WASTING TIME

The problems and unnecessary work caused by the application of the Civil Procedure Rules to applications for a new lease under the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 are owing entirely to the defective drafting of that Act.

The Act lays down an immutable time limit of four months for the start of proceedings.In 1992, 1 gave evidence to the Law Commission, which was conducting a 'periodic review of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1954 Part 2' and suggested that the Act should be amended by the simple addition of the words 'or such longer time as the parties may agree in writing' after the reference to four months.

The commission accepted my views.

Since November 1992, when the report was presented to the House of Commons, it has lain gathering dust.

The situation now is worse than it was then, because previously all that had to be done was to issue a summons and apply for an open hearing date.

That was bad enough and a total waste of costs, time and court facilities, but now both sides have to prepare at the outset for a trial which in all probability will not happen.It is a complete mystery as to why the recommendation and draft clause has not been tacked on to some Bill or other (for example, the Landlord & Tenant (Covenants) Act).I urge colleagues every time they are forced to issue an application for a renewal of the lease to write a separate protest to the Lord Chancellor's Department about the waste of time and their client's costs and the waste of court time.

If the LCD gets enough complaints, maybe it will be galvanised into activity.

HL Miller, HL Miller & Co, London