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 on -going leaks
                by JackBluebird
                ah i understand, sorry for confusion. As far as I'm aware, there is absolutely no reason to let anyone representing another leaseholder into your apartment. are you obliged to? no.... will your claim hurt if you dont? almost certinaly not... As i understand it she is essentially challenging the survey...
                19-05-2022, 00:17 AM
              • on -going leaks
                by finest1
                Hi All,

                The flat upstair has been leaking for some years. The ceiling soon partially collapsed stopping me fro m letting the flat. The leaseholder upstairs kept claiming that the leak was not coming from her flat despite sending them photos of her wet subfloor. I sent a letter claiming...
                18-05-2022, 17:09 PM
              • Reply to on -going leaks
                by finest1
                Thank you for your response. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear but the freeholder has already sent a surveyor and they are satisfied that the leak has been caused from upstairs.

                It's the leaseholder who wants to send their own surveyor or architect, and has refused to allow their insurance...
                18-05-2022, 19:52 PM
              • Levy
                by scot22
                What details must be given in an invoice for a levy ?
                18-05-2022, 17:43 PM
              • Reply to Levy
                by scot22
                Thanks for reply but doesn't really matter. Issue is what must leaseholders be told about reason and how it is being spent.
                18-05-2022, 19:45 PM
              • Reply to Levy
                by Tipper
                Can you expand...levy for what?
                18-05-2022, 19:12 PM
              • Reply to on -going leaks
                by JackBluebird
                On one hand people may argue, the freeholder has rights to access and assess the property in accordance with the lease whenever it is reasonable or essential to do so. However if you initiate the disrepair protocol you will have much more leverage, but it is not for bluffing...

                18-05-2022, 18:17 PM
              • Insurance
                by jazzythumper
                When the freehold of our building was sold, the old freeholder cancelled the buildings insurance which we had paid for in advance through our service charge.

                A new policy was taken out by the new freeholder. A refund for the previous policy has been given to the previous freeholder but...
                03-04-2022, 20:24 PM
              • Reply to Insurance
                by jazzythumper
                I’ve managed to get the refund from the previous insurers, which is good, over £1,000 that we wouldn’t have had otherwise in our funds.
                18-05-2022, 15:51 PM
              • Breaches of Model Articles
                by Starlane
                ram Our articles require a quorum for board and for shareholder meetings. It has come to light after the event that a director has called a meeting on their own and appointed another director, the meeting was inquorate and no members were made aware that this was going on, additionally no meeting has...
                06-05-2022, 16:02 PM