Clause in lease seems to have put a spanner in the works for BTL remortgage

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

    Clause in lease seems to have put a spanner in the works for BTL remortgage

    I own a flat which has an unexpired lease. I am in the process of remortgaging the flat. I received a mortgage offer from a lender. However, I had only nineteen years left on my lease; The lender requires all properties on which it lends, to have a minimum of twenty years remaining on the lease.

    The lender's offer was therefore, subject to me having the lease on my flat extended. I contacted the solicitors acting on behalf of the owners of the freehold, and began the process of extending the lease as per the requirement of the lender.

    However, the new mortgage is a BTL (buy-to-let) mortgage, (the current mortgage being a straight forward residential mortgage) - and there is a clause in the lease that specifies that the property can only be let for three years in any contiguous four year period. I'm not sure what the motivation for this clause is, as my next door neighbour for instance has let his flat out since the very early 2000's, and many of the flats in the building are not owner occupied - for several years. The lender has asked the wording of the that clause in the lease specifying a three year limit to be removed (or changed).


    I have the following questions:
    1. What is the likelihood that the solicitors acting on behalf of the freehold, can change the wording to suit the lender - given that s good proportion of the flats in the building are tenanted (and have been so for numerous years exceeding the stipulated four)?
    2. In the (hopefully unlikely) event that this is indeed an impasse, I will have to make another mortgage application after the lease has been extended. Am I correct in assuming that this issue (where the owners of the freehold got involved), only arose because the lease had to be extended? If that is the case, then a backup strategy would be (in the event that we have come to an impasse), simply to complete the lease extension and then reapply after the lease has been extended. I would like clarification, if matters are as I have described above.
    Last edited by TakashiJo; 06-01-2019, 15:00 PM. Reason: Clarified title text, also added relevant tags

    #2
    I imagine the purpose was to allow owner occupiers to let out the property if they had to work away from home, whilst not allowing sub-letting to be the primary use.

    If you get caught out other than in the initial check by the mortgagee's solicitor, you may find it very difficult to get a mortgage in future!

    The difficulty of changing the lease will depend on whether the lease promises the benefit of that covenant to other leaseholders, and whether the freeholder believes that lots of sub-lets increase or decrease the value of the property. There may be an estoppal issue, but I don't feel confident to consider that.

    Comment


      #3
      I have seen an "only be let for three years in any contiguous four year period" provision before and am not sure what it is supposed to achieve.What you need to do is to tell your conveyancer what you want - presumably the ability to sublet on short leases without having to obtain consent or pay any fees - and get him to negotiate for it.

      Comment


        #4
        Thanks guys, for the feedback. Here is some further information: I own a share of the freehold (I find the terminology confusing), and the lease is being extended to 999 years.

        I don't know if this additional information is material to the case or not, but just thought I'd provide it as well.

        Comment


          #5
          Could you please clarify the emboldened parts of the following statements?

          Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
          If you get caught out other than in the initial check by the mortgagee's solicitor, you may find it very difficult to get a mortgage in future!

          Originally posted by leaseholder64 View Post
          The difficulty of changing the lease will depend on whether the lease promises the benefit of that covenant to other leaseholders, and whether the freeholder believes that lots of sub-lets increase or decrease the value of the property. There may be an estoppal issue, but I don't feel confident to consider that.
          Thanks

          Comment


            #6
            If you try to defraud a mortgage provider, you can end up on a black list of people who cannot obtain mortgages. Whilst it might not meet the definition of fraud, failing to tell them something that might cause them to refuse the mortgage doesn't seem a way to look good to them.

            If the solicitor checks the lease and discovers the issue, they haven't really been misled.

            If the lease says that the freeholder covenants to enforce similar covenants in other leases, your lease cannot be changed without changing all the other leases. Otherwise the freeholder would be putting themselves in a position where you could cause them to breach the terms of the other leases.

            In some circumstances, consistent failures to enforce a term in a contract may make it impossible to enforce that term. I'm not confident that I can say whether or not that would apply in your case.

            Comment


              #7
              leaseholder64 Thank you very much for the clarification. This is exactly what I thought you meant.

              As a complete aside (apart from the obvious Yellow Pages / Google search) can you recommend a procedure to find/select a solicitor who can assist with the lease extension only?

              Are there online services (such as conveyancing direct), that provide a no-frills legal service I could use just for the lease extension?

              Last but not the least (I know this is a bit of a "how long is a piece of string" question), but given how knowledgeable you appear on the subject matter at hand (I have also checked your previous answers on this site), what is the ballpark figure I should expect to pay for a solicitor acting on my behalf, for the lease extension (I'm taking about a bare minimum service of corresponding with the freeholder's solicitors, and not asking them to change the terms of the lease - which I thing would be impossible, since the same lease affects all properties in the building).

              Thanks

              Comment


                #8
                If your lease is being extended to 999 years then isn't this being done as a benefit to all 'freeholders' and will be done at an all inclusive rate for all the leases together?

                Why then do you need a separate solicitor to extend your lease?

                If enough leaseholders want more freedom to let their properties then you may find a majority move in this direction can be pushed through. You need to talk to the other leaseholders about it.

