Faisel Sadiq

Areas of expertise

• Property
  • Commercial landlord & tenant

    Commercial landlord & tenant

    Faisel handles all aspects of commercial landlord and tenant law including break clauses, dilapidations, assignment, 1954 Act renewals, forfeiture and enforcement of covenants.

    Recent work:

    • Hornsey Road Ltd v (1) Singh (2) Varma – opposed lease renewal under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 relying on ground (f).
    • Ludgate House v (1) Ricketts & (2) Southwark LBC [2023] UKUT 36 (LC) – impact of property guardians on the valuation of a Central London office block.
    • Arqiva Limited v Mendey – acting for a landlord seeking to resist the grant of a new lease to an electronic communications company pursuant to Part II of the 1954 Act.
    • Muswell Hill Limited v Chapple & Yankin – dispute between sub-lessees and freeholder as to the scope of works to be carried out by the freeholder to the block pursuant to a deed of variation by which the freeholder was able to redevelop the block.
    • Southwark v Royce & Nicoue [2019] UKUT 331 (LC) – case concerning whether a landlord’s ability to recover service charges for incidental costs could extend to works on a neighbouring estate.
    • Ludgate House Ltd v (1) Ricketts (2) Southwark LBC [2019] UKUT 278 (LC); [2019] RA 423 – dispute concerning large Central London office block.  The landlord granted property guardian contractual licences to secure it against squatter and are seeking to avoid liability for business rates. Appeal to be heard by the Court of Appeal in November 2021.
    • Pembury Hotels Limited v Spyrou (2018) – dispute over whether a lease and guarantees for a hotel was a sham.
    • Pembury Estates Ltd v Panzer Properties – acting for a guarantor in seeking to resist a claim for unpaid rent under a lease of a hotel.
  • Development & planning

    Development & planning

    Faisel’s regularly advises on planning enforcement, failure to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010 and breaches of HMO licensing requirements (which includes appearing in the Crown and Magistrates’ Courts). He has advised public utilities (water companies) on claims arising from sewage discharges into rivers, and potential public law challenges by the Environment Agency.

    Examples of the types of cases Faisel is instructed in are:

    • Advising (and representing at a mediation) a developer in respect of a right of way over a potential ransom strip in respect of two competing residential developments.
    • Advising on a claim under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 1992 in relation to the redevelopment of a hotel.
    • Advising on a right to light claim involving a large residential development on the South Coast.
    • Advising on the enforceability of an option agreement for a property developer.
    • Advising on whether the grant of planning permission had triggered payment under an overage agreement.
    • Advising and representing a property developer in mediation over the value of monies to be paid under an overage agreement.
    • Advising a water company on civil claims arising from the discharges of sewage into local rivers.
    • Advising a water company on potential regulatory action arising from the impact of over abstraction of water on protected wildlife in local rivers.
    • Advising a water company on potential prosecution arising from the discharges of sewage into local rivers.
    • R v Hanif Automotive Group – representation in relation to unlawful removal of trees covered by a TPO.
    • Ealing LBC v Imran – trial and subsequent proceeds of crime application arising from unlawful conversion from a single dwelling to a house in multiple occupation.
    • Barnet LBC v Netzach Israel Limited – trial and subsequent proceeds of crime application arising from unlawful conversion from a single dwelling to a house in multiple occupation.
    • Camden LBC v Bucknell – prosecuted for breach of a planning enforcement notice and unauthorised works to a listed building.
    • Hackney LBC v Braun – proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court for breach of an enforcement notice.
    • Hackney LBC v Homeglade – proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court for breach of an improvement notice relating to a property development.
    • Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd v Runnymede BC – trial of a statutory appeal against noise abatement notice involving noise emanating from the Longcross Test Track.
  • Leasehold & leasehold management

    Leasehold & leasehold management

    Faisel regularly handles disputes relating to long leases including service charge issues, forfeiture and breach of covenant.

