Retrospective Licence for Alterations ....

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

  • Singhno1
    replied
    Thanks Lawcruncher
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post

    You solicitor has not thought this through. If asked if you gave consent you have to say you did. How is it going to change the position if you now confirm you gave consent five years ago?
    I did tell the solicitor that I gave verbal consent.

    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post

    The LH is not in breach of any term of the lease as he carried out the works with consent. You cannot now impose conditions even if they would have been reasonable. There is no point getting a surveyor involved because you have consented to the work. If the tenant did something which it would not have been a good idea to do you cannot make him undo it because you consented to it being done. There is no need to involve professionals and incur fees.

    .
    You are right the LH did not breach any term as he came directly to me to seek consent. I am not imposing any conditions. I merely came here to see how to resolve the issue of this difference between what the solicitor is saying and what are the concerns of the LH. I don't intend to undo any of the works as long as all the paperworks are correct like structural reports and BC certificates etc.
    The LH agreed to do this the professional way.

    The leaseholder did do something which he didn't tell me about. Made a hole some 3'x3' in a partition(plasterboard) wall to put a fish tank in it.
    I was angry about it but I will not ask him to revert this either.

    "You have no cause of action against the LH."

    The case is not me suing the LH it is the other flat LH who could sue me for not consenting or informing them or anyone who purchase from them.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Originally posted by Singhno1 View Post
    The reason the solicitor is suggesting this is if in future any other LH decides to sue me I will be protected.
    You solicitor has not thought this through. If asked if you gave consent you have to say you did. How is it going to change the position if you now confirm you gave consent five years ago?

    The LH is not in breach of any term of the lease as he carried out the works with consent. You cannot now impose conditions even if they would have been reasonable. There is no point getting a surveyor involved because you have consented to the work. If the tenant did something which it would not have been a good idea to do you cannot make him undo it because you consented to it being done. There is no need to involve professionals and incur fees.

    If oral permission is given and an LH carries out the works it is unreasonable at any time afterwards to require him to go through the formal procedure to obtain a written licence. The longer the interval between the works being carried out and the demand to seek formal consent the more unreasonable it is. Indeed, even if the works had been carried out without consent there comes a point when it will be held unreasonable to take enforcement proceedings. Under the law of limitation there is an absolute time limit of 12 years, but for any period less than 12 years there are no hard and fast rules. After five years there has to be an argument that the landlord has acquiesced in any breach.

    You have no cause of action against the LH. Since you will derive no benefit from granting formal consent and suffer no consequences if it is not given, there is no point insisting on it. The fact the situation has arisen is just as much down to you as to the LH; neither of you realised that written consent was advisable. Do the tenant a favour and write him a letter confirming consent was given.

    Leave a comment:


  • Singhno1
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon66 View Post
    The fact is your lh asked permission and you consented.

    But what should have happened was a licence granted to make the alterations. This is because the extent of the permission needs to be recorded along with the extent of the works. As a wall was partially removed it's usual for a structural engineer to be consulted and that should also be documented.

    As a documented licence was not granted at the time it all needs to be done retrospectively. The costs would normally be charged to the leaseholder.

    If the licence is not documented appropriately the lh has no proof the works were permitted under the lease, and no proof that he has not breached the lease. This could lead to delays in the purchasing process and failure to obtain a mortgage on the property.

    What is your solicitor suggesting you should do?
    Thanks to you Jon66 and all the guys who have responded so promptly sorry for not coming back earlier as I am getting my prop updated and just flattens you ut.

    I feel I must point out few discussions

    LH was informed late 2017 about the need to get the lease updated with this(The works were carried out in early to mid 2016). He took his time and now that he has decided to sell his flat he has found it necessary to get the lease updated. I get his concerns that I as a FH I did give him verbal acknowledgement to carry out the works. Unknown to me(as I didn't understand the implications of not getting the lease updated at the time) this was verbal. He understands he needs to get the lease updated in order to sell the flat but his concerns are that the Solicitor suggests we need to start all over again but with the world 'Retrospective'. He is not disputing the payment to cover the costs it is just that the solicitors suggestion of not gaining permission in his email.