                Comment


                  #9
                  When I first purchased the flat, I had the option of buying a share of the freehold. I delayed on exercising that option, until now. I daresay, there are others who may have not as yet, exercised that option too.


                  Regarding the other points you make, I am not a lawyer, and to be honest, I find the whole process unnecessarily complicated and baffling.

                  The conveyancing solicitors acting on my behalf informed me that they only do conveyancing. I was under the impression that they were also going to work on the lease extension part - since the loan offer was contingent on the lease extension.

                  To be frank, (as a lay man), I don't even know what "working on the lease extension" means. As far as I understand it (the legal part of it) that is - I have already dealt with the tax implications), it is simply receiving the documents for the lease from the lessor, and ensuring that the term is now indeed, 999 years.

                  I have had to pay the lessor's solicitor's an undertaking fee for this, and the whole thing seems like "rent seeking behaviour" for what is effectively, checking that the lease has indeed been extended to 999 years - which I could do myself; yet, I can only do this through a solicitor.

                  I don't mean to cast any aspersions on the profession, but I really don't I see why so many solicitors are involved - yet, here we are.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Can anyone recommend a procedure (apart from the obvious Yellow Pages / Google search) to find/select a solicitor who can assist with the lease extension only?

                    Last but not the least (I know this is a bit of a "how long is a piece of string" question), what is the ballpark figure I should expect to pay for a solicitor acting on my behalf, for the lease extension ?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      It is worth asking the other leaseholders who they used as the draft wording would already be in place. It may well be in the form of a deed of variation that sits on top of the existing lease. They could perhaps use this opportunity to also vary the covenant restricting continuous letting.

                      Comment

                      Latest Activity

                      Collapse

                      • Solicitors Negligence Question
                        Freddie thumb
                        I'm read these forums for a little while and just signed up to ask a quick question. I'm not sure if this is 8n 5he right place.

                        So I bought a property in 2008 and discovered that the Title to my property was defective in 2015. Basically there was a piece of land on the title of my property...
                        12-08-2019, 08:40 AM
                      • Reply to Solicitors Negligence Question
                        Lawcruncher
                        Are you saying that the Land Registry plan does not match the apparent boundaries of the land you occupy? If so, is the problem that you occupy land not shown as yours on the plan or that a neighbour occupies land shown as yours on the plan?
                        16-08-2019, 09:46 AM
                      • Missing Freeholder and Head Lease questions
                        deb_hyp
                        Hi,
                        I'm hoping one of you lovely wise people will be able to offer advice.

                        I own a leasehold flat and the RTM Company (of which I am a director) would like to purchase the freehold. The flat is one of 5 in a converted building. I've tried everything I can to track down the freeholder...
                        08-08-2019, 14:22 PM
                      • Reply to Missing Freeholder and Head Lease questions
                        Gordon999
                        The Land Registry records for the freeholder title for your address , will show name of current title holder. You can visit the Land Registry Online website and buy and download a copy of the freehold title for £3 by credit card..

                        If the title holder is a company, you can visit Companies...
                        12-08-2019, 07:31 AM
                      • Reply to Missing Freeholder and Head Lease questions
                        deb_hyp
                        Thanks Gordon999.
                        There have been no demands for ground rent since 1987, despite efforts to track down freeholder/lessee. The land registry has no records of the freeholder either. All we have is the one conveyance that shows the freehold was sold to a company in 1985, but the company has no records...
                        11-08-2019, 16:54 PM
                      • Address wrong on Land Registry Title. A little rant. and request for empathy.
                        Logical.Lean
                        We are buying a property built in 1847, with some interesting history, and are somewhat frustrated by the both our own solicitor and the vendor and their solicitor.

                        Since having our offer accepted, on a house with no chain, either end, it has been 16 weeks, but the last 4 weeks have been...
                        06-08-2019, 18:50 PM
                      • Reply to Address wrong on Land Registry Title. A little rant. and request for empathy.
                        tatemono
                        yeah... seems to me that this is best left until after you purchase. You are relying on someone else changing details on a deed that, had you not demanded changes, you would now hold title to and be able to make yourself.
                        11-08-2019, 05:11 AM
                      • Duplicate contracts
                        happypete
                        Hello,
                        Newbie here, hoping someone can help. we are buying a new house and have signed the contract but our solicitor has sent another copy asking us to sign, When we queried it we were told it was requested by the the builders' solicitor. Does anyone know if this is normal? Thanks, Peter
                        09-08-2019, 09:11 AM
                      • Reply to Duplicate contracts
                        happypete
                        Thanks Andrew, My solicitor is saying it is simply a duplicate and we were asked not to date the first one so that it could be dated at exchange. I'm wondering if they have made a mistake and are not admitting it.
                        09-08-2019, 15:33 PM
                      • Reply to Duplicate contracts
                        AndrewDod
                        Have any words changed? Even one. If you do sign you should insist on dating per the original form (assuming the form is identical) and annotating your signature to say what happened. If they don't like it... well they can explain why they need it. A contract has a particular date....
                        09-08-2019, 11:04 AM
                      Working...
                      X