Notice of underletting - what's the point?

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

    Notice of underletting - what's the point?

    When a leaseholder is obliged in the lease to provide a notice (accompanied by a fee) in respect of any transfer or underletting, what information should be provided and what purposes does it genuinely serve for the freeholder? Should the freeholder expect to be provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement? Must the leaseholder provide details of the lease to the tenant?
    Assume I know nothing.

    #2
    The fee is the point.
    To save them chiming in, JPKeates, Theartfullodger, Boletus, Mindthegap, Macromia, Holy Cow & Ted.E.Bear think the opposite of me on almost every subject.

    Comment


      #3
      I just noticed Flyingfreehold's post in another thread

      I hesitate to defend the freeholder, but there can be more involved than just receipting the notice and returning it. Some insurers want to know if an insured premises is let rather than owner occupied (perceived to be slightly worse loss history) so the broker may need to be informed by email or letter and there is likely to be the need to change the contact details both for the lessee and to add into tenancy management programmes contact details for the sub lessee, so that in the event of water pouring from the flat, it is possible to access sub-tenants contact details in a hurry or even remotely. I don't think £20 plus VAT is enough to cover the cost of the work involved, bearing in mind the huge costs of operating a property management office with professional staff and IT systems. The big managing agents do try to charge a bit too much for notice fees, and for most other services come to that, and a reasonable fee is probably somewhere around £75 plus VAT
      Assume I know nothing.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Hooper View Post
        I just noticed Flyingfreehold's post in another thread
        Hmm. Except that in the case of the two large freeholders I am thinking of, the insurance & management of the properties is a different company, which has nothing to do with the freeholder.
        To save them chiming in, JPKeates, Theartfullodger, Boletus, Mindthegap, Macromia, Holy Cow & Ted.E.Bear think the opposite of me on almost every subject.

        Comment


          #5
          With an underletting, I suppose if the leaseholder tells the F/H that he is not at the property, he will at the same time be telling the F/H where he has moved to. If the F/H happens to find a problem at the property, (e.g. an unauthorised alteration), he wants to know where the L/H is so that he can chase him to put it right.
          And also what @JKO said!

          Comment


            #6
            In the case of a transfer it is obviously desirable for the freeholder to know who his tenant is.

            In the case of sublettings under a short to medium term commercial lease it is fairly critical for the landlord to have some measure of control over sublettings as a sub-tenant has the potential to become a tenant. In the case of long residential leases though there is no real justification for control. Having said that, I think it is a good idea for landlords to know who is in the property for estate management purposes. As for seeing the tenancy agreement, I would bet a penny to a pound that no managing agent ever reads one.

            As for the fee, the whole idea was dreamed up by lawyers for their own benefit, but only as a contribution to their lunch and not as a nice little earner. All older leases provide for the notice to be sent to a solicitor, so neither landlord nor managing agent would be compensated for the astonishing administrative burden imposed upon them by a change of tenant. A key point it of course that the fee is always expressed to be for registering the notice and nothing else.

            Comment

            Latest Activity

            Collapse

            Working...
            X