Leasehold clause: Not to use other than as a single private dwelling

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Leasehold clause: Not to use other than as a single private dwelling


    I am selling my flat currently to a buy to let investor - an enquiry has been raised that has me a bit worried (we are in a chain, quite far progressed).

    His solicitor has queried a clause in the lease which reads exactly as follows:
    "Not to use the maisonette otherwise than as a single private dwelling in the occupation of one family and not to take in lodgers"

    I should add, there is nothing obvious that specifically calls out letting the property, this is the only clause that seems to relate to it.

    Now I was aware of this, I always assumed it referred to say my Wife and I taking in a lodger. I see it from his perspective as not being able to let it to say 2 flat sharers that are unrelated, or even letting it to an individual who goes on to take a lodger themselves.

    It's in a family area, i expect most people interested in the property will be young families or couples rather than what I would expect of a central london flat.

    Out of the 6 flats (maisonettes, it looks like 3 terraced houses with private entrances to all 6) i know at least 2 are let, I would assume they have the same lease/freeholder.

    An enquiry is out to the freeholder, i don't expect a timely reply - how do you see this going? Is this fairly standard on all leases?

    It will add salt to the wound of having just done a very expensive statutory lease extension, as previously we couldn't sell it due to high ground rent.

    That clause is both fairly standard (I'd go as far as to say it would be unusual for a flat not to have a similar clause) and it does have the implications for a BTL landlord that you have understood.

    But if the landlord is buying a flat, they're likely to struggle to find a lease without that kind of clause.
    When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
    Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).


      Correct, fairly standard clause which is supposed to prevent HMOs or similar setup. Still means though the property can be let to tenants (just not to unrelated sharers). Not easy to enforce though in reality, unless you have a requirement that the freeholder has to approve all subletting in advance.

      But I wonder: what exactly has the solicitor ‘queried’ about this clause?


        Thank you both for the prompt and detailed replies.

        The query , relayed by my conveyancing solicitor reads as follows :

        Your lease currently excludes lodgers to remain at the property and they wish for me to confirm if that includes tenants pursuant to an AST. If it transpires that it does then it is likely your buyer will withdraw.

        The guy apparently has a semi comprehensive portfolio so I would assume he or his solicitor is somewhat familiar . It doesn't help my nerves that my solicitor was so to the point, also saying he will not begin searches on our purchase until it is resolved. For context it's taken 2.5 years to get to this point!

        As an aside, I looked out the now out of date management pack from a previous sale attempt pre lease extension. It looks like standard wording added to the end but reads:

        "The leaseholder should notify the freeholder if the property is let as notice may be required under the terms of the lease."


          You only have to notify freeholder if lease says that.

          But the solicitors enquiry is ludicrous -- what they client is purchasing IS the lease as it stands. It is not up to you to interpret the lease for them. The words you give will not prevent an AST.


            I get the impression what they are looking for is a written response direct from freeholder saying "yes it's ok"

            Ironically it's the same solicitors that failed to educate me as a first time buyer and ended up costing us a fortune on the lease extension.


              Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
              But the solicitors enquiry is ludicrous -- what they client is purchasing IS the lease as it stands. It is not up to you to interpret the lease for them. The words you give will not prevent an AST.
              Agreed. The solicitor is another bright spark who should be making the tea and not doing conveyancing.


              Latest Activity


              • Reply to Residents Management Company Building insurance
                by fos333
                This is a very usual arrangement where the freeholder pockets all the gains, i.e., ground rent and insurance (possibly including a large commission) and the RMC is responsible for managing all the repair and maintenance obligations (either by self managing or appointing a managing agent).
                17-08-2022, 20:48 PM
              • Residents Management Company Building insurance
                by GordonClose
                I am a Director of an RMC and the Freeholder insists it is their right to arrange the insurance. Have I the same right as an RTM to take over the arrangement of insurance?
                15-08-2022, 14:26 PM
              • Reply to Sale of Freehold - Tax to Pay
                by sgclacy
                If the total gains are below the Annual Exemption and total proceeds does not exceed four times the Annual Exemption, you are not required to report the matter to HMRC

                However, as I suspected the company held the freehold in trust for you, you should have reported the ground rent income...
                17-08-2022, 20:31 PM
              • Sale of Freehold - Tax to Pay
                by divadee
                Hi, I hope I can write this in a clear way that makes sense!

                We bought a leaseholders flat in 2016, the next year we bought the limited company that held the freehold. This was done as no other leaseholder were interested in buying the freehold a few months prior to us buying our leasehold...
                16-08-2022, 16:37 PM
              • Reply to Sale of Freehold - Tax to Pay
                by flyingfreehold
                It seems that its all worked out pretty favourably. Well done!
                17-08-2022, 19:52 PM
              • Reply to Sale of Freehold - Tax to Pay
                by divadee
                You have said exactly what the accountants said to us today. Basically the freehold was never added to the limited company as an asset (before we bought it) and as such it would just be cgt that was due and as its only 8k no cgt is due. They said not to bother with a return for it. We are having the...
                17-08-2022, 19:22 PM
              • Reply to Electric meter Freeholder or leaseholder
                by CLProperties
                Many thanks for your responses.

                I did deal with the query. It just seemed excessive to ask me to get involved.

                Thanks again for the information about meters.

                Always learning....
                17-08-2022, 19:03 PM
              • Electric meter Freeholder or leaseholder
                by CLProperties
                I manage a property with four flats. The landlord owns the freehold for the flats and is also the leaseholder for the two downstairs flats.

                The leasehold of the two upstairs flats is owned by someone else who employs a managing agent. The managing agent has contacted me about an issue...
                17-08-2022, 15:53 PM
              • Right To Pass and Re-Pass (Not to Obstruct)
                by LondonCalling
                I am the owner/occupier of a leasehold first floor flat in a converted property consisting of two flats. The freeholder owns and is the occupier of the ground floor leasehold flat. There is a passageway/right of way from the road along the side of the building to my ground floor front door entrance....
                16-08-2022, 16:26 PM
              • Reply to Right To Pass and Re-Pass (Not to Obstruct)
                by Lawcruncher
                It is.

                On reflection the covenant may not be enforceable as it is a covenant by the tenant with the landlord. It will only be enforceable if your lease gives you the right to require the landlord to enforce the covenants in the other lease. That will though lead to a bit of a conundrum...
                17-08-2022, 18:13 PM