necessary notices and permissions for a boiler relocation in a flat

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

  • brianthelandlord
    replied
    Hi Lawcruncher,
    Many thanks for your response!

    Re the Manager, looking at the lease "the Manager is to undertake responsibility for the supply of services to the Development for which the Lessee will pay the Lessee's portion of the maintenance expenses." I read this as the property management company F.

    I had an emergency meeting with my letting agent at the end of last week regarding this. When pushed, it turns out they had in the past successfully obtained permission to perform boiler revocations to the outside wall at the same premises for other clients. This surprised me greatly as when I mentioned to them the need for permission to do this work, they sounded surprised. Anyway, armed with this information, I completed the freeholders's agent's application form for the change and emailed it to them, and a day later, a confirmation of approval email popped in my inbox. Having spoken to M's site manager, they are asked for for their approval, and thus it appears the agent merely acts as a relay for these approvals and banks a new fee for doing so.

    Confusingly, and slightly worryingly, the approval seems to contradict itself. It states at the beginning:
    "We .... give consent for:
    Schedule of alterations: relocation boiler/flue

    This consent is given for the works described in your application and as shown on your plans.

    This consent is for the replacement of the boiler only and any changes in the placement of the boiler or the flue will require express approval of the landlord and its agents."


    Doesn't it clearly state they approve the relocation of the boiler and flew and then go on to say that it doesn't? If so, where I do stand with this approval? Note that my application clearly states a new boiler will be fitted and it will be relocated to the kitchen and will vent through the outside wall.

    kind regards

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholder64
    replied
    I parsed this as four parts, although I thought it was intended as three. That's why I said it was badly drafted.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    We can conveniently divide the covenant into three parts:

    A: Not to cut maim or injure nor to make any breach in any part of the structure of the Demised Premises...

    B: ...nor without the previous consent of the in writing of the Manager or its agents to make any alterations whatsoever to the plan design or elevation of the Demised Premises nor to make any openings therein nor to open up any floors walls or ceilings for the purpose of altering or renewing any pipes wires ducts or conduits not to alter any of the landlords fixtures fittings or appliances therein...

    C: ...and not in any case to commit or allow any waste or spoil on or about the Demised premises
    .

    Part A is an absolute prohibition.

    Part B is a qualified prohibition and the law says that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld.

    Part C is not relevant.

    The question is whether creating a flue in the outside wall comes under part A or B. If we take part A as a whole its aim is clearly to prevent compromising the structure of the block. Part B recognises that by referring to "openings". If it is argued that the position is uncertain it is resolved in the tenant's favour. For the record I should mention that there could be a snag if the lease grants a "shell demise", that is it only includes the interior surfaces of the external walls.

    There seems to be some confusion on the landlord/management side about who grants the permission. The lease says it is "the Manager or its agents". The capital "m" suggests that the Manager is a party to the lease. Whoever that is is the person who grants the consent and not the Landlord. So who is the Manager?

    You write to the Manager and make the following points:

    The boiler is broken.

    It is your obligation under the lease to repair or replace it.

    A reputable boiling engineer has advised that the boiler needs replacement and that the best option is to make a flue in the external wall.

    If you make the flue without consent you will be in breach of covenant.

    Given (a) the boiling engineer's recommendation and (b) that several other flats have had boilers with external flues installed, it cannot be reasonable to withhold consent.

    The occupants have been without hot water for x days. The matter is therefore urgent and you are entitled to insist on an immediate response.

    The issue is totally straightforward. No investigations are required. There is no justifcation for delaying a response.

    You owe an obligation to the occupants to replace the boiler. If they claim compensation you will look to them (that is the person you are writing to) reimburse you.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianthelandlord
    replied
    Hi lawcruncher,
    The clause that talks about paying fees is in relation to making applications to the manager or its agents - ie the changes mentioned in the second clause that required the agent's consent (layout changes, etc).
    The clause is"
    ON making application for any such consent as aforesaid to submit to the Manager or its agents such plans block plans elevations and specifications as they shall require and to pay the reasonable and proper legal and surveyor fees of the Manager in connection with any such application and to catrry out any work authorised only in accordance with such plans block plans elevations an specifications as they shall approve in writing making use of good sound and substantial materials all of which shall be subject to inspection and approval".
    kind regards.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianthelandlord
    replied
    thanks, jpkeates.
    I just wonder whether reasonableness applies in the case of a lack of such (a) pivotal service/s as hot water (?). Obviously I'm asking for personal opinions :-)
    kind regards

    Leave a comment:


  • jpkeates
    replied
    You are required to make repairs in a reasonable time.
    The soonest something can be done is almost certainly reasonable (and the alternative of trying to get permission that you might not is much less reasonable.

    Ideally offer the tenant an alternative source of heating.
    Hot water isn't something you can offer and it might be worth while giving a rent reduction as a goodwill gesture.

    You can only do what you can do.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianthelandlord
    replied
    Hi lawcruncher,
    I will run through the lease again and feed back, but I don't recall seeing any such content.
    kind regards.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianthelandlord
    replied
    Thanks, MdeB.
    As per my response to leaseholder64, if we are talking about 2 weeks delay, surely this is against some form of legal requirement on human rights grounds (the rights to hot water and heat)?
    kind regards.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianthelandlord
    replied
    Hi Leaseholder64,

    Many thanks for your responses!

    I was hoping that I miss-read the lease incorrectly, but you have confirmed my fears.

    You mention that £195 may not be a reasonable fee. You also mention that because the change I propose may not be covered by the statute restrictions of reasonableness, I may have to pay an unreasonable fee and be subject to arbitrary restrictions (if I get do get permission). I have resigned myself to paying the £195 (which as you note, may, in some instances, be justified), but could, hypothetically, I end up paying significantly more than this (if I do manage to get permission..)?

    My tenants continue to be without hot water (and I fear the heating is impaired, if not broken also - they are very obliging Thai people who have been very patient and reluctant to complain). What rights do they have with regards to being able to bathe and stay warm? Given the boiler needs to be relocated for the prompt re-reinstatement of hot water (and possibly heating) - which I think is required by the lease in the first clause of my original post (?), and I would have thought on human rights grounds - surely the freeholder is somewhat 'obliged' to grant this right, and with some haste, given the relatively minor nature of what is being asked for?

    If I ploughed-on and had the boiler installed, in the interests of my tenants, where do you think this would this leave me - could I apply retrospectively for permission? I guess the landlord could tell me to remove it and make good, but do you think it would give him ammunition to charge me for the moon?

    As you suggest, I will consult a lawyer on the scope of the agent's consents.

    As you suggest, I will check with the LAS as to whether any reasonableness restrictions apply to any fees in this case.

    I am glad you are not subject to such a minefield of a lease.

    kind regards.

    Leave a comment:


  • MdeB
    replied
    You are unlikely to get permission for a hole in the wall sooner than you can get a roofer to replace the roof vent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Does the lease say anything about paying fees for granting consents?

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholder64
    replied
    You can get free advice on the interpretation of leases at https://clients.lease-advice.org/App...reSafety=False I don't think they will comment on whether £195 is reasonable, but they should be able to say whether or not the freeholders are restricted to a reasonable fee, in this case.

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholder64
    replied
    To me it is badly drafted. There is conditional permission to make major alterations, but there seem an unconditional ban on the minor changes you mention.

    For conditional permission, there is a statutory provision that improvements cannot be unreasonably refused, so they can only charge you reasonable costs.

    For an absolute ban, they can impose whatever conditions they like.

    My gut feeling is that £195 is not reasonable for boiler installation work by a GasSafe engineer. However, if my reading of the lease is correct, you are not covered by the implied not unreasonably refused condition, so they may well be able to make unreasonable charges.

    Note that some changes may well require £195 of work from the manager and their surveyors.

    I think you need a professional opinion on whether the written consent from the manager is limited to the layout changes, or applies to the making holes part, as well.

    Absolute prohibitions don't mean that you won't get permission, but rather that there is no certainty and that permission may be subject to arbitrary conditions.

    Unfortunately, my lease allows me to do all sorts of things in terms of running pipes etc., so I'm not used to leases that are as restrictive as yours.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianthelandlord
    replied
    Hi,
    ​​​​​​I have performed another pass through the lease. I cannot find any other relevant clauses. I would greatly welcome any comments on where I stand and what I should should do.
    kind regards.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianthelandlord
    replied
    Thanks, leaseholder 64,
    I've updated the post to remove the names of the companies.
    I believe I have provided the only relevant clauses in the lease.
    kind regards.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X