    Examples of the types of cases Faisel is instructed in are:

    • Tann v Bhundia [2022] UKUT 268 (LC) – landlord’s liability to carry out repairs to a roof.
    • Southwark LBC v Royce & Nicoue [2019] UKUT 331 (LC) – construction of service charge provisions in residential leases where the leases were granted to the lessees pursuant to the right to buy.
    • Golding v Martin[2019] EWCA Civ 446; [2019] 3 W.L.R. 138 – leading case in which Faisel succeeded in persuading the Court of Appeal to rule against a first instance decision that the ability to obtain relief from forfeiture pursuant to s.138(2) and (3), County Courts Act 1984, could not amount to success for the purposes of CPR 39.3(5).
    • Sheffield City Council v Katsura Holdings – whether an equitable lease gives the lessee the right of possession sufficient to render the lessee liable for business rates.
    • Lindsay v (1) Berkeley Homes, (2) Southwark LBC – successfully representing in the High Court (TCC) a local housing authority in resisting an application by a long-lessee for an injunction to prevent it carrying out works to its block.
    • Southwark LBC v Akhtar Upper Tribunal [2017] UKUT 150 (LC) – (led by Philip Rainey KC) representing the landlord in an appeal considering the enforceability of service charge covenants and the mechanics of recovery.
    • Peabody Estates v 28 Leaseholders – representing leaseholders in resisting their liability to pay service charges on the basis that the works did not come within the service charge covenants.
    • Southwark LBC v Cagacar – representing landowner seeking to recover service charges owed pursuant to a freehold covenant under the “benefit and burden” principle.
  • Rating

    Rating

    Faisel has a developing rating practice. He is a member of the Institute of Revenues, Rating, and Valuation. He regularly is instructed in cases concerning the validity of rates mitigation schemes.

    Examples of the types of cases Faisel is instructed in are:

    • Ludgate House v (1) Ricketts & (2) Southwark LBC [2023] UKUT 36 (LC) – impact of property guardians on the valuation of a Central London office block.
    • Southwark LBC v Riverbank House Ltd – rates mitigation scheme involving snail farming in an office building in Central London found to be ineffective on grounds that the leases were a sham and occupation for snail farming was not rateable occupation.
    • R (Be You Health Ltd) v Peterborough CC – judicial review of local authority decision that a building owner was not entitled to relief against liability for non-domestic rates.
    • Sheffield City Council v Katsura Holdings Inc – case concerning whether a lease of part of an office building in Sheffield was a sham / otherwise invalid for failure to comply with the formalities to create a lease, such as to leave the liability for business rates with the freeholder.
  • Real property & mortgages

    Real property & mortgages

    Faisel handles a wide variety of real property and mortgage related work including options, covenants, easements, property damage/nuisance and charges relating to the beneficial ownership of land.

    Examples of the types of cases Faisel is instructed in are:

    • Ken Gray Ltd v OBST Limited – claim concerning payment of outstanding deposit following rescission of a contract for the sale of land worth £12 million.
    • Chapman v Chapman – claim concerning ownership of an industrial estate outside Watford worth £8 million raising issues of fraud, the presumption of advancement, and resulting trusts.
    • Jackson v JP Wild Ltd – defending a claim to enforce an option agreement in respect of a large residential development on the outskirts of Leeds.
    • Advising over the enforceability of restrictive covenants that were preventing redevelopment of a pub.
    • Advising on the enforceability of restrictive covenants that (if enforceable) might prevent the development of a large residential development.
    • Advising on whether and the extent to which the terms of a lease (e.g. covenant of quiet enjoyment) would preclude the freeholder carrying out extensive development of a commercial site.
    • Advising on scope of easement that provides entry to a retail park.
    • Central Bridging Loans Limited v Covell – representing a borrower resisting an order for sale of high value residential property sought by bridging lender.
    • De Muller v Harrison-Morgan [2019] EWCA 2094 – a proprietary claim to recover £2.2 million paid over as part of the sale of a property in Belgravia.
    • Pourghazi v Kamyab – advised and represented a lender in a marshalling claim in respect of a large mortgage portfolio in the Chancery Division.
    • Commercial First v Riggs – acting in a claim to rescind a mortgage due to the lender paying an undisclosed commission to the borrower’s mortgage broker.
    • Altay Ali v Commercial First – resisting the making of an order for sale on the grounds that the relationship giving rise to the underlying debt was unfair for the purposes of s.140A to 140C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
  • Residential Landlord & Tenant and Houses in Multiple Occupation

    Residential Landlord & Tenant and Houses in Multiple Occupation

    Faisel started his practice at a leading landlord and tenant set having worked on residential landlord and tenant legislation whilst a government lawyer. Faisel has extensive experience of possession proceedings (including those raising issues of anti-social behaviour / nuisance), injunctions to restrain anti-social behaviour and disrepair. In recent years he has developed a specialism in dealing with breaches of HMO licensing legislation and rent repayment orders.

