When is it reasonable to withhold consent to sublet?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    When is it reasonable to withhold consent to sublet?

    Where there is a qualified restriction on subletting e.g. 'not without prior written consent, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld', when is it reasonable to withhold consent?

    If your last lot of tenants were a pain in the arse to all and sundry?


      I would say only the courts could answer that, but, I'd suggest some reasons might be:

      - tenants have refused to enter into a deed to obey the ASB covenants in the lease, and to ensure their sub-tenant do;

      - tenancy agreement gives the tenants more rights than their landlord is able to give them, under the lease;

      - tenancy agreement withholds rights that the lack of which will cause problems (e.g. no use of garage) or resentment;

      - tenants have ASB notices or criminal convictions in relation crime local to where they lived, or arson convictions anywhere;

      - any reason that would cause the building insurer to impose higher premiums;

      - HMO use where the lease says single family residence;

      - partial sub-let where the lease requires the whole to be sub-let.


        Hmmm. I posed the question with my RMC Director hat on.

        Some of my fellow Directors (all of whom reside at the development) say that they are fed up with the high turnover of occupants due to there being so many BTL leaseholders at the development. I should explain that there are 44x flats in total and only 8 of these are actually lived in by their owners. The rest of the flats are sublet by their owners. The other RMC Directors wish to reduce the number of flats that are sublet by at least half and wish to start withholding consent to sublet until they reach that magic number. Their reasons are increased insurance costs, anti-social behaviour, lack of community feel etc.

        As a BTL'er I admit to feeling a little conflicted on this one. Has anyone ever sued because they have had consent to sublet withheld?


          Its quite a normal situation for blocks of flats in the London area where flats are 20% owner occupied and 80 % are BTLs.

          It means the walls in communal hallways need to be painted every 3-4 years instead of 6-7 years .


            Originally posted by Lorimer View Post
            Their reasons are increased insurance costs, anti-social behaviour, lack of community feel etc.
            Rather similar to the reasons why landlord licensing is popular with councils, even though here you will get plenty of people here who deny the validity.

            I would say the cat is out of the bag and the block has been irrevocably lost to owner occupation. I think the only thing they could do is to use any clause about not increasing insurance to surcharge landlords for the insurance, ask to see references and reject anyone with hints of anti-social behaviour, and require tenants to directly covenant to obey the behaviour rules for the estate. Proving the uplift insurance costs may be difficult.

            I'd expect any landlord to challenge a refusal on the grounds of a 50% owner occupation policy and probably win if more specific reasons couldn't be given.

            I'd also suggest that the section 257 figure of more than 1/3rd not owner occupied probably better reflects when the sense of community will be lost.

            As a landlord, albeit in another place, you should probably be encouraging the landlords to engage more with the community, but I think you will find that the landlords have even less sense of community with each other than their tenants do, and probably have no idea who the other landlords are.


            Latest Activity


            • Tracing Freeholder
              by cjramona
              Hi, I am new to the forum and sorry for jumping in but cannot find an answer that helps through the search function. I accepted an offer on my leasehold flat 2 months ago and I thought was close to exchange but the buyers solicitors are asking for my freeholder details. I renewed the lease in 2010...
              22-09-2020, 13:06 PM
            • Reply to Tracing Freeholder
              by cjramona
              sadly not no. She’s freeholder in name only really. We insure and maintain the property ourselves. I’ve now tasked a company to try and trace her - she may have passed away I guess as she bought the fteehold in 1986. I renewed the lease in 2010 so it’s fine until 2155!...
              24-09-2020, 08:18 AM
            • S168
              by Anna1985
              How crazy would it be to apply to the tribunal as litigant in person to ask them to determine a breach of lease re property disrepair ( the responsibility is on leaseholders, not freeholder) ?

              25-08-2019, 18:30 PM
            • Reply to S168
              by sgclacy
              When you make the application under Section 168 (4) the Tribunal will request that you notify any mortgagee who has an interest in the flat to which you are taking action against.

              Needless to say the mortgagee will take the matter very seriously indeed and will appoint solicitors to protect...
              24-09-2020, 07:22 AM
            • Responsibility of window frames
              by charlie8899
              Hello - I hope someone can help. I own a new build flat and have a faulty window that needs replacing. This will be quite costly and requires erecting scaffolding. I was surprised to hear from the building management company that windows are the responsibility of the leaseholder. This doesn't seem right...
              23-09-2020, 08:05 AM
            • Reply to Responsibility of window frames
              by charlie8899
              Thanks for all your replies. One last comment, would the fact the plan on my lease clearly excludes the windows as part of my demise be a factor? (see attached). The lease also states that service charge is to cover "the structure and exterior of the Building". Wouldn't windows be considered...
              24-09-2020, 07:00 AM
            • Reply to S168
              by Anna1985
              I think I would be soon, although the application would be made in joint freeholder names
              23-09-2020, 18:58 PM
            • Reply to Responsibility of window frames
              by Anna1985
              Your windows should be covered by Fensa for 10 years, the window installer is under obligation to get them fixed Once Fensa confirms it is their cost. Oh the miracles that could happen when the installer knows they are responsible for all associated costs good luvk
              23-09-2020, 18:56 PM
            • Reply to RTM Company secretary
              by scot22
              Is he owed money ? Ask him for detailed proof.

              Pay him ?
              23-09-2020, 17:40 PM
            • RTM Company secretary
              by Andrew Clark
              We wish to change the RTM Company Secretary from our legacy managing agent to our new managing agent, the legacy agent will not complete the online authentication code until he is paid what he says he is owed. Thoughts on ways around this
              23-09-2020, 08:02 AM