Does "Disposition" include an AST

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

    Does "Disposition" include an AST

    Hi Having probs with leaseholder
    Looking for £78 to register AST & £78/month after 6 months if tenant doesn't sign new lease
    At all times during the continuance of the Term to deliver or cause to be delivered to the Landlord a notice of every assignment, disposition or devolution of or charge on or transfer of title to the Property whether by way of mortgage or otherwise within one month after the execution of any deed or signature to any document or after the date of any probate, letters of administration or other instrument or any Order of Court by which such assignment, disposition, devolution, charge or transfer may be effected or evidenced such notice to specify the name, address and description of the person or persons to whom or in whose favour the assignment, disposition, devolution, charge or transfer shall be made or take effect and to pay to the Landlord a reasonable fee (not being less than £50.00) plus Value Added Tax for each such registration



    I have written to him and he states "The LRA 2002 (which, as a piece of primary legislation, trumps a Tribunal decision) is quite clear that a disposition includes the grant of a lease."

    Is he correct?

    #2
    Originally posted by maurice1 View Post
    Hi Having probs with leaseholder
    Looking for £78 to register AST & £78/month after 6 months if tenant doesn't sign new lease
    At all times during the continuance of the Term to deliver or cause to be delivered to the Landlord a notice of every assignment, disposition or devolution of or charge on or transfer of title to the Property whether by way of mortgage or otherwise within one month after the execution of any deed or signature to any document or after the date of any probate, letters of administration or other instrument or any Order of Court by which such assignment, disposition, devolution, charge or transfer may be effected or evidenced such notice to specify the name, address and description of the person or persons to whom or in whose favour the assignment, disposition, devolution, charge or transfer shall be made or take effect and to pay to the Landlord a reasonable fee (not being less than £50.00) plus Value Added Tax for each such registration



    I have written to him and he states "The LRA 2002 (which, as a piece of primary legislation, trumps a Tribunal decision) is quite clear that a disposition includes the grant of a lease."

    Is he correct?
    Wikipedia says

    Dispositions subject to registration according to s. 27 are:
    any transfer of a freehold, whether for value or by way of gift or on death
    the grant of a legal lease for more than seven years
    the grant of a legal lease taking effect in possession in three or more months from grant
    the grant of a legal charge (a mortgage)
    the express grant of legal easement
    According to s. 27(1): "If a disposition is required to be completed by registration it does not operate at law until the relevant requirements are met."


    I am sure you aren't renting out for more than 7 years, so tell him he is not correct.
    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
      Well there are plenty of cases on this subject and the wording of your lease is a commonly used one, and I am afraid is a disposition that requires notice.

      The reference to Schedule 11 is incorrect on both your and the landlords argument, as it is a fee for notification ( not consent), and therefore falls outside the jurisdiction of the Act and therefore the LVT.

      I would be tempted to give them notice and £50, VAT if the landlord not their agent, is VAT registered, and let them stew on the £28.


      Renewal Fee Hysterical- this is where the landlord has it back to front.
      a: they can charge if it is a new tenancy, not if they simply hold over it's notice of a disposition, how can you give someone notice of the status quo?!
      b: Tribunal decisions, while not precedent, determine application of the law relevant to the case, neither trump each other.

      Donut.....
      Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
        The reference to Schedule 11 is incorrect on both your and the landlords argument, as it is a fee for notification ( not consent), and therefore falls outside the jurisdiction of the Act and therefore the LVT.
        :
        The Cambridge LVT now feel themselves competent to rule on registration fees. (They have just ruled on my freeholder's registration fees, although I cannot yet send you a link to it.) If your property is within their jurisdiction you can now ask them to rule on it.

        Jeffrey pointed out the misconception in their refusing to rule about two years ago, although I can't find those old posts. He said that the lessee gave notice, and the administration charge was for the freeholder acknowledging it. I wonder if the Cambridge Tribunal members read Landlordzone.
        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
          Found it, here it is:

          http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...derlet-Charges

          Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
          Paragraph 1(b) is relevant. A 'give Notice' covenant usually imposes:
          a. on T, an obligation to serve Notice and pay fee; and
          b. on L, an express or implied duty to acknowledge receipt by contersigning/returning a copy of a Notice served in duplicate. To this latter extent, if the lease so stipulates, the Notice fee is an administration charge- it does concern the provision of information or documents by or on behalf of the landlord, such 'document' being the contersigned/returned copy Notice.
          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


            #6
            I'm surprised to hear that they ever considered themselves anything other than competent. Do you mean that for some reason they thought admin fees were outside of their jurisdiction? If so, do you know why?

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Tulula View Post
              I'm surprised to hear that they ever considered themselves anything other than competent. Do you mean that for some reason they thought admin fees were outside of their jurisdiction? If so, do you know why?
              Well to be fair to them, my freeholder at the time had quite a crafty solicitor. You can read about it here:

              http://www.residential-property.judi...y/10001AMR.htm
              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


                #8
                Originally posted by Tulula View Post
                I'm surprised to hear that they ever considered themselves anything other than competent. Do you mean that for some reason they thought admin fees were outside of their jurisdiction? If so, do you know why?
                My initial view was that they would, but are limited where there is a contractually set or formula fee eg £50 -Sch 11, 3(a)- .
                Common misunderstanding is 1(b) is that is provision of information but that does not apply to tenants ( which for new members, a long leaseholder is).


