A tactic often employed by the landlord is to carry out a s earch at HM Land Registry, ascertain the tenant's mortgagee and inform that lender of the alleged breach of covenant, suggesting that the security is at risk and then adding the costs of the search and additional costs to the so-called 'administration fee'.

If the landlord elects to forfeit and issues and serves a summons for possession, then order 6 rule 3(2) of the County Court Rules will require the landlord to serve proceedings on any mortgagee of which he or she is aware.

Because of the deeming provisions in the legislation, that will arguably include a registered chargee and a puisne mortgagee which has registered a land charge.

There is no other obligation on a landlord to notify a tenant's mortgagee of arrears of rent or of other breaches of covenant and if the landlord decides to do so, then the cost may not be recovered from the tenant.

Regrettably, mortgage lenders are often put in the position of having to co-operate with exploitative ground landlords because of the potential risk to their security.Landlord's consentTwo other situations frequently arise on change of ownership which are ripe for exploitation by the landlord: choice of insurer; and retrospective consent for alterations.

First, some general observations on landlord's consent.When a covenant is absolute and unqualified, the court will not imply a term that a landlord asked to give consent should act reasonably, or even give reasons for refusal.

When a covenant stipulates that some act can only be performed with the landlord's consent but does not provide that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, then except where statute enacts otherwise (as in Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 subss 19(1) and (2)) such a proviso will not be implied.

Here again, the landlord can refuse without giving reasons.

In that case, the landlord's consent is a condition precedent without the satisfaction of which the act contemplated by the covenant cannot be performed (Tredegar v Harwood [1929] AC 72).Consent to change of insurerA lease of residential property will almost invariably contain a covenant by the tenant to insure against specified risks.

There are various forms of such covenant but the more usual requires the tenant to insure with a specified company or with some other insurer approved by the landlord.In such a case, under common law, the landlord has an absolute right to withhold approval without giving a reason, and to demand related costs and expenses - legal and surveyors' fees - where approval is given.

This can cause difficulties when the terms of the tenant's mortgage may require insurance with an insurer selected or approved by the mortgagee (as happened in Tredegar v Harwood).

A solicitor acting for a purchaser when such a conflict is likely to arise, should make sure that the insurer is selected before exchange of contracts, otherwise the client may be held to ransom by an exploitative landlord.The position has been ameliorated somewhat by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended) which provides that where the tenancy of a dwelling house requires the tenant to insure with insurers nominated by the landlord, the tenant has the right to challenge the landlord's choice of insurers if the County Court or a leasehold valuation tribunal (LVT) is satisfied that the insurance which is available from the nominated insurer is unsatisfactory in any respect, or that the premiums payable are excessive.

The court or a LVT may order the landlord to nominate another insurer which will satisfy the requirements specified in the order.

Arguably, a land lord who refuses to consent to a change of insurer or demands an excessive fee for doing so, will be deemed to have nominated an insurer so that the provisions apply.

It has yet to be decided whether a nomination which causes a breach of the terms of the tenant's mortgage is unsatisfactory in some respect for the purposes of the provisions.Retrospective consent to alterationsA lease of residential property will also almost invariably contain a covenant by the tenant against carrying out alterations without first obtaining the landlord's consent and perhaps without first submitting plans (and paying a fee or the landlord's expenses of employing a surveyor).

Again, it is not unusual to discover on a change of ownership that some alteration - for example, an extension to build a conservatory or loft - has been carried out without consent.Here the tenant is in a much weaker position but if an alteration has the effect of improving the comfort, convenience and beneficial use of the premises from the point of view of the tenant (see FW Woolworth & Co Ltd v Lambert [1937] Ch 37) - and few alterations will not satisfy that condition - a covenant by a tenant prohibiting the alteration without the consent of the landlord will be caught by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 subs.19(2) which implies into the covenant a proviso that such consent must not be unreasonably withheld, notwithstanding any express provision to the contrary.

However, the proviso allows the landlord to require as a condition of such licence or consent, the payment of a reasonable sum in respect of any damage to, or diminution in the value of, the premises or any neighbouring premises of the landlord; and of any legal or other expenses properly incurred in connection with such licence or consent.

This provides scope for exploitation by the landlord.However, if the covenant specifies a fee the landlord cannot claim more because he or she will be deemed to have quantified the expenses in advance.

Moreover, a covenant which provides expressly that consent is not to be unreasonably withheld is not an opportunity for the landlord to claim additional expenses because it merely repeats the position in general law.

The landlord will be entitled to claim only legal or other expenses properly incurred, pursuant to subs.19(2) of the 1927 Act.In addition, more often than not landlords will claim that their interest in the property has been damaged and demand a substantial sum by way of compensation.

This should be resisted.

In the case of long leases of dwelling houses at nominal or low rents.

The damage to a landlord's interest will be nominal and in some cases there will be improvement.

If the landlord insists, as a condition of giving consent, on payment of expenses and a sum by way of compensation which is excessive, it can be treated as withholding consent unreasonably.

Unfortunately, that is unlikely to satisfy a purchaser and the tenant is left with the choice of attempting to negotiate the landlord down, or of applying to the court for a declaration that consent is being withheld unreasonably.

Too often, because the tenant is under pressure - to exchange contracts, for example - the latter course is impracticable.What can be done?Exploitative ground landlords - and their solicitors - usually work on the assumption that the tenants have no legal knowledge, do not have the means to engage in litigation and are not eligible for legal aid:(a) many of the tactics can be countered by a robust approach and strong nerves.

There is simply nothing that a landlord can do t o compel payment of a charge he or she is not entitled to and if, for example, the landlord refuses to accept notice of a dealing because it is not accompanied by an unwarranted fee and starts proceedings, the landlord will lose and will have to pay the costs.

If the landlord refuses to accept rent he or she should be warned that the tenant will commence an action for a declaration and pay the rent into court, requiring the landlord to pay the costs.(b) the tactics of such landlords require to be given publicity and the local papers would probably welcome the opportunity of a story which could include the advice that anyone receiving what they regard as unwarranted demands should see a solicitor or go to a citizens advice bureau.

Such publicity, while often effective, may affect the marketability of long leasehold properties in the area.(c) when the landlord's solicitors demand payment from tenants relying on dubious law, it could be a matter for a reference to the Law Society.

Sometimes the demands may be on the borderline of what is legal.

There may be difficulties in proving intent but to attempt to extract money from others by threats which misrepresent the law is a form of deception or even menaces.(d) although it may seem unfair to vendors, any solicitor acting for a purchaser who intends to purchase a property of which this kind of landlord is the reversioner, is under a duty to warn the client of possible demands for unjustifiable payments and other difficulties.

The solicitor might advise, for example, that in a case where the vendor has been in occupation for upwards of five years, the transaction should only proceed on the basis that the vendor enfranchises under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.