Signage and Communal Issues

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

  • Milesunder
    started a topic Signage and Communal Issues

    Signage and Communal Issues

    Hopefully I can get some advice on an issue we are currently having at our development.

    There are currently 10 properties at our development and these were owned by three friends up until three years ago. They then decided to sale them and 9 different people bought them. Because the previous owners were friends they never used the management company and it laid dormant. However, since more parties are now involved the management company has been stood up and we now have a managing agent.

    where the issue arises is that the development is used for holiday lets. The previous owners erected a sign outside the property advertising the website and telephone number of the bookings line. When the new owners took over most stayed with the old holiday booking scheme whilst others elected to use other agencies for their bookings.

    One of the owners has claimed this isn’t fair and upon investigating the issue we have discovered there is a clause in everyone’s lease that states that advertising outside of each apartment is prohibited.

    we have sort legal advice and they appear to be agreeing that the sign needs to be changed to wayfinding only. However the owner of the holiday letting business is also one of the owners and has been quite opposed to changing the sign saying it is his and that it would be criminal damage if we removed it etc etc.

    We need to come to a conclusion on this pretty quickly and I am not sure if the wording in the lease is too vague regarding advertising.

    i did contact the lease advisory service and they did seem to suggesr that the Sign is in contrary to the lease and is technically in breach. I also assume that anyone who is connected to the sign is also technically in breach which are 6 properties.

    The lease advisory service did suggest changing the lease but but this option will obviously cost us to do this and also it will be a nightmare agreeing a approach to what signage is appropriate and we don’t end up with 20+ advertising placards which would bring the development down.

    Any advice would be appreciated.

    Just for clarity I am a Director of the management company and also a owner. All the properties have a long lease 900+ years and all the owner share a proportion of the freehold.

  • eagle2
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Milesunder
    replied
    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.


    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    To clarify:

    Are you saying that the sign in question was in position before the first lease was sold?

    Was the sign erected by someone who no longer has an interest in the property in any way?

    Does the lease say (a) no advertising (b) no signs or (c) both?

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Milesunder
    replied
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    The significance of each question:

    Who erected the sign?

    The covenant prohibits erecting signs. The person who is in breach is the person who erected the sign or ordered it to be erected. No one else is in breach.

    When was it erected?

    If it was erected more then 12 years ago the breach cannot be enforced under the law of limitation of actions. If erected a few years ago there is an argument that there has been too long a delay.

    Where exactly is it on the building?

    The covenant is specific that signs should not be erected "outside the apartment". If it was erected on the roof, for example, would it be "outside the apartment"?

    Do the leases of the flats include the exterior?

    If the parts on which the signs are erected do not belong to the person who erected the sign (that is were included in his lease) he does not own the sign, the landlord does. Accordingly only the landlord has the authority to remove it. If any sign is erected on the exterior of a flat and the exterior is included in the parts demised by the lease it still belongs to the landlord, but the tenant can remove it during the lease.
    Hi, And thanks for responding.

    So the person who erected the sign was the original developer and was the person who also arranged all the leases 10 years ago. The 'ownership' of the sign now falls to one of the other owners and who runs the holiday letting business. Whilst he hasn't shown us and documents to the transfer of ownership or any receipts for maintenance, they have had to change the telephone number on both signs in the last 18 months.

    The issue regarding this was raised 1 year ago but it has taken this long to get to this point due to the fact that the previous director was also the owner of the holiday letting business who recently resigned. I and my fellow director picked this up and we had to organise a new managing agent.

    In respect to "Where exactly is it" question are you saying that the "outside the apartment" does mean anywhere outside the main complex, in the grounds? There are a number of apartments that actually do open out onto the carpark directly and do not have a communal area.

    The sign frame apparently belongs to the holiday letting business. This is what the previous group of three owners have told him.

    The majority of owners are claiming that this element of the lease does not / should not relate to the erected sign. One of the owners has contacted the original developer (one man band) to ask for his interpretation of the lease and the owner has said that this is not what he had intended and his interpretation is different and he agrees with the majority of the owners. My question in relation to this is does this 'view' have any bearing on the situation we find ourselves in? Does this change anything? Or does hindsight have nothing to do with this? i.e. I bought a brand new red car and 1 year later I wish I had bought a blue one?

    I suppose the question is do we have a case to request this be removed without another chess move response that pulls the legal legs out from under us?

    If we are in the right and they don't agree then the next step I guess is 1st Tier Tribunal to decide?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    The significance of each question:

    Who erected the sign?

    The covenant prohibits erecting signs. The person who is in breach is the person who erected the sign or ordered it to be erected. No one else is in breach.

    When was it erected?

    If it was erected more then 12 years ago the breach cannot be enforced under the law of limitation of actions. If erected a few years ago there is an argument that there has been too long a delay.

    Where exactly is it on the building?

    The covenant is specific that signs should not be erected "outside the apartment". If it was erected on the roof, for example, would it be "outside the apartment"?

    Do the leases of the flats include the exterior?

    If the parts on which the signs are erected do not belong to the person who erected the sign (that is were included in his lease) he does not own the sign, the landlord does. Accordingly only the landlord has the authority to remove it. If any sign is erected on the exterior of a flat and the exterior is included in the parts demised by the lease it still belongs to the landlord, but the tenant can remove it during the lease.

    Leave a comment:


  • Milesunder
    replied
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    Who erected the sign?

    When was it erected?

    Where exactly is it on the building?

    Do the leases of the flats include the exterior?

    Who erected the sign? - Good question, This is something that we don't know. The owner of the Holiday Letting Business is saying that he owns the sign. He also owns one of the apartments.

    When was it erected? - Again this is something we don't know. I have taken a quick look through the planing portal and there was nothing on there. I have tried to look for any images of the hotel on the internet pre conversion to see if the sign was present but again I can't find anything. Interestingly I did come across google street view and found an image from March 2009 showing the conversion work and neither the front or back signs are present. I can only assume they were later additions.

    Where exactly is it on the building? - So there are two signs. The first, the frame is probably about 10 ft high and 3ft wide and then the inner sign is probably about 5 foot high. The top 3/5 is the name of the development and the bottom 2/5 contains some unrecognisable photos are the interiors, the telephone number and website address of the holiday lettings business. The underneath the sign is a sign that advertises winter lets. The rear sign is similar to a pub sign but with the development name, the telephone number and winter lets line.

    Do the leases of the flats include the exterior? - The leases make reference to the right of passage in the communal areas, the parking spaces, Not allowing for washing to be hung out of the balconies, Children aren't allowed to have fun outside. It also says this:

    "Not to affix to any window or door of the Apartment any external blinds or to affix or place any notices signs pictures legends or advertisements outside the apartment and not to place any name writing drawing signboard plate or placard of any kind on or in any window of the Apartment so as to be visible outside the Apartment."

    Why do you ask?

    Leave a comment:


  • Milesunder
    replied
    Originally posted by flyingfreehold View Post
    dont look for trouble! If this has been more or less working, and doing so over a period of time, Let it be, because inactivity has the effect of regulatising the apprent breach. Other fish to fry......
    Believe me my fellow Director and I are certainly not looking for trouble. The issue of the signs has basically arisen because of two owners that just do not get on. So unfortunately we are having to try and mediate the situation and the only thing we have as a rule book is the lease.

    When I spoke to the Lease Advisory Service. I asked them if the signage issue could be decided on by a vote at our AGM. She said it could be agreed but we would have to have all the leases rewritten to take this agreement into consideration. Then you open Pandora's box with questions such as who gets what, how many signs etc... We are trying to ensure that we set a precedent and that we can stand by our decisions should something else come along. Because if we give in on this point then other owners might push back on other points in the Lease and we end up in the Wild West.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gordon999
    replied
    If the building is used for business purposes , its no longer residential building and your building insurance cover may not be valid.

    If the lease says no advertising , you should serve general notice to every leaseholder to request removal of their signs in the window .

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Who erected the sign?

    When was it erected?

    Where exactly is it on the building?

    Do the leases of the flats include the exterior?

    Leave a comment:


  • flyingfreehold
    replied
    dont look for trouble! If this has been more or less working, and doing so over a period of time, Let it be, because inactivity has the effect of regulatising the apprent breach. Other fish to fry......

    Leave a comment:


  • Milesunder
    replied
    There is always the possibility of adding an additional sign but you then get into the situation of how many signs are to many signs. As I mentioned above the Lease Advisory service did say we could make a change to our lease to accommodate additional signage but we would be looking at £k’s to change it . I personally think this would be a nightmare as I don’t think anyone would ultimately be happy with the wording. This would then increase the amount it would cost and we just keep on going around and around in circles.

    The other thing we have to consider is that the management company is there for the running of the bricks and mortar not the marketing of the properties.

    we are trying to ensure that the development looks good and is well run. People will google the name of the development and find us that way.

    Leave a comment:


  • Macromia
    replied
    Originally posted by Milesunder View Post
    I was quite surprised as to the lack of punctuation in the Lease but the point I believe best supports our stance is
    Lack of punctuation is completely normal in leases (although, thankfully, modern leases seem to be tending to include punctuation).


    While others are far better placed to advise you on lease interpretation, I would tend to agree with you that the properties utilizing the sign are likely to be in breach of their leases.
    Are they willing to allow another sign to be erected to advertise the remaining holiday apartments? That would seem to be an acceptable compromise (still likely a breach of the leases, but it would be an agreement ignoring that particular clause).

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholder64
    replied
    It is normal for leases not to have punctuation.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

  • Freehold sale with 2 leases
    FSI1315
    Hello - I own a property that includes the entire freehold and leasehold to one of the 2 flats in the building. (I own the freehold my husband owns the leasehold).

    I am selling the property with the freehold.

    My buyer is getting nervous - and so am I about the transfer of the...
    23-05-2019, 14:33 PM
  • Reply to Freehold sale with 2 leases
    FSI1315
    Thank you so much for your reply. yes we live in the building and have done so for the past 5 years. This is very reassuring.

    So we don't even have to inflate the cost of the freehold it can be 100£....
    23-05-2019, 17:55 PM
  • Reply to Freehold sale with 2 leases
    DNM2012
    Your understanding is correct, the other leaseholder will never be able to accept the offer.

    Do you live in the property as your main residence and have done for more than 12 months? If so you don’t have to offer the right to first refusal anyway.

    Having said that your solicitor...
    23-05-2019, 17:02 PM
  • VAT charged twice on work?
    WAM
    If a one-off service charge has already had 20% VAT applied by the contractor, can an additional 20% VAT be charged on this total by the managing agent in the service charge schedule (before the fee % has been applied)?

    I am wondering if this is normal practice or an error.
    23-05-2019, 15:44 PM
  • Right to Manage - Process Questions
    bigalxyz
    Hello forum,

    Very brief summary of my situation. I own a flat (110 years left on the lease) in a big old Victorian house in London. 11 flats in total, all leasehold. Fairly standard stuff.

    The guy who owns the freehold also does the property management via his own company....
    23-05-2019, 10:33 AM
  • Reply to Right to Manage - Process Questions
    leaseholder64
    Companies Act 2006 section 303. If they fail to call it, proceed with the following sections.

    You need 28 days notice for any motion to remove an existing director.
    23-05-2019, 13:52 PM
  • Reply to Right to Manage - Process Questions
    bigalxyz
    Thank you.

    Re: number of directors. I may be able to persuade some other leaseholders to do this (or not!). Articles of RMC say "number of directors may be any number not exceeding the number of issued shares" ie any number from 1 to 11. So having 1 director seems to be permissible...
    23-05-2019, 12:25 PM
  • Reply to Right to Manage - Process Questions
    leaseholder64
    If you actually had an RTM, the freeholder would also have a vote, so your current arrangement gives you more power.

    A shareholder who cannot attend a meeting can appoint a proxy. It is a criminal offence for the calling notice for the meeting not to point this out.

    The majority...
    23-05-2019, 11:11 AM
  • Reply to Right to Manage - Process Questions
    bigalxyz
    Thank you. Hmmm...RTM...RMC...ok...so the RTM process isn't necessary here?

    I'd be happy to act as a director myself. Would we need more than 1 director?

    As I understand it (from my limited understanding of articles, etc.) it's one share, one vote - and the leaseholders own...
    23-05-2019, 10:51 AM
  • Reply to Right to Manage - Process Questions
    leaseholder64
    Exercising RTM is not a sensible idea when you already have an RMC, as you do. If you are not satisfied with the management call a general meeting an appoint additional directors, or even remove the freeholder s director. I assume the company articles, at ,east, allow any leaseholder to be a director,...
    23-05-2019, 10:40 AM
Working...
X