Is holiday-letting a breach of lease covenants?

[Lawcruncher]

Preston makes the same point I made with more detail.

Only someone who has gone through the lease with a fine tooth comb and then, if necessary, considered the relevant cases is in a position to advise fully.

I confess I am puzzled by the advice given by the letting advisory service.

[sundance]

Carandon D.C v Paton & one other was interesting tenants had purchased under the right to buy there property which was eventualy let out as furnished holiday lets.Council objected to this & claimed they were in breach of the covenant the property to be used as a private dwelling only claiming they were running a business from the ex local authority properties.Appeal court judge ruled not being used as a permanant dwelling in this case was a breach of the covenant private dwelling in the context that public money had been used to build these properties for housing stock and a degree of permanancy was required.The running of a business from the property was not not decided upon.Heavens sake why not put in plain English to be used as permanent dwelling & not temporary these covenants are so twisted it is totally misleading.I would think that a very large amount of properties are in breach of lease/covenants that are let as holiday lets all over the U.K these properties make up a sizeable proportion of accomodation made available to holidaymakers which in turn is essential to many seaside town/county ecconomies.

[Lawcruncher]

Your frustration is understandable. However, I think the simple point is that when leases are drafted the possibility of the premises being used for holidays is perhaps not considered and therefore not expressly provided one way or the other.

[Moderator1]

Two separate threads by same member have been merged here. Do not cause problems by starting continuation threads; use the same one.

[sundance]

The confusion which is caused by this covenant for use only as a private residential residence one family one household. About this covenant - does anybody know how often it appears in residential property leases & also freehold property, because according to the developer of my block of flats he had this included specially in the lease to stop purchasers, in this case the freeholder/leaseholders subletting to holiday makers.I have looked up covenants in other property I own which I use for holiday lets & it seems to be standard practice to include this covenant. Am I in breach of the same, as are thousands of other property owners who are letting to holidaymakers.

[jeffrey]

What happens in other cases is, I regret, irrelevant in yours. The covenant exists; it binds you.

[sundance]

Binds me to not let to holiday makers.

[northsouth]

Hi Sundance,
I have read your thread on holiday lets with great interest as I am in an almost identical situation. I was wondering if you have managed to resolve this issue?

[northsouth]

Just a little update.
I have just been in touch with the leasehold advisory service and they claim that the term "only to be used as a single private residence" does not prevent the property for being used as a holiday let.
Could Sundance please get intouch with me to compare findings?

[jeffrey]

Just a little update.
I have just been in touch with the leasehold advisory service and they claim that the term "only to be used as a single private residence" does not prevent the property for being used as a holiday let.
Could Sundance please get intouch with me to compare findings?

Go back to my post #2 and the link which I provided, as L.A.S. may not have taken the Law Reports into account.

[sundance]

I have just received the decision from the LVT(Leasehold Valuation Tribunal)there being no breach of covenant under section 168.The wording in this covenant states, The Lessee must not use the flat for any other purpose other than for residential purposes as a single private residence in the occupation of one family one household only.Using the flat for holiday use or as a holiday let is not a breach of this covenant,the LVT did not consider that holiday letting constitutes use as a business.They say it may be the subject of a business,but the business is run elsewhere in this case by a holiday letting agency.The other aspect that is relevant is that the flat is situated in a holiday town very close to a beach and there must be a high expectation that property owners might well wish to use property for holiday lets.If a lessor wishes to prevent such useage he should specifically say so and not seek to rely on phraseology which is at best is unspecific in that respect.If it may be said that the clause is ambiguous,as a matter of law,ambiguity is to be construed against the lessor so that on that ground also there would be a finding that the lease does not prevent holday lets. Sundance

[jeffrey]

Can you post a link to the LVT Case Report, please?

[sundance]

Hi Jeffrey www.rpts.gov.uk log on decisions,I have just tried this link unfortunately decision not posted yet I have only just received this decision through through my letter box today.I will give you the case number CHI/OOHE/LBC/2010/0007.
Cheers Sundance

[jeffrey]

Was it http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup...method=boolean (Glass v. McCready) in Upper Tribunal- Lands Chamber?

[sundance]

No this was a decision made by the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal on the 9/6/2010 applicant Maymyo Management Co Ltd respondent M.Hall decision made by paper on fasttrack basis took 4 months laugh, by Southern Rent Assesment Panel Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.
Cheers Sundance.