The maybe why of vacant units…

There is a long list of reasons why a landlord might not be keen on letting an empty #highstreet unit.

I promised in comments when the previous post about the (high) percentage of visibly vacant units that have no agent involved in trying to get them back into use published on LinkedIn, to set out a list of potential factors.

Take a look. If nothing else it might help with perceptions. We often hear this debate start with statements like: “the landlord ought to…” or “surely it’s better if…”. But you’ll see that some on the list seem sensible from a financial, commercial perspective. It’s maybe the choice you’d make if you were the owner.

And that’s another reason we so strongly believe in the ‘place partnership’ approach to tackling vacancy, to help overcome these barriers.

So why might a letting not suit the landlord…?

It may not work with their loans / leverage agreements.
The current market rent may be below what was being paid by the previous tenant.
The covenant of the would-be occupier may not be attractive.
They may have other aspirations for the building e.g. It may be a long-term investment or development site.
The cost to let (including making it fit to occupy, legal fees etc) may be prohibitive.
Their income target may be being met by other e.g. upstairs tenants in the building.
Upper floor tenants might object to certain ground floor uses.
A deal here may negatively impact agreements with other tenants in the same town / city.
The building is listed so (in most places) they pay no business rates when it’s empty thus reducing their incentive to let.
They may have had bad experiences with tenants previously.
They may have a tenant that’s left but is still paying rent on an unexpired lease.
And so on…