    Examples of the types of cases Faisel is instructed in are:

    • Fairview Hotels Investments (2) Limited v Newcastle CC – appeal against a local authority’s declaration that a hotel used to accommodate asylum seekers was an HMO.
    • Daff v Gyalui [2023] UKUT 134 (LC) – impact of landlord’s conduct on the level of a rent repayment order.
    • Inventure 8 Investments Ltd v Ealing LBC – appeal by overseas landlord against imposition of financial penalty for breach of selective licensing regime.
    • Sato v Bibi and Prime Land Property Limited – case concerning the identity of who the landlord is for the purposes of making a rent repayment order.
    • Camden LBC v Olivers Town – representing a lettings agent in a prosecution for breach of the HMO licensing regulations.
    • Barnet LBC v Shelemey – successfully representing a landlord at his trial for alleged breach of the HMO licensing regulations.
    • Walthamstow LBC v Husbands – representing a defendant at the Crown Court at a trial for failure to have an HMO licence.
  • Trusts and Proprietary Estoppel

    Trusts and Proprietary Estoppel

    Faisel has a particular interest in TOLATA claims, handling cases such as:

    • Falleger-Hseih v Count Von Bismarck – dispute over ownership of a property worth £3 million in Kensington raising issues of proprietary estoppel.
    • Advising on a dispute in ancillary relief proceedings over the ownership of several properties co-owned by siblings.
    • Advising and representing family members in a family dispute over ownership of agricultural land and a commercial retail park worth in excess of £10 million. Raises issues of beneficial ownership and proprietary estoppel.
    • De Muller v Harrison-Morgan [2019] EWCA 2094; [2018] EWHC 1904 –  a proprietary claim to recover £2.2 million paid in breach of trust as part of the sale of a property in Belgravia.
    • Herskovic v Herskovic – Acting in High Court proceedings and in a subsequent arbitration in the Beth Din of the Federation of Synagogues in a dispute over beneficial ownership of an extensive property portfolio worth in excess of £10 million.
    • Covell v Gobbee – dispute between co-owners of land over whether land should be sold and their respective entitlement to the sale proceeds.
    • Dudley v Pluck – acting for the executors of an estate resisting a declaration that an occupant of a high value residential dwelling had a beneficial interest in the property.
    • Patel v Mirza [2014] EWCA Civ 1047 – represented the defendant both at trial and in the Court of Appeal in seeking to avoid having to repay monies advanced to be used for insider trading on the grounds that the defence of illegality precluded the enforcement of the underlying resulting (Quistclose) trust.
• Professional Negligence - Property Transactions

  Professional Negligence - Property Transactions

  Faisel’s property expertise makes him an excellent choice for disputes involving professional negligence claims against property professionals.

  Examples of the types of cases Faisel is instructed in are:

  • TJD v Bam – acting for a property developer in a multi-million pound claim against a firm of architects and structural engineers for negligent advice that caused significant delay to completion of a large redevelopment project near Bedford.
  • Southern Water Services Limited v East Sussex CC & Kier Group Plc – acting for water company in negligence against local highways authority and its contractors for negligently damaging sewers as part of construction of the highway.
  • Acting in a professional negligence claim against counsel who negligently advised on settlement of a trusts of land claim.
  • Advising on, settling pleadings and appearing in a professional negligence claim against a firm of solicitors that failed to properly advise a lender as respects a third-party guarantee of a debt.
  • Advising on and settling pleadings in a professional negligence claim against a firm of solicitors in relation to a mortgage for in excess of £1 million.