Structural Alteration/Consent

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

  • AndrewDod
    replied
    No not really - that clause is essential - without that you cannot sue the freeholder for not upholding someone else's lease.

    You need to insist that the freeholder does the thing first though (and agree to pay).

    Leave a comment:


  • HLT
    replied
    Good question sadly for the lease I have it only says that

    The lessor hereby covenants with the Lesse....at the request (but in all respects at the cost) of the Lessee to enforce against the lessees for the time being of the other flat in building any covenants right or other provision........provided the lessee has deposited with the lessor's solicitors for the time



    Practically this means might as well sue the Freeholder directly. In reality, one might as well just do the same as the other lessees.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Originally posted by HLT View Post

    This might be common in real life.

    A minority director probably cannot take action against the other directors for permitting the breach? I guess it is for the leaseholder (i.e. the minority director ) to take action against the Freeholder for not upholding the leases and pursuing the director for failure to act or to make decision that is not in the best interest of the freeholder.
    It's a tricky thing and the law is a pig here. What does the lease say about obliging the freeholder to uphold OTHER leases.

    Leave a comment:


  • HLT
    replied
    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
    AZ breach is a breach. It is not determined by a majority vote but by the lease.

    Acting on a breach is a different matter. The freeholder is generally obliged to uphold the lease, but if every lessee and the freeholder disagree the lease should be disobeyed (I would get that in writing from all the parties) then I guess you could safely ignore.
    This might be common in real life.

    A minority director probably cannot take action against the other directors for permitting the breach? I guess it is for the leaseholder (i.e. the minority director ) to take action against the Freeholder for not upholding the leases and pursuing the director for failure to act or to make decision that is not in the best interest of the freeholder.

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    AZ breach is a breach. It is not determined by a majority vote but by the lease.

    Acting on a breach is a different matter. The freeholder is generally obliged to uphold the lease, but if every lessee and the freeholder disagree the lease should be disobeyed (I would get that in writing from all the parties) then I guess you could safely ignore.

    Leave a comment:


  • HLT
    replied
    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

    You can't breach a lease based on a majority.
    Does this also mean that a majority means Freeholder does not have to act if a leaseholder raised complaint to the Freeholder?

    E.g. where a breach occurs by one of the 3 leaseholders. The other 2 leaseholders who each also owns a share in the freehold decided to disregard the breach of lease.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    I can knock up a form of licence, but need to know how the company executes deeds.

    Leave a comment:


  • ZRG90
    replied
    Thanks Lawcruncher,

    Would you propose a Licence To Alter form? I can hopefully resolve via an amicable meeting with minutes/signatures, I’m just wondering this document would stand up ok when coming to sell. LTA form might also be overkill as the floor plan remains the same.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    A floor, as opposed to a floor covering, is part of the structure. In a traditionally built building the joists on which floorboards are laid are definitely going to be part of the structure. It is perhaps arguable that floorboards are not structural, but without them you do not have anything you can call a floor and I would suggest that a building which has no space to walk on expect by jumping from joist to joist has to be considered structurally incomplete. Assuming the lease contains a standard tenant's repairing covenant, ZRG90can repair the floorboards and replace any which need replacing. Anyway, the question is academic if the floorboards are going to be left in place and covered.

    If written consent is obtained all doubt is removed. If you are going to have written consent it needs to have been properly obtained. In that respect it needs ti be recalled that the landlord here is a distinct legal entity from the leaseholders. It is the company which makes the decision whether ZRG90 is to be allowed to carry out works which the lease prohibits. A company does of course have to operate through individuals, but the fact that the individuals making the decision may also be leaseholders has to be regarded as merely incidental. The company's constitution will set out how decisions are made. Subject to there being nothing in the constitution to the contrary and assuming that the shareholder are all officers of the company, the way to proceed is for the shareholders to have a meeting and make a resolution to grant ZRG90 the consent he requires. The meeting should be properly minuted and a copy of the minutes, preferably signed by all those present, given to ZRG90. At the same meeting an appropriate form of consent giving sufficent detail of the works can be signed on behalf of the company, the capacity of each signatory being noted.

    Leave a comment:


  • ZRG90
    replied
    Thanks Ram,

    The structural definition is difficult, but I do agree the hollow plasterboard doesn’t feel like it would qualify, whereas the lintel would.

    In both situations I am looking to improve the building (the current floor creaks like hell!) and there is also a clause in the lease that says we should maintain good soundproofing. I’m confident levelling, thicker underlay, plus a quality wood floor would adhere to this.

    Leave a comment:


  • ram
    replied
    You are putting the fireplace back to its original condition as first built.
    If the fireplace has just been covered over, that plasterboard is not structural. You are allowed to cover a gaping hole in the wall over a fireplace, to stop the up draught, to keep your rooms warm and stop the heat generated from disapearing up the chimney, and allowed to remove that covering that was placed over it.

    You are usually responsible for all plaster on the interior walls, so you can take it all off, or replace it at will.
    The fire place has a structural component, and that is the lintel on top that supports the brickwork above, in the same way there are lintels above all doors and window appertures.

