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

              • Freehold confusion
                by davetg
                30 years ago I bought a flat from a friend. The freehold at the time was registered to my friend and the lady who owned the other flat. I understood at the time that I would replace the friend on the freehold but this never happened. This was not a problem until now as when work on the structure of...
                24-05-2022, 14:29 PM
              • Reply to Freehold confusion
                by davetg
                Thanks for the reply - both flats have separate 999 year leases so i guess the freehold is of little value. I will look in to TR1.

                I have always insured my flat separately and assumed the other flat was doing the same - is this a problem?...
                24-05-2022, 14:48 PM
              • Old managing agents accounts
                by jazzythumper
                Since obtaining the RTM and changing the managing agent, we have never been given full accounts / receipts for the previous year(s). We believe that as the old freeholder and leaser holder of one of the flats were represented by the same solicitor that prior to the sale of the freehold, we were subsidising...
                20-05-2022, 11:21 AM
              • Reply to Old managing agents accounts
                by jazzythumper
                Thanks, I’m not sure that has been provided, if it hasn’t can we force them to produce this?

                Would it be a simple case of sending a letter with a timescale to respond and if not received followed by the magistrates route?...
                24-05-2022, 14:39 PM
              • Reply to Freehold confusion
                by Section20z
                1.He will need to sign a TR1 and transfer title to you but it really needs to be done through a solicitor or land registry won't be happy with his ID.
                2. If you have a separate lease on your flat then freehold is not worth much, if not then it's worth what the flats worth at least .
                3. Cost...
                24-05-2022, 14:37 PM
              • Reply to Share of feehold/shared service charges?
                by Stu1020
                Thank you for the response Macromia this is a useful conversation.

                I can see why the current proportion might be justified, I have been paying 38% towards the buildings insurance the last 4/5 years. However, my dispute is now arising because we are unable to move forward with existing covenants,...
                24-05-2022, 08:55 AM
              • Reply to Section 20
                by Anna1985
                The driveway/front garden partially belongs to the freeholder and partially leaseholder. The freeholder's maintenance covered by leaseholders, the leaseholder must keep the property in the state of repair but won't do....
                24-05-2022, 08:23 AM
              • Reply to RTM Hand Over Issues
                by Section20z
                We lost a fair bit of reserve fund when we went RTM but consoled ourselves with the knowledge they would no longer be ripping us off annually.
                24-05-2022, 07:59 AM
              • Reply to S20 - Quotes not valid for long enough for 30 day consult
                by Flatman78
                Thanks Gordon999

                You can see from above reply to Macromia that's your comment wouldn't be relevant to me. there is no managing agent. It's just me (FH) and LH in upstairs flat.
                Thanks for taking time to reply though....
                23-05-2022, 20:29 PM
              • S20 - Quotes not valid for long enough for 30 day consult
                by Flatman78
                Hi LZ Community

                Just wondering if anyone's had/having any issues with S20 and allowing leaseholder 30 days to review estimates, raise concerns etc.

                Building material prices have fluctuated massively since covid and brexit.
                with a combination of Brexit, impact from russia/ukraine...
                23-05-2022, 14:42 PM
              Working...
              X