A written refusal stops the clock
Assuming that the reasons in the first letter are inadequate, can L rely on the reasons advanced in the second letter?
A written refusal stops the clock
Q T, wishing to assign, seeks L’s consent in circumstances to which the section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988 applies: see, for example, the model considered in PP 2002/223. L sends a written refusal giving certain reasons that are forcefully questioned by T. L writes again, this time giving rather stronger reasons for his refusal. T seeks a declaration that consent has been unreasonably withheld.
Assuming that the reasons in the first letter are inadequate, can L rely on the reasons advanced in the second letter?
A No: and this is so even where, but for the sending of the first letter, the reasons contained in the second would have been given within a reasonable time: see the decision of the Court of Appeal in Go West Ltd v Spigarolo [2003] EWCA Civ 17; [2003] 07 EG 136 (CS), where it was held that what might otherwise have been a reasonable time had been shortened by the sending of the first letter. The case is carefully analysed by Sandi Murdoch in Too quick off the mark Estates Gazette 15 March 2003, p151.