                The key things are
                a: if it is a notification without attendant consent
                b: as always depends on the wording of the lease

                This writing is very common and there are several rulings on it. One quite clearly broke on clauses 1 2 & 3.

                It's fresh in mind as I argued it this week and won..
                Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by jamesknight0 View Post
                  The Cambridge LVT now feel themselves competent to rule on registration fees.
                  Sorry James but they don't. Take a look at para 19, they support the view registration fees fall outside the Act.

                  Their decision was based on
                  a; Their solicitors cock up at presenting contradictory arguments
                  b: that the solicitors initial response and the landlords handling made it clear that they considered they were consenting to a subletting.

                  They are taking the view that a fee was raised on a basis ( consent) which the lease does not provide for and it is therefore not due.

                  They have set out what they think a reasonable fee is for registration fees, however are clear that this is outside the Act (CLRA 2002 ) and under the jurisdiction of the County Court ie a contractual term which asks for reasonable fees, or in my opinion, Arbitration. See para 22.

                  Finally para 23 sets out the rather naive view of the panel, unlike you who do the right thing far too many "let and run".
                  Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
                    Sorry James but they don't. Take a look at para 19, they support the view registration fees fall outside the Act.

                    Their decision was based on
                    a; Their solicitors cock up at presenting contradictory arguments
                    b: that the solicitors initial response and the landlords handling made it clear that they considered they were consenting to a subletting.

                    They are taking the view that a fee was raised on a basis ( consent) which the lease does not provide for and it is therefore not due.

                    They have set out what they think a reasonable fee is for registration fees, however are clear that this is outside the Act (CLRA 2002 ) and under the jurisdiction of the County Court ie a contractual term which asks for reasonable fees, or in my opinion, Arbitration. See para 22.

                    Finally para 23 sets out the rather naive view of the panel, unlike you who do the right thing far too many "let and run".
                    The link I posted above is for a case over two years old, because Tulula asked why the LVT would consider registration fees outside their remit.

                    The case I won on Tuesday has a different panel which came to a different view.
                    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


                      #11
                      Originally posted by jamesknight0 View Post
                      The link I posted above is for a case over two years old, because Tulula asked why the LVT would consider registration fees outside their remit.

                      The case I won on Tuesday has a different panel which came to a different view.
                      Ok, was it the same lease or a different home? Can you remember the basis of their argument?
                      Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Why the LVT feel it is outside their jurisdiction(for now)

                        15. It follows that the Tribunal determines that, as a matter of law, the fee due from the applicant in respect of the required notice of underlease is not an administration charge as defined by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11 to the Commonhold & Leasehold Reform Act 2002. This is because—

                        (I) it is not payable, directly or indirectly in connection with

                        applications for approval or the grant of approvals under the lease for the purposes of paragraph 1(1)(a) as there is no requirement for lessor or management company consent or approval under the lease ;

                        it is not payable directly or indirectly in connection with the provision of information or documents by or on behalf of the landlord or a person who is party to his lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant for the purposes of paragraph 1(1)(b) ;

                        it is not payable directly or directly in relation in respect of a failure by a tenant to make a payment by the due date to the landlord or a person who is party to his lease otherwise than as landlord or tenant for the purposes of paragraph 1(1)(c), and

                        it is not payable directly or indirectly in connection with a breach (or alleged breach) of a covenant or condition in the lease for the purposes of paragraph 1(1)(d).

                        16.The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is defined in paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 11 to the 2002 Act. It can only arise where the fee or charge in dispute is an administration fee as defined by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 11. The notice of underletting fee is not within that definition. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the payability or reasonableness of the same.
                        Based on the information posted, I offer my thoughts.Any action you then take is your liability. While commending individual effort, there is no substitute for a thorough review of documents and facts by paid for professional advisers.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Thanks James, in your later case did they go with Jeffrey's 1(1)(b) interpretation, or did they fit it into the definition in paragraph 1(3)?

                          Here is shedule 11 for anyone wondering:

                          http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/15/schedule/11

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
                            Ok, was it the same lease or a different home? Can you remember the basis of their argument?
                            A different property. There was no argument made by the respondent that the LVT did not have jurisdiction, so no problem arose.

                            To be perfectly honest, I think we all know that the legislation intended the LVT's to have jurisdiction over all fees charged by freeholders, don't we? It is just that some clever solicitors have spotted some loopholes in the legislation.
                            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


                              #15
                              Thanks for all your views,
                              Their letter states"pay a registration fee of £78"
                              but my lease doesn't mention registration fees.
                              I would be looking for a determination from the Northern panel, but from reading here they may not be able to deliberate on the registration fee.

                              I presume that the LVT could rule on:
                              Does "Disposition" include an AST

                              Comment

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X