No sublet clause on lease

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

  • Maz1982
    replied
    It sounded absolute when the conveyancer read it to me and made it clear a deed of variation would be the only option

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    There is a significant difference between an absolute and qualified prohibition.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maz1982
    replied
    Sorry my conveyancer has my lease at the moment and she read it out to me and she agreed it's definately a clause in the lease

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    What does the clause say?

    Leave a comment:


  • Maz1982
    replied
    Let's see what happens next week. Will keep you updated

    Leave a comment:


  • The Expert
    replied
    I am curious to know what the Freeholder will charge you for a Deed of Variation (you don't have to tell me). The last case I dealt with similar to yours, the Freeholder charged an extortionate sum of something in the region of £17,000 plus £2,000 for their Solicitors legal costs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maz1982
    replied
    They are not taking out any mortgage on the property as they are a cash buyer

    Leave a comment:


  • The Expert
    replied
    As a safeguard, request your Solicitor request of the buyers Solicitor specific written confirmation they require you to contact the Freeholder/Freeholders Solicitor in this regard, noting the fact that their client may be purchasing with the aid of a Buy to Let mortgage on a property which prohibits letting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maz1982
    replied
    Thank you for your help. Fingers crossed we find a solution

    Leave a comment:


  • The Expert
    replied
    You can certainly ask your Solicitor to contact your Freeholders Solicitor and request a Deed of Variation, but be prepared that they may ask for a ridiculous premium for the same. I've encountered situations like this before, and they can demand any price! Be warned. Also, do bear in mind that once you write to them and notify your Freeholder and/or their Solicitors that you are selling your flat and your buyer will not be residing in it but rather looking to let such, you may be putting your Freeholder on notice of a potential breach of covenant, and if your buyer takes the view that they will buy anyway and they live in the property for a while and then let it out, they will have to be made aware that you have notified your Freeholder (perhaps with their instruction) and any indemnity insurance policy for breach of leasehold covenants would be invalid. Also, having a Buy to Let Mortgage will be an issue for them as if they were forced by the Freeholder to move back into the flat (thus stopping the letting) they would inevitably be in breach of their mortgage conditions!. Good Luck

    Leave a comment:


  • Maz1982
    replied
    No I wasn't as they are a cash buyer and I wasn't aware of the clause in my lease until yesterday

    Leave a comment:


  • The Expert
    replied
    Hi Maz1982, were you not aware from the start when you accepted the offer from your Buyer that they were purchasing to let (Buy to Let) and not to live in (Residential)?

    Leave a comment:


  • Maz1982
    started a topic No sublet clause on lease

    No sublet clause on lease

    Hi all,

    I'm in the process of selling my leasehold flat. We were almost at the exchange stage and the freeholder has emailed our conyencer to let them no we have a no sublet clause in the lease. We were unaware of this at the time and the person looking to buy the flat is buying to rent. The other flats in our parade are all rented out but have different freeholders

    What are our options please as we really dont want to lose the buyer and the house were meant to be purchasing. I believe we can apply for a deed of variation but can the freeholder decline this?

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X