Property freehold co-owned by 8 flat-owning leaseholders who comprise board of 8 directors of new management company. Previous freeholder would not erect shed in common garden area because one leaseholder objected. Now board has voted 7/1 to erect shed, replacing a large shrub. One leaseholder claiming right of veto, yet there is nothing in their lease about garden other than the freeholder covenanting use of the common garden for leisure. Surely the board can go ahead?
Landlord’s right to alter garden
Collapse
X
-
If the garden is communal the LL doesn't even have engage in a vote to undertake the works, for example if the LL wanted to put lights in the garden they would be able to. If the shed is to be used by the LL to store their garden equipment etc, they would be within their right to do so, as the garden is not any of the leaseholders.
-
Although I don't agree with ash as the objecting leaseholder does appear to have rights covenanted in his lease.
If the garden is a reasonable size, and the shed doesn't take over huge amounts of it, I imagine it is a de-minimis situation. Although the objecting leaseholder does have a right in his lease to use the garden for leisure, I imagine in this case his right isn't really being impacted. (Especially if the shed is being used to enhance leisure by stowing tools or table/chairs or anything that benefits the garden). Therefore I imagine the majority can proceed. Although I am not lawyer so just IMHO.
Comment
-
Except to the extent that any document provides to the contrary...
You have to forget that the leaseholders on the one hand and the directors/shareholders in the company owning the freehold are the same people. The position is exactly the same as it would be if the freeholder had no connection with the leaseholders. It is the leases which are paramount. The landlord has no right to unilaterally alter the terms of the lease or breach any provision simply because a majority of leaseholders sanction the action. Each leaseholder can assert his rights.
It would be nice to see in exactly what terms the leaseholders are granted the right to use the garden. Assuming something fairly standard, the starting point is that each leaseholder can expect the amenity to be enjoyed in full today as it was when his lease was granted. Any change has to come down to a question of degree. The question to ask is: Is the proposed change such that the amenity will be significantly reduced? Having regard to the size of the garden will the shed take up too much space? Will it impact on the visual amenity and spoil the view? Another relevant question is: Why is the shed wanted? If it so that, for example, the seven keen shareholders have somewhere to park their bikes or pushchairs it cannot really be justified. If the garden is large, a small shed in a corner to hold gardening equipment and to be hidden by a climber will much more acceptable.
Comment
-
Originally posted by John Dillermand View Post
What is the basis for this comment? The freeholder is the company owned and run by the 8 flat-owning leaseholders.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
It would be nice to see in exactly what terms the leaseholders are granted the right to use the garden. Assuming something fairly standard, the starting point is that each leaseholder can expect the amenity to be enjoyed in full today as it was when his lease was granted. Another relevant question is: Why is the shed wanted? If it so that, for example, the seven keen shareholders have somewhere to park their bikes or pushchairs it cannot really be justified.
2. Do not understand the need to justify usage. The lease are silent on everything regarding the communal garden other than the clause I have quoted above. The shed proposed will replace a dead shrub, so will not reduce the space available. Surely the issue is about the space rather than what’s in the shed.
Comment
-
What does the company's articles of association say is the position about changes to the building?
That's where the right of veto would be defined - the decision is a company decision first.
So either the freeholder can either decide to build a shed by a majority decision of the shareholders or they can't.
Then the issue is, what can a dissenting lessee actually do?
Based on the term quoted, not a lot.
But they could take the matter to a tribunal - they don't have to be right to do that.
But that's a risk, they're unlikely to change their mind about wanting a shed.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
-
Originally posted by John Dillermand View Post1. The lease clause grants the “right to use the communal garden are [shown.....] for recreational and other purposes” There are no other references.
Originally posted by John Dillermand View Post2. Do not understand the need to justify usage. The lease are silent on everything regarding the communal garden other than the clause I have quoted above. The shed proposed will replace a dead shrub, so will not reduce the space available. Surely the issue is about the space rather than what’s in the shed.
Comment
-
Originally posted by John Dillermand View Post
1. The lease clause grants the “right to use the communal garden are [shown.....] for recreational and other purposes” There are no other references.
2. Do not understand the need to justify usage. The lease are silent on everything regarding the communal garden other than the clause I have quoted above. The shed proposed will replace a dead shrub, so will not reduce the space available. Surely the issue is about the space rather than what’s in the shed.
Comment
Latest Activity
Collapse
-
by SHillHi
Can someone give me advise. I have been successful at First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) to Appoint a Manager Pursuant to S.24 LTA 1987. The Tribunal appointed a manger but the Directors of the RMC (Respondent) has not comply to handover the information by June 2020.
...-
Channel: Long Leasehold Questions
26-01-2021, 14:15 PM -
-
by SHillIn relation to my question, what powers do the Directors retain when the Tribunal Appoint a Manager. The FTT Order below
Management Plan
DIRECTIONS- The rights and liabilities of the Respondent arising under any contracts of insurance, and/or any contract for
-
Channel: Long Leasehold Questions
06-03-2021, 23:33 PM -
by DraffHi I have had an offer accepted on a leasehold ground floor maisonette. The property needs quite a lot of work - new bathroom (currently has no shower and an unusable bath), electric shower & socket installation, new kitchen. I'll possibly also install new lighting of hang some shelves.
...-
Channel: Long Leasehold Questions
06-03-2021, 20:53 PM -
-
by LADThank you for the advice so far. I'm curious if anyone has ever encountered this situation before. I had wondered if zero service charge for one flat, which clearly benefits from the service charges collected, would violate the "fair and reasonable" principle of the law. It sounds like no....
-
Channel: Long Leasehold Questions
06-03-2021, 20:33 PM -
-
by LADHello, I am considering the purchase of a flat in an nine-unit conversion, leasehold with share of freehold. The service charges are on the high side despite no lift or amenities. When I started to look into the details, I see that one flat does not pay any service charges. Its apportionment is zero....
-
Channel: Long Leasehold Questions
06-03-2021, 14:11 PM -
-
by LawcruncherThe above is all a bit theoretical. There are various things which in theory should affect the value of a property, whether freehold or leasehold, but in practice do not.
Whether the owner of the service charge free flat paid more or not, the point is that he bought it knowing he had no...-
Channel: Long Leasehold Questions
06-03-2021, 19:44 PM -
-
by sgclacyThe counter argument is that the unfairness of the contract is reflected in the value of the other flats. Therefore if you reflect this in your offer then you won’t be disadvantaged going forward
the owner of the flat with zero service charges may have paid more for the flat because...-
Channel: Long Leasehold Questions
06-03-2021, 19:31 PM -
-
by scot22I think you are right. Nobody else has bothered. Why should you take on the uncertainty and stress ? You only have to walk away.
-
Channel: Long Leasehold Questions
06-03-2021, 18:36 PM -
-
by LADYes, I realize the percentages are unlikely to change and am considering walking away. Before doing so, I am trying to get more information and also checking to see if others have come across this situation previously. (Is it as unusual as it seems to be?)
This does seem like the type...-
Channel: Long Leasehold Questions
06-03-2021, 17:44 PM -
-
by Callan1Presumably there are 9 flats registered at the Land Registry, and if so is there a lease for the basement flat?
If the annual service charge is £9k you would personally be subsidising the basement for a sum of £125 each year.-
Channel: Long Leasehold Questions
06-03-2021, 15:29 PM -
Comment