    Replacing the fireplace lintel, which is a structral support, will need authorisation, and all you need to say is you have inspected it and there may be cracks in it, and the outside is a mess, with chips everywhere ( make some if not readily available ! ! ! ) an for peace of mine for the safety of the building, in your opinion, it should be replaced.
    As it will be structural, it would probably be the freeholder to replace, but you say you will pay all costs.

    Don't forget to use Acrow props ( above lintel ) as photos - if doing it yourself.


    FLOORS. are not normaly structural, but do semi help.
    You are usually liable to replace the floorboards as required ( check your lease ) ( You should be responsible to maintan, the interior plaster and the floorboards,) - if that is the case ( read your lease ) you can replace your floorboards without permission.

    With the lintel, replacing a structural item because of defects should be permissable, and recommended. But of course the freeholder must be advised of you plans ( see above for valid reasons )

    If you are responsible to maintain the floorboards, no authorisation is required, but you must advise the freeholder to record the change from hardwood to oak, and that the uneven floor was rectifed in the process.( good selling point [ oh. he leveled the floor where otheres would not have bothered.])
    photos follow ( if i was sucessful )




    IMG_1793A.jpg
    IMG_1792.jpg

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Yes

    Yes, if that is what the lease says (but it probably doesn't for a 1mm hole)
    The lease does not say you can do structural alterations with permission - it says you can't do structural alterations.

    So *if* you regard what you are doing as a structural alteration, you need to get the lease(s) altered, not get permission.

    Leave a comment:


  • ZRG90
    replied
    But unanimous can? As we the leaseholders are essentially giving consent to add a new clause?
    Going on this, it sounds like I’d have to get it permission in writing every time I want to drill into a wall (or maybe I can’t even do that?)

    Leave a comment:


  • AndrewDod
    replied
    Originally posted by ZRG90 View Post
    Thanks for the responses.

    I have verbal consent from neighbour (who has considered something similar himself he says), so I guess it’s whether I put this in writing for when I come to sell? Between us we have a working majority when it comes to the management company we sit on that owns the lease.
    You can't breach a lease based on a majority.

    Leave a comment:


  • ZRG90
    replied
    Thanks for the responses.

    I have verbal consent from neighbour (who has considered something similar himself he says), so I guess it’s whether I put this in writing for when I come to sell? Between us we have a working majority when it comes to the management company we sit on that owns the lease.

    It’s interesting to hear that floor is seen as “structural” as I would just be laying a new top. On the Alterations section of the document I received when purchasing, the previous sellers checked None, however I know they had new laminate laid in the bedrooms, a floor mat in the hall, and a new bathroom (tiles, toilet - not layout changes). If what you’re saying is right here, I’d have to declare all of these?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

  • Dilapidated Flat
    by scot22
    In a block of 24, unfortunately one flat has become dilapidated. The new owner has bought cheaply. She is now demanding the Freeholder pays to refurbish it claiming they have been negligent. Is there a reasonable case ?
    04-12-2021, 11:21 AM
  • Reply to Dilapidated Flat
    by scot22
    Thanks all. It was a great price, significantly below market value, plus in further negotiations a reduction to pay for any further work. This was identified by a surveyor. She is not clueless.....
    Artful in my research I read that can only claim for her ownership period.
    It is all i...
    04-12-2021, 19:33 PM
  • Reply to Legal Action Against Landlord - Local Council
    by Isaac1400
    Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have heard of this. In summary do you know if this would benefit those with older leases and not on the builds which have has issues with rising ground rent etc?...
    04-12-2021, 19:09 PM
  • Legal Action Against Landlord - Local Council
    by Isaac1400
    Hi,

    Hoping someone can advise. I am leaseholder and the landlord is a local council. my property is a flat and there are about 55 flats spread out over 3 floors.

    Now the problem is that over the years the council has failed to maintain the exterior and communal areas - including...
    02-12-2021, 07:13 AM
  • How much can the freeholder charge for registering details of a sublet?
    by Joubert
    I am a director of a Freehold Company of a small block of 28 flats in a popular residential area.

    Over the past few years the majority of flats have been purchased by investors who sublet the flats on ASTs.

    Although the leases between the Freehold Company and the lessees are...
    04-12-2021, 17:35 PM
  • Reply to Dilapidated Flat
    by Macromia
    If a leaseholder can show that internal maintenance is required because of a freeholder's negligence (e.g. a failure to meet external maintenance obligations according to the terms of the lease), they will potentially have a claim against the freeholder and be entitled to expect the freeholder (the...
    04-12-2021, 16:59 PM
  • Reply to Dilapidated Flat
    by theartfullodger
    The previous owner might have had a case. The new owner I think only for claims for problems during their ownership. But ianal.

    Presumably she got a great price as it was so dilapidated
    04-12-2021, 16:51 PM
  • Reply to Dilapidated Flat
    by Neelix
    What utter nonsense.

    The new buyer should have had a survey before they purchased.
    04-12-2021, 16:15 PM
  • Reply to Dilapidated Flat
    by scot22
    Many thanks for the prompt and helpful replies. Mainly, I suspect, due to lack of ventilation and heating there is some damp. She says the Freeholder should have stopped this happening by work to outside wall !? Efforts, including engaging surveyors whose advice has been followed, have been made...
    04-12-2021, 15:51 PM
  • Reply to Dilapidated Flat
    by doobrey
    In what way?...
    04-12-2021, 15:21 PM
Working...
X