Sub Letting Fees

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    I think the organisation in question is not a managing agent. They make money purely from acting as an agent for the freeholder for ground rent and administration charges. i don't think they manage the property.

    I suspect you have to think long and talk to your MP as it looks like they reckon they have found a loophole.

    However, this also shows the importance of reading leases carefully. To a greater or lesser extent, they tend to favour the freeholder.


      Thank you for your comments.

      If you are under a freeholder which never offered RFR and uses MA to demand excessive subletting consent fee , should leaseholders be co-operating to assist the freeholder or managing agent under GDPR ?

      "Companies that collect data on citizens in European Union (EU) countries will need to comply with strict new rules around protecting customer data by May 25. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is expected to set a new standard for consumer rights regarding their data, but companies will be challenged as they put systems and processes in place to comply.

      Compliance will cause some concerns and new expectations of security teams. For example, the GDPR takes a wide view of what constitutes personal identification information. Companies will need the same level of protection for things like an individual’s IP address or cookie data as they do for name, address and Social Security number".


        Write back with a £40 cheque and tenancy agreement. They can always refuse it.
        To save them chiming in, JPKeates, Theartfullodger, Boletus, Mindthegap, Macromia, Holy Cow & Ted.E.Bear think the opposite of me on almost every subject.


          I have a similar question about subletting fees and am looking for some advice

          I have reacently had a letter from the managing agent stating that I need to pay a regestration fee totalling £195 which is in fact made up of 2 payments which are new tenancy of £130 and a renewal charge of £65. They also want this payment retrospectively which could add up. I have read that the land tribunal have said that subletting fees should not be more than £40.

          Here sre the extracts from my lease with regards to subletting

          24. "Not at any time during the said term seperatly to assign transfer underlet or part with the possession or occupation of any part or parts of the demised premises but only to assign transfer u derlet or part with the possession thereof as a whole and not so to assign transfer underlet or part with the possession or occupation of the demised premises during the last seven years of the said term without the prior written consent of the lessor or its agents ( not to be unreasonably witheld )"

          25. "On the occupation of every assignment or transfer of the demised premises for the term hereby granted and in every underlease or tenancy agreement (which expression shall in this sub-clause include any immediate or derivative underlease or tenancy agreement but shall not include any underlease or tenancy agreement for a term not exceeding twenty years granted at a rack rent and wthout payment of fine) of the whole of the demised premises to insert a covenant by the assignee underleasee or tenant as the case may be directly with the management company to observe and perform the covenants on the part of the lessee and conditions contained in part two and three of eighth schedule of this lease"

          26. "Within one month of the date of every assignment transfer mortgage charge underlease or tenancy agreement (including any immediate or derivative underlease or tenancy agreement) of the whole or part of the demised premises for any term assignment of such underlease or grant of probate or letters of administration order of court or other matter disposing off or afeecting the demised premises or devolution of or transfer of title to the same to give or procure to be given to the solicitors for the leassore and separately to the solictors for the management company notice in writting of such disposition or devolution or transfer of title with full particulars thereof and in the case of an under lease (and if required by the leassore or the management company) a copy thereof for registration and retention by it and at the same time to produce or cause to be produced to them the document affecting or (as the case may be) evidencing such disposition or other matter to pay or cause to be paid at the same time to the leassore's solicitors and to the management company's solicitors such reasonable fee appropriate at the time of registration (but not being less than five pounds in each case) in respect of any such notice perusal of documents and registration affecting the demised premises"

          Do you belive that the land tribunal ruling applies
          To me and if so what would be my next step?

          The agents have also put the incorrect postcode on the letter for the flat as i found out when i was getting a copy of the lease from the land registry.



            How many unexpired years remaining on your lease ? Do you plan to sell your flat soon ?

            Here is my reading of the clauses you posted up :

            Clause 24 . Applies to last 7 years of the lease .

            Clause 25: This clause does not apply if you are subletting under AST agreement for 1 or 2 years. period.

            Clause 26 : This clause applies if you dispose of your flat by selling or some other means and the next owner must register with the solicitors of the freeholder and management company.

            So these clauses do not show you are required to pay £130 registration fee for new tenancy or £65 for tenancy renewal.

            So send a reply letter by registered post to the MA and say

            " I am not able to find any clause in the lease to require payment of £130 and £65 for registration and I request your principal ( the freeholder ) to send me a copy of the relevant page in the lease showing these fees are payable ".


              Clause 26 does apply to you. You can be charged at least £5, but any reasonable figure above that could be charged. Using RPI on the £5 would indicate the sort of amount the drafters considered reasonable.

              "underlease" is the key word, and, unlike the previous clause, there is no minimum duration before it applies.


                Reasonable fee means " reasonable" to both Lessor and Lessee.

                Since it mentions not less than £5 is reasonable , you are legally entitle to stick with paying this figure of £5.


                  Thank you for your comments.

                  I have 65 years left on the lease and I will possibly sell it within the next few years just because of the hassle.

                  So what your saying is i do need to pay not less than £5 and that they can set a fee realy to a figure that they consider reasonable.

                  Do I now pay them and contest this at First-tier Tribunal?


                    Reasonable should be a figure agreed by both sides or a figure fixed by FTT or UTT.

                    JKO 's figure of £40 is reasonable because it comes from a decision made by the UTT

                    The MA 's demand for £130 is "not reasonable" because it is not a figure in the terms of the lease or a figure set by the UTT

                    You should follow JKO's advice and offer £40 . Or you can resist and offer £5 which is a figure in the lease.

                    Then its up to the freeholder to decide if it should apply to the FTT to justify a higher payment from you.

                    You should tell your local MP the leasehold system is a hassle for every leaseholder and ask your MP to support the APPG in Parliament for reform.


                      Ok gordon999, how does this letter sound,

                      I am not able to find any clause in the lease to require payment of £130 and £65 for registration and I request your principal ( the freeholder ) to send me a copy of the relevant page in the lease showing these fees are payable.
                      I refer you to the ruling by the Upper Chamber (Lands Tribunal) of January 2012 where it was found that £40 was a reasonable amount to charge for registration fees. I therefore enclose a cheque for £40 plus vat.


                        Sounds OK to me.

                        I hope you realise that your lease has fallen below 70 years level and many high Street mortgage lenders will not offer mortgage to a prospective buyer. So if you understand the situation with the APPG in Parliament, you should keep pressing your MP to give support.


                          Thanks for your reply.
                          I understand that i need to extend my lease but am not aware of this situation with the APPG in parliament.


                            Press release ( 1 April 2018)

                            New crackdown on rogue agents to protect renters and leasehold homeowners

                            Private rented and leasehold sectors will receive stronger protection from unfair rogue letting and managing agents thanks to new government proposals.




                              In spite of being aware that I was renting out the property, [first company that I bought the property from] never requested a registration/consent fee or information about the tenants. As such, the CONTRACT WAS VARIED BY [first company I bought the property from]'s CONDUCT. In addition, [second company that bought the freehold] also did not request this information, in spite of my address being different to the property address. The third company requesting the money after 8 years of paying no fees did not do due diligence when they bought the freehold, as they could have seen that I did not pay any fees. Please note the following cases that support the variation of a contract by conduct, and the waiver of the right to rely on a written variation, inferred by conduct:

                              In Globe Motors Inc & others v TRW Lucas Varity Electric Steering Limited & another, the Court of Appeal clarified that even if an agreement contains a clause which provides that it can only be varied if the variation is in writing and is signed by all parties, the agreement can in fact be varied orally or by conduct. The Court of Appeal, Globe Motors, Inc and Others v TRW Lucas Varity Electric Steering Limited and Another (2016) EWCA 396 (decided on 20 April), confirmed the general principle in English contract law that parties have freedom to agree whatever terms they choose to undertake, and they can do so in a document, by word of mouth or by conduct. The fact that an agreement may include a clause requiring any variations to be in writing will not prevent parties from later making a new contract varying the contract by an oral agreement or by conduct. However, even where there is a no-variation clause, an oral variation or a variation by conduct could be effective where the evidence establishes - on the balance of probabilities - that the variation was agreed.

                              That position was then consolidated in a case later in 2016 between MWB Business Exchange Centres and Rock Advertising. Waiver is where one party voluntarily agrees to a request by the other not to insist on the precise performance method outlined in the contract. In these circumstances, it may be said that that party has waived its right to insist on performance in that particular way. A waiver can be oral or written, or can even be inferred by conduct - so a party can waive (or be taken to have waived) its right to rely on a written variation where the way it has acted after the contract has been varied by oral agreement.

                              In the recent case of Reveille Independent LLC v Anotech International (UK) Ltd [2015] EWHC 726 (Comm), the English Commercial Court has ruled that even where a contract clearly contains completion formality requirements, the conduct of the parties may amount to a waiver of those requirements and both acceptance of the offer and communication of acceptance.

                              I am inclined to agree with the person who wrote "disposal of the lease" or to "change of mortgage lender's charge on your lease".
                              And you are required to pay £100 +VAT if you are required to register, within 30 days , for a change of leaseholder or change of mortgage lender with a solicitor firm .
                              ...If you are subletting under a AST agreement, the AST does NOT affect your lease because it is not a disposal of your lease to the rental tenant or a change of mortgage lender's charge and so you do NOT pay £100.

                              The above points would indicate that no fee is due.
                              Finally, for others who might read this post or those who have paid and want to reduce the amount you are paying (and claim back some of your fees you have paid...

                              (SOLITAIRE) LIMITED Appellant and CHERRY LILIAN NORTON and other cases [2012]
                              The four appeal cases were brought by landlords to the Land Tribunal in February 2012 and they were heard together by George Bartlett, QC, president of the Upper Tribunal.
                              In all of these cases the leases made clear that the properties could not be rented out “without the prior written consent of the lessor and the management company, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed”.
                              The landlords had argued that preparing and registering the sub-letting agreement (licence) involved a considerable amount of work, but the tribunal was having none of this:

                              Mr Bartlett QC concluded:
                              “The appellants seek to justify the consent fee in terms that apply to all consents, and they do so by setting out a list of work that, it is claimed, their agents do. It looks to me to be a list of all the things that could conceivably be done in connection with the grant of consent rather than the things that would need to be done in a typical case or that were in fact done in the cases under consideration”
                              In all four cases the QC concluded: “that a fee greater than £40 plus VAT could not be justified, and I determine that this amount is payable.”
                              Now though, flat owners have this ruling on their side. The upper tier Land Tribunal has decreed that following four different cases brought before it, sub-letting fees should be limited to £40 plus VAT. So, in practice, any flat owner billed with an amount in excess of this should simply offer up that amount and quote the ruling, which should mean that that will be the end of the matter. These sub-letting fees vary quite a bit, but charges of £100 plus have been common up to this ruling


                              Latest Activity