Is there a limit to what constitutes a premium?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    And here is section 21 of the lease.


      Under clause 20, you can ask for freeholder's prior consent for putting a large garden shed for lawn mower, garden table and seats, pram etc ( or even summer house ) in the garden area .

      Under clause 21, you cannot add temporary or additional buildings. But the wording does not appear to include extending an existing room.


        Hi Gordon999

        Agree with clause 20. We have built a summer house already. There was no charge for that.

        Clause 21 however the freeholder is claiming a premium to approve any extension as I would be cutting the walls to extend the space.


          Originally posted by ram View Post
          [SIZE=14px][FONT=arial]If the lease alows / freeholder is usually allowed to authorise alterationss - in writing that you can add an extention over your garden, but he is entitled to receive detailed plans from you of the proposed alteratios.
          He is also allowed to get his own surveyor to check those plans, and at your cost even if the outcome over all that is that you are refused permission.
          What details the landlord needs has to depend on what is proposed. For an extension it is reasonable to supply full plans. Whether he can insist on the tenant paying for the landlord's professional to check the plans has, I think, to depend on who prepared the plans. If architect prepared a second professional should not really be needed.

          Originally posted by ram View Post
          The lease may say on no account must ANY alterations be made. then you will get a refusal ( usually there is a provision is in the lease that a freeholder cannot Reasonably refuse.)

          Also the freeholder can ask for whatever he wants £ xxxxxx for permisin to alter / add / extend. There is no limit, but the average is he usually asks for 50% or the increase in value. After all, it's the freeholders building either purpose built or converted. if the freeholder wanted a 3 bedroom flat, he would have added one at the time, and sold the lease at a higher price, which is what you may eventully do, so why should a leaseholder make a profit from altering that which is only leased, when the freeholder usuall decides how many bedrooms there are
          It is not clear if the red follows on from the blue or all that goes before. If the lease contains an absolute prohibition then the landlord can charge what he likes as he does not have to give permission. If the prohibition is qualified no premium can be charged as section 19(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 applies:

          "In all leases whether made before or after the commencement of this Act containing a covenant condition or agreement against the making of improvements without a licence or consent, such covenant condition or agreement shall be deemed, notwithstanding any express provision to the contrary, to be subject to a proviso that such licence or consent is not to be unreasonably withheld; but this proviso does not preclude the right to require as a condition of such licence or consent the payment of a reasonable sum in respect of any damage to or diminution in the value of the premises or any neighbouring premises belonging to the landlord, and of any legal or other expenses properly incurred in connection with such licence or consent nor, in the case of an improvement which does not add to the letting value of the holding, does it preclude the right to require as a condition of such licence or consent, where such a requirement would be reasonable, an undertaking on the part of the tenant to reinstate the premises in the condition in which they were before the improvement was executed."

          Whilst not relevant to either case, the argument that the landlord should be entitled to an uplift is not sustainable. If a premium is paid on the grant of a long lease the tenant will have paid full value for the property. The value of the landlord's reversion basically depends on the length of the lease and the rent payable and there will be a huge disparity between the two. The tenant should not be required to pay for the improvement twice nor should the landlord get a windfall. The landlord gets the benefit of the improvement when the lease ends - in theory anyway as in the case of 900+ year lease the current building will have disappeared long before the lease ends.


            Under page 22 section B it states that the demised premises includes the external walls? And section 10A also seems to guide towards alterations or additions?


              Its very strange the lease is so excessively detailed on the demised flat to include the external walls which normally belongs to the Freeholder and normally maintained by the service charge account, contributed by all the flats.

              But the wording in page 22 does not give the freeholder a legal right to demand a premium ( due to increase in value of the leasehold flat )


                Agreed, the FH is only entitled to a premium if the proposed alterations impact any of the parts retained by the Lessor.

                if the work is within the Lessee’s demised premises no premium is payable (only solicitors/surveyor’s fees are payable by the Lessee). And the freeholder cannot unreasonably withhold consent.


                  Thank you all

                  Super helpful. What about the restrictions on not cutting or maiming the walls?


                    My lease allows maiming/injuring/cutting the walls with consent from the FH. If u have the same terms, FH cannot refuse consent, provided that ur alterations are within ur demise.


                      Originally posted by Babyspice View Post
                      FH cannot refuse consent, provided that ur alterations are within ur demise.
                      F.H. can refuse if the refusal terms are valid.

                      I refused a leaseholder to sublet, because they would not obey minor covenants of the lease ( blocking car access, more than one car on drive, refusing to move cars in the way, their workmen blocking access to garages and refusing to move, and leaseholders refusing to tell workmen to move. Therefore they would not give a dam if their tenants did the same.
                      They also did not ask for permision to sublet, they just went ahead and sub-let. but before sub-tenant moved in, i stated leaseholder must ask permission.
                      Permision was refused, the potential renters sued them for offering accomodation that was not available ( probably they were to move in - in a weeks time ) and costs for not honering the A.S.T. signed contract.
                      Eventually, the "Developers" had to sell the flat they had just bought and lived in for 6 months.

                      Yes I was on sticky ground by refusing, as I did not use solicitors, but - a freeholder CAN refuse, with valid reasons.
                      NOTE -- MUST be valid reasons.


                        i agree with the above. However, making consent conditional of a premium being payable (which by the looks of it he is not entitled to since the alterations are within the lessee’s demise) IS unreasonably withholding consent.


                        Latest Activity