Lease - Level of detail to be covered

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sudy11
    started a topic Lease - Level of detail to be covered

    Lease - Level of detail to be covered

    Hello All !
    W.r.t a lease hold property and the obligations of the lessor in case of damage or destruction to the property by an insured risk (fire, earthquake etc.) , to what extent should the lease document cover the various scenarios around Lessors responsibility in rebuilding the property ?
    Should it be enough if a covenant on the lessor mentions that the lessor to rebuild the property with the money obtained from insurance or should the document also explicitly cover state other scenarios - e.g. where for some reason the lessor is not able to rebuild the property ?
    And if these negative scenarios are not explicitly mentioned in the lease then what should be done ?

    Can there be a case where the Lessor receives the money from the insurance and does not build the property ? What happens to the insurance money in that case...

    Any advise will be appreciated...

  • Sudy11
    replied
    Thanks for the reply.

    So the contradiction is there, or I would rather say an omission about the case where the Lessor has received the money from the insurance but he is not able to rebuild/reinstate the property for some reason not mentioned.
    So as per this lease tenants might not stand to get anything since the outcome of the litigation is never certain.
    Thanks again for all the help on the advise !

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    On the basis of the information supplied:

    Whether there is a contradiction depends on the wording. If the form is "the landlord will do x except in the case of y" then there is no contradiction.

    If there is a contradiction it should be resolved in favour of the tenant, but the outcome of litigation is never certain.

    If there is no contradiction the provision is unreasonable.The landlord gets all the insurance money and the tenant has no flat or compensation - even worse, if he has a mortgage he still owes the mortgage money.

    This is not a case where you can ask the landlord to say what he thinks the clause means. Whilst any assertion appearing to give comfort may bind the present landlord it will probably not bind any new landlord.

    Whether there is a contradiction or not, if this is an existing lease no one should buy the flat without a deed of variation. If it is a lease yet to be granted it should not be accepted unless amended.

    If the lease has already been granted the present tenant would be advised to take out back up insurance if he cannot secure a deed of variation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sudy11
    replied
    Is it because there is a contradiction ?
    Since under the Lessor’s agreement it does say that the lessor has to rebuild and reinstate the building forthwith the money received from the insurance.
    Should the landlord be asked to clarify these points before...

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Originally posted by Sudy11 View Post
    The lease I am evaluating explicitly says that in event the Block maintained property is impossible of repair rebuilding or reinstatement subject to the covenants of the Management company who maintains the building, then the money from the insurance will belong to the Lessor.
    That has to be unacceptable to a tenant and any lender.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sudy11
    replied
    Thanks for the response !
    I am evaluating a statement in the lease (for the purpose of buying a flat) and awaiting a decision of a solicitor around the same...
    As with other leases where there are covenants on the Lesse, Lessor and the management company.
    The lease I am evaluating explicitly says that in event the Block maintained property is impossible of repair rebuilding or reinstatement subject to the covenants of the Management company who maintains the building, then the money from the insurance will belong to the Lessor.

    However under the covenants of the Lessor, it also explicitly states that to cause all monies received by the virtue of insurance to be forthwith expended in reinstating and rebuilding the block maintained property and any deficiency in the money to rebuild and reinstate to come off Lessors own monies.

    Lease doesnt mention a case where the Lessor is not able to rebuild or reinstate (like for example the planning permission not received) and in that case what happens to the money he receives from insurance...
    Could this be a show stopper in proceeding further with the purchase or for a lender to lend money against mortgage ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    As with many clauses, there are various possibilities with or without refinements. Usually you find either an unqualified obligation on the landlord to repair or rebuild in the case of damage by an insured risk or an obligation on the landlord to apply the insurance monies to repair or rebuild. The former encourages the landlord to make sure the insurance cover is adequate, but leaves the landlord exposed if the insurance monies are insufficient. The latter requires the lease to provide for who pays the shortfall and in what circumstances.

    It is not a bad idea to have a long stop provision in case it proves impossible to rebuild, for example because planning permission cannot be obtained. The clause will usually provide for the insurance monies to be divided between the landlord and tenant in the same proportion as their respective interests, any dispute to be referred to arbitration.

    The important thing is to ensure that the basic provisions are well-drafted before turning the attention to the refinements which cover remote possibilities. It is also important to ensure that the repair clauses, insurance clauses and insurance policy dovetail neatly.

    Are you drafting the lease or just considering possibilities before instructing a conveyancer?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

  • Fence on either side who own's which
    ash72
    Is there a golden rule, if the deeds to not specify, who owns and maintains the right or left hand side of the fencing? It's a mid terrace house, I always under the impression that the right hand side of the property was your's to maintain. I tried to look on an aerial view and there's five houses in...
    15-10-2019, 14:55 PM
  • Boundary dispute
    Pilavas719
    Hello All,

    Thanks for setting this forum up.
    I have been going through a boundary dispute since I moved into our current property a little background below:

    We moved in on the 12th of July 2016 and the following day my next door neighbor tried to moved the fence 12...
    14-10-2019, 14:06 PM
  • Reply to Boundary dispute
    Pilavas719
    Thanks Lawcrancher, I have visited Jon Maynard's website I even had the pleasure of booking an hour consultation with him, he completely agreed that my neighbour was in the wrong. I have probably read everything online about boundary disputes already. I have come across this forum today and thought...
    14-10-2019, 16:04 PM
  • Reply to Boundary dispute
    Lawcruncher
    The following statements are usually true:

    · If a house owner wants to build an extension and it would be handy if the neighbour's fence was in the wrong place and could be moved towards the neighbour, the fence is in the right place and the boundary follows the fence.

    ·
    ...
    14-10-2019, 15:56 PM
  • Reply to Boundary dispute
    Pilavas719
    A line drawn at the 50% mark on the title plan with no measurements has an accuracy of a meter, Since the title plan holds no ground to demarcate the boundary line render's it useless in my case. we are disputing 3.6 meter of land between our properties where I have 2.2m and my neighbour has 1.4m. ...
    14-10-2019, 15:54 PM
  • Reply to Boundary dispute
    AndrewDod
    Did the neighbour object to the trespass of by the fence previous to your ownership? How was this dispute resolved? Whilst boundary plans are not definitive, a line drawn at the 50% mark in relation to actual structures is at the 50% mark.

    How do you actually know that the neighbour has...
    14-10-2019, 15:44 PM
  • Reply to Boundary dispute
    JK0
    You might want to craftily find out when your neighbour moved in. If the fence was in its present position then, I can't see he has a leg to stand on.
    14-10-2019, 15:29 PM
  • Reply to Boundary dispute
    Pilavas719
    I thought you can't base the position of a boundary on a title plan given the general boundary rule. Surely If this is what the LR practice you can't just move a boundary based on plans alone. If what you're saying is right I can still make an adverse possession claim and claim the land with proof that...
    14-10-2019, 15:15 PM
  • Reply to Boundary dispute
    Pilavas719
    Thanks JK0, The previous owner has given me a sworn statement to support this. I know the surveyor we will appoint will be RICS and follow certain protocols....
    14-10-2019, 15:05 PM
  • Reply to Boundary dispute
    JK0
    You need a statutory declaration from the previous owner (at your expense) that the fence has been where it is during his ownership. Then the clock is not reset.
    14-10-2019, 15:00 PM
Working...
X