to exclude all consumer lease products from the Australian Government CentrePay bill paying service for welfare recipients.  That bill was introduced into Federal Parliament by the Shadow Minister for Human Services, Senator Doug Cameron.  It must now pass the House of Representatives.  Whether it has Government support is unclear.

What Report 447 is based on and findings

The ASIC report is based on a market survey data report prepared by RMIT together with ASIC’s own internal findings as a result of recent investigations of various lessors. The findings of the RMIT market survey data were:

  • Finding 1: the amounts charged by different lessors for the same goods vary significantly.
  • Finding 2: the financial benefits of a longer term lease are questionable.
  • Finding 3: no consistency in total amounts charged for different goods with a similar retail price.
  • Finding 4: the same lessor’s charge significantly different amounts for the same goods, in particular Centrelink recipients were charged more than the advertised costs.
  • Finding 5: Centrelink recipients were charged more than the maximum payable under a small amount credit contract.

ASIC’S four areas of concern

In Report 447, at paragraph 76, ASIC notes that there are four areas of concern that could be given further consideration to improve consumer outcomes:

  1. The high cost of consumer leases, particularly those over a longer term (eg leases that are two years or longer)
  2. The lack of consumer understanding about consumer leases
  3. The impact of high cost consumer leases on Centrelink recipients and
  4. The lack of consistency and regulatory treatment of consumer leases compared with other small amount credit contracts.

To the listed four concerns of ASIC, we would add another area that might well be of concern to ASIC, namely:

  • The impact of consumer leases on indigenous communities, in particular those receiving Centrelink benefits.

What’s next?

The ASIC report will form part of ASIC’s submissions to the enquiry by Federal Treasury currently getting underway.

Federal Treasury will have a difficult task ahead. Consider these points:

  • Many renters are Centrelink customers, in fact it has been suggested that Centrelink customers are the mainstay of this industry.
  • The Centrepay system gives a way for Centrelink customers to manage their financial affairs and obtain consumer goods that they may otherwise be unable to have.
  • There are good social policy reasons why Centrelink customers should be entitled to have consumer goods and access to credit if they can do so without causing undue hardship.
  • There are currently no pricing controls on consumer leases. Realistically some controls will be introduced, particularly where Centrelink customers are involved.
  • Any pricing controls need to strike a balance and be fair to both the lessor and the customer. If the pricing lever is pulled too much one way it will be detrimental to all parties.
  • The imposition of pricing controls will always lead some operators to consider avoidance mechanisms. A fair price reduces the incentive to adopt avoidance mechanisms but will never exclude avoidance.
  • How to assess capacity to pay without undue hardship will be critical. It is one thing to make reasonable enquires about income and expenditure, but where should the reality check benchmark be? I understand that in a recent case before an EDR scheme the benchmark for assessing reasonable expenses was set on the basis of application of the Henderson Poverty Index (HPI). Bear in mind that according to HPI quarterly reports most categories of Centrelink customers are below the “poverty line”. Refer to Table 4 of the quarterly reports.

While I don’t agree that the solution proposed by the Shadow Minister for Human Services is necessarily the way to proceed, it does to my mind provide the seed of the solution – some way to accredit lessors providing responsible consumer leasing services with Centrelink.

How Federal Treasury handles its task will depend to a significant extent on stakeholder inputs to the process. It is hoped that all stakeholders work constructively.

Watch this space.