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

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

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

    Hello,

    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.

    #2
    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).

    Comment


      #3
      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?

      Comment


        #4
        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."

        Comment


          #5
          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.

          Comment


            #6
            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.

            Comment


              #7
              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.

              Comment

              Latest Activity

              Collapse

              • Reply to AGM cancelled.
                by Andrea Cunningham
                Call an EGM. Make sure you give proper notice and that it is legal (download a boilerplate notice off the internet). In that EGM you can vote new directors in, or even vote the old directors out.
                26-01-2022, 07:14 AM
              • AGM cancelled.
                by Grumio
                Is this legal?

                A bit of background, we currently have three directors, we are allowed to have up to a maximum of eight directors according to the articles of association. We are all leaseholders. Last summer the three directors decided to hire a managing agent who is now in charge of the...
                26-01-2022, 00:46 AM
              • Lease extension triggers doubling ground rent change
                by SouthernDave
                Has anyone had dealing with doubling ground rents?
                i have just asked for a quote for a lease extension and they are proposing new ground rent terms of a doubling ground rent every 25 years. My commercial guy has said some lenders don't like these which may reduce the value of the property of i...
                25-01-2022, 22:53 PM
              • Reply to What can I do about my right of way.
                by Trevor62



                This is the ROW as it is in the land registry.


                Can I ask another question?

                As you can read it says Boundary determined by edge of pavings. Before the other party moved out they built a fence along the boundary though they build it on my side of the...
                25-01-2022, 20:58 PM
              • What can I do about my right of way.
                by Trevor62
                I live in the upper flat of a maisonette, I have a right of way that goes around the back of the building from the side entrance, there are only two flats in the building.

                Anyway for years there has been a gate with a lock to go through the right of way, now for the past year the flat has...
                23-01-2022, 23:01 PM
              • Reply to Enfranchising from a company I'm already a member of.
                by Andrea Cunningham
                As I said right at the beginning, there are some very sound reasons to do this which I wasn't going to go into. Suffice it to say that the current situation is one where the building I live in suffers under the tyranny of the majority of the larger building. So what is being sought is genuine control...
                25-01-2022, 20:24 PM
              • Enfranchising from a company I'm already a member of.
                by Andrea Cunningham
                The estate I live on has 2 blocks. All the leaseholders are members of the company which owns the freehold and manages the block ("Share of freehold").

                Suppose one of the 2 blocks decides to go it alone - so in other words gain the freehold from a company they are already a member...
                04-10-2021, 12:07 PM
              • Reply to Enfranchising from a company I'm already a member of.
                by Andrea Cunningham
                There is already no ground rent collected - so as I understand it the value of the freehold might be quite low anyway.

                If this is all done by negotiation then it is a moot point regardless, and it brings me back to what I was actually asking about, which is how to fairly and equitably split...
                25-01-2022, 20:10 PM
              • Reply to Enfranchising from a company I'm already a member of.
                by Macromia
                That potentially raises an interesting question about what happens to any money that needs to be paid for the enfranchisement.
                At the moment payment is handed over, all those in the block being enfranchised would presumably cease to be members of the company - so wouldn't be entitled to any share...
                25-01-2022, 19:40 PM
              • Reply to Enfranchising from a company I'm already a member of.
                by Macromia
                That may not be your intention, but it definitely seems like you haven't given proper consideration to what enfranchisement would involve.

                What do the leases specifically say about what is included within service charge/maintenance costs and how service charge costs are to be split?...
                25-01-2022, 19:25 PM
              Working...
              X