    To answer your Q 'What is your solicitor suggesting you should do?'
    What this will involve is as if LH did not get permission and will need to come back to me to gain permission this time through the proper channel.
    The reason the solicitor is suggesting this is if in future any other LH decides to sue me I will be protected. He knows the LH just wants a letter acknowledging the permission but this will not protect me or future FH. The LH thinks this is the way the solicitor wants to lengthen the time and earn more money.
    The LH says his solicitors agrees with him that I only need to agree to the consent and not go through as my solicitor suggests although although I have found no evidence in writing or email what his solicitor has said. I have email of the LH slagging off my solicitor that he is being unreasonable with this issue. I have told him I am protecting him and the future LH of the flat, my self and any future FH from future LH's of the other flats.

    One other thing the LH told me that I have found the most expensive solicitor. This makes me think I have found the most competent solicitor who knows his works and the knowledge of what happens if this is not done in the proper way.

    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    and especially after 5 years.
    I hope my 1st sentence in the reply to Jon66 covers this concern it was only within 18th months I informed the LH he needs to do this as he will have problems selling the house, It is just that to his convenience he decided to come back to me after 4yrs of knowing, now that he wants to sell the property.



    Leave a comment:


  • Jon66
    replied
    Originally posted by Section20z View Post
    I would only give consent on condition all planning and building regs are complied with.
    Especially when knocking down a chimney 😱
    That is implied in the consent but probably good to spell it out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Section20z
    replied
    I would only give consent on condition all planning and building regs are complied with.
    Especially when knocking down a chimney 😱

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon66
    replied
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    After a LH has carried out works, and especially after 5 years, it is not reasonable to suggest that he should apply and pay for a formal licence. That would only be reasonable if he had carried out the works without consent. Just write him a letter to confirm that the works were carried out with consent.
    I missed the 5 years bit. Agree with above, a pragmatic solution.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    The LH did have consent because you said he could do the works. After a LH has carried out works, and especially after 5 years, it is not reasonable to suggest that he should apply and pay for a formal licence. That would only be reasonable if he had carried out the works without consent. Just write him a letter to confirm that the works were carried out with consent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon66
    replied
    The fact is your lh asked permission and you consented.

    But what should have happened was a licence granted to make the alterations. This is because the extent of the permission needs to be recorded along with the extent of the works. As a wall was partially removed it's usual for a structural engineer to be consulted and that should also be documented.

    As a documented licence was not granted at the time it all needs to be done retrospectively. The costs would normally be charged to the leaseholder.

    If the licence is not documented appropriately the lh has no proof the works were permitted under the lease, and no proof that he has not breached the lease. This could lead to delays in the purchasing process and failure to obtain a mortgage on the property.

    What is your solicitor suggesting you should do?

    Leave a comment:


  • Singhno1
    started a topic Retrospective Licence for Alterations ....

    Retrospective Licence for Alterations ....



    I am Freeholder of a building with 3 flats. Two of them on long lease.

    A current leaseholder bought the flat 5yrs ago from previous LH. When he moved in he wanted to renovate the flat including some structural works like knocking a chimney and hole in the wall. He informed me of the works. At the time not fully aware how the process works I just allowed it to go ahead verbally. At the time I asked him some Q but couldn't go in detail due to time restraints.

    Then a few years ago I attended a property seminar where I heard a lease expert speak about works being carried out by LH must be documented as 'Retrospective Licence for Alterations'. Even if the FH had given permission at the time this will not go well if the LH wants to sell the flat. So I went to the LH to advise him to start the process. He took his time to come back.

    Once he did I contacted the solicitor(same team member from the seminar) for advise. My solicitor contacted his with the words to the affect that The LH did not seek permission to do the works in the flat. There was a long paragraph of his version. When the LH got the email CC'd in to(I wasn't) he went 'bezerk'. The LH came to me telling me of what happened and was not happy the solicitor has been rude to suggest that I(LH) did not seek permission. LH's solicitor seems to agree with him.

    Could someone advise me if my solicitor is correct or the LH's. Should my Solicitor go on the route to get the Lease added with 'Retrospective Licence for Alterations' breaching the lease terms, or according to LH a simple process going without these steps and why?

    I have tried to search an answer but to no avail. Any tips given will be much apppreciated.

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X