Recovering rent arrears across borders turns on one question before any other: can the tenant still be reached, and does it have anything worth taking. Landlords, sub-lessors and property funds bring us leases where the tenant has stopped paying and moved operations to another country. We assess the file before we draft a single letter.
Most files reach us in one of two shapes. A corporate tenant defaults on a fixed lease and relocates its trading entity abroad, leaving a local landlord with an empty unit and an unpaid ledger. Or a sub-lessee under a services or logistics agreement stops paying rent on warehouse, office or retail space once its own contract with its principal ends. Either way, the arrears usually cover several months before the landlord accepts that a polite reminder will not work.
The pattern that matters commercially is whether the tenant kept a footprint anywhere enforceable. A tenant that dissolved its local branch but still trades under the same group name elsewhere is a workable claim. A tenant that vanished into a jurisdiction with no traceable assets is not, however strong the lease. This is the distinction our cross-border debt recovery assessment is built to draw early, before cost is committed to a claim that cannot be collected.
A rent arrears file stands or falls on paper the landlord already holds, not on anything we go and find. The lease itself, signed and dated, is the starting point. A rent ledger or statement of account showing exactly which periods remain unpaid carries more weight than a round total. Formal demand letters, any termination notice served on the tenant, and correspondence in which the tenant acknowledged the debt or proposed a payment plan all strengthen the position.
Proof of occupation and handover – meter readings, keys returned, an inspection report – matters where a tenant disputes the period claimed. Landlords chasing arrears alongside other exposure, such as commercial claims for unpaid invoices against the same corporate group, should gather both files together, since the debtor picture is often the same entity trading under different contracts. We also confirm, before advising, how much time remains to bring the claim; a limitation period applies, and its length depends on the jurisdiction and the type of lease, so we check the applicable rule and any point at which it may have been interrupted, including through the limitation periods that govern the relevant contract, before committing to a route.
Tenants rarely deny the lease outright. They dispute the amount. A common line is set-off against alleged disrepair, unperformed maintenance, or service charges the tenant claims were never justified. Another is a challenge to the termination itself: that notice was defective, that the landlord re-let the space before the tenant vacated, or that the tenant was locked out before the term expired.
A third defence, more procedural than factual, is a challenge to the forum: an argument that the claim belongs in the tenant's home court rather than where the property sits. Each of these defeats a claim only where the landlord's paper trail is thin. A signed lease, a clean ledger and a documented handover close off most of them before they reach a judge.
The sequence starts with the assessment: lease reviewed, ledger checked, tenant's current standing and any traceable assets confirmed. Where a pre-legal step is appropriate, a formal demand is issued through a registered provider in the tenant's jurisdiction rather than by us directly, and the landlord decides at that point whether to proceed to litigation or to write the balance off.
Before that decision, we often recommend a targeted asset check on the tenant, so the landlord is not litigating against a shell. If litigation follows and a judgment is obtained, the practical question becomes whether that judgment can be enforced where the tenant now holds assets; that is a separate exercise, covered in our work on enforcing a foreign judgment, and it should be assessed before the claim is filed, not after.
Yes, where the tenant still holds traceable assets or continues trading under an identifiable name. Where it has no footprint anywhere enforceable, a judgment brings little beyond the paper itself.
A signed lease, a clear rent ledger, any termination notice, and proof of the handover or occupation period in dispute. Correspondence in which the tenant acknowledged the debt strengthens the file considerably.
Only if the cost of the route is proportionate to what can realistically be recovered. We say so plainly during the assessment, before any formal step is taken.
A lease that a tenant walked away from does not become easier to collect on with time; the tenant's assets move, its business changes name, and the file that looked simple in month one becomes speculative by month six. The real risk on these claims is rarely the debtor's defence – it is choosing litigation, a demand letter, or write-off before anyone has checked which route the facts actually support.