Signage and Communal Issues

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

    #16
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    To clarify:

    Are you saying that the sign in question was in position before the first lease was sold?
    So one thing I am not sure about the life of a lease. The date on the copy of the lease I have in my possession is dated Nov 2011. This is between the developer and the person that I bought the property from. I have never seen a copy of the lease that covered the my purchase which would be between the previous owner and I. I have always assumed that the names never changed it is just that fact that you have it in your possession and the completed TR1 form means you own the property. Am I right in this assumption?

    So we know that planing was granted around 2008/2009 and there is a version of street view in Mar 2009 where the property is going through the conversion and you can see it from the pictures. Neither sign is present. By the end of the year or early 2010 we believe the sign was errected.

    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    Was the sign erected by someone who no longer has an interest in the property in any way?
    So the sign was erected by the developer. Once the property was converted from a hotel to holiday apartments then we believe the sign was purchased. The developer then sold all the apartments to a group of three investors (who is one of the people who are on the name of my lease) The three investors then ran the development predominantly for holiday lets for 4 - 5 years. They then tried to sell the property as a going concern and when they were unable to they then sold each apartment of separately. Each apartment had to stay with the lettings business for 12 months and then after the last of the three investors sold their apartments the holiday letting business was sold/transferred to one of the new owners. This owner then maintains the sign and it is his business details on the sign.

    So one of the owners has been in contact with the developer to get him to write a letter to state that the clause which states no advertising was not intended for the main signs.

    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    Does the lease say (a) no advertising (b) no signs or (c) both?
    Both, it says no signs or notices or advertising outside of the apartment.

    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    If the sign is an advert what exactly does it advertise? The flats generally? An agent who deals with most of the flats? Something else?
    So the sign says the following (real details not used)

    Acme House Holiday Apartments

    "Winter lets available at a reduced rate"

    The telephone number of the Holiday Lettings Business that represents 6 of the 10 apartments

    The website address for the above business

    An AA sign and three pictures of various features of the development.


    Comment


      #17
      If the sign was put up by the original landlord then it belongs to the current landlord as it is part of the property (in fact it probably is anyway). No tenant can object to it (a) if it was there before the leases were granted simply, because it was there before the leases were granted (b) if it was erected later, because the tenants at the time agreed either expressly or impliedly by failing to object.

      It is accordingly a matter for the tenants to resolve wearing their landlords' hats. They need to have a meeting and vote on what to do.

      If I was chairing the meeting as an independent I would ask:

      · Does the sign prejudice those who object to it?
      · If the advertising parts of the sign were removed would those who do not object to it lose business?

      The question really is: How much of the letting arises from passing trade?

      Is there a compromise?

      Comment


        #18
        It is unclear from your posts how much involvement the management company has at the present time. You also say that you are a director of the management company and refer to an AGM which implies that it remains active.

        Who has appointed the managing agent? It ought to be the management company and the managing agent ought to accept instructions from the directors of the management company.

        The simplest option would be to call an Extraordinary General Meeting of members and raise the matter on the agenda for all members to decide.

        If you are acting within the terms of the lease and setting the regulations for the smooth running of the property, there would be no need to change the wording of the lease.

        Comment

        Latest Activity

        Collapse

        Working...
        X