Can freeholder refuse to sublet to Council

[ram]

Can we refuse to give permission to sublet to one of these Council
run schemes, where they take over the property for 1 to 5 years,
where they can have a constant stream of either good tenants, or
as they suggest, anyone from any background, and upset the harmony
by change of tenents every 3 weeks, 3 months, etc etc.
( Council homeless department )

Our Leases states :-

Blah blah blah ...........
Not to be unreasonably withheld in the case of a respectable and
responsible person not being and incorporated body, and to pay
lessor his legal charges in considering application.

The phrase "not being and incorporated body" I would assume this is
the council, who are a Municiple inorporated body, and our lease
states no underletting to incorporated body's ?

So on those terms, can we refuse ?

The Flat would be "leased" to the council, who then get an association to run

the flat ( 1 flat )

R.a.M.

[JK0]

Yes, RAM, I think it is reasonable for you to refuse. If I was one of the other lessees, I would not wish them to be housed next door.

[ram]

Yes, RAM, I think it is reasonable for you to refuse. If I was one of the other lessees, I would not wish them to be housed next door.

Thanks, but I wil wait i nthe hope that someone maybe able to say ,
Yes you can refuse, rather than "think" you can refuse.

I have to be careful, as it's me writing the letter to the lease holder,
who runs to his solicitor every time, but we dont have the funds.

thankss.

[leaseholdanswers]

Ram

This is a case where you are going to be disappointed with the answers!

No one can tell you yes or no. Why?

1 : 90% of the time leases have to be interpreted to be applied, that involves judgement and not certainty.

2: Your lease does not say " No councils"

I would argue that all the original parties intended that any underlettings were intend to exclude anything other than a respectable and responsible person , the emphasis on person.

It clearly intended to exclude anyone or anything else by excluding "incorporated body", as at the time of grant such schemes were not in existence nor envisaged, and that the term was intended to be all encompassing.

Moreover the intention was to create a relationship between the lessor and the occupier which has a different qualitative relationship than that with a company let and occupation. It also envisaged that there would be greater accountability without the intervening shield of a corporation, in the event of any breach. That applies equally to the lessee and the company.


That is particularly important in a small block, which has different character than a larger block, and where the Q relationship is against different and the actions of an occupier have significantly greater impact on other occupiers. They in turn often have less resources to deal with any breaches which in turn has a greater impact on them.

NB I would research your comment about the councils status, making sure it is the council and not an RSL or HA which are incorporated. That could kill the application.

You can then search bailli or similar for precedent on unreasonably withholding consent.


Bottom line you have as strong argument, but you will have to be prepared to argue.

In the first instance you ask for details of the application to consider and your fees so that you can get legal advice....




PS RAM you have been a member for 4 years, surely by now you have added legal expenses cover to your block policy or DOI cover....

[Tulula]

Very often the way these schemes work is that an agent (very often an incorporated company) takes the tenancy and then either sublets to the council or HA, or places tenants provided by the council or HA direct. Avoid this like the plague if you can legally do so. Whilst they are normally very good on the maintenance side, they are completely hopeless when it comes to dealing with issues directly relating to their tenants (in my experience).

[ram]

PS RAