Licence to Alter

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

    Licence to Alter

    Should the leaseholder be given the original signed copy of a Licence to Alter (LTA)? Our landlord created a deed (LTA) to provide us with permission for work we are planning but we were given a photo copy of the completed document but think we should retain the original.

    Thank you.

    #2
    So request the original in case the photo copy is a fake .

    Comment


      #3
      Yes, you should have the/an original signed by the landlord. Standard procedure where the leaseholder agrees to do something is for the licence to be executed as as part and counterpart or in duplicate.

      Comment


        #4
        Thank you for your replies – appreciated.

        Lawcruncher immediately above the signature section, the deed read:

        “This instrument is executed by the parties as a deed and takes effect on the date stated at the beginning of it”

        Underneath there were the signature sections for the landlord, tenant and witness to signatures.

        It was signed as a deed by the landlord in the presence of a witness that signed; we (as tenants) then signed as a deed and the same witness witnessed our signatures.

        We were all face-to-face when the above was executed. Following we received a photo copy of the licence.

        From your comments, do we just need to ask the landlord to provide us with the original copy of the document. Or do we need to request a new deed and execute this so that two copies are signed at the same time. Would this cover a deed 'executed in duplicate'? In this case, does the deed need to include a phrase to indicate the deed was executed in duplicate.

        Any help appreciated; thank you.

        Comment


          #5
          A licence is a consent to do something and you give the original to the person who needs the consent.

          Comment


            #6
            There should have been 2 originals, and you all sign the two.
            One for the landlord and one for the tenant..
            Thats the way it should have been done.

            Comment


              #7
              Thank you all for your replies. Therefore, I will ask the landlord to arrange for us to execute the deed again and we all sign both copies. Should the licence specifically state "the deed is signed in duplicate" or similar wording or is the current deed OK in this respect?

              Thank you again.

              Comment


                #8
                No need to put "the deed is signed in duplicate".
                You could have 200 originals, but you still only have authorisation to carry out alterations once, and for the prescribed alteration.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Thank you.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by vmart View Post
                    Thank you all for your replies. Therefore, I will ask the landlord to arrange for us to execute the deed again and we all sign both copies. Should the licence specifically state "the deed is signed in duplicate" or similar wording or is the current deed OK in this respect?
                    In fact all you need is a copy signed by the landlord.

                    When lawyers deal with licences they are usually executed as "part and counterpart" - that is the landlord signs one part and the tenant another. When everyone is ready the parts are exchanged. The landlord then has a part signed by the tenant as evidence of what the tenant agreed and the tenant has a part signed by the landlord as evidence of the consent. Executing in duplicate is fine, but the douments need to be circulated for execution.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Dear Lawcruncher

                      Thank you very much for your advice. Given this I will ask the landlord to send me a copy of the deed with original signature of landlord and witness for landlord's section.

                      I am not quite clear what you mean re "..., but the douments need to be circulated for execution". If documents were signed in duplicate when all parties were present and each party retained a copy, is there anything else that needs to be undertaken? Perhaps your point only applies where part and counterpart are signed and then need to be exchanged for execution.

                      I am keen to ensure this is correct for obvious reasons but also because there is a possibility the freehold will be sold and the new freeholder might not be as amenable as the current incumbent.

                      Once again, thank you all for your help.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I think he meant that the landlord will have to send it to you, for signature, and you will have to send their copy back to them.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Dear Leaseholder 64

                          Thank you. Yes, but if all parties sign two copies at the same time during a meeting and exchange copies then I assume there is nothing else that needs to be done.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by vmart View Post
                            I am not quite clear what you mean re "..., but the douments need to be circulated for execution". If documents were signed in duplicate when all parties were present and each party retained a copy, is there anything else that needs to be undertaken? Perhaps your point only applies where part and counterpart are signed and then need to be exchanged for execution.
                            I am referring to the case where lawyers are involved. If the landlord's lawyer prepares part and counertpart he sends the part to his client and the counterpart to the tenant's lawyer who gets it signed by the tenant. That is quicker than the landlord's lawyer preparing the consent in duplicate and sending both copies to the tenant's lawyer to get signed and then the tenant's lawyer sending them back fo signature by the landlord. Legally, part and counterpart and execution in duplicate achieve the same end. Part and counterpart are just more customary where tenancies are involved.

                            Originally posted by vmart View Post
                            I am keen to ensure this is correct for obvious reasons but also because there is a possibility the freehold will be sold and the new freeholder might not be as amenable as the current incumbent.
                            It has to be desirable to hold an "original" signed by the landlord as it is the best possible evidence that consent was given. A copy is better than nothing, but is only secondary evidence.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Dear all

                              Thank you very much for replies. Lawcruncher, thank you for clarifying points - appreciated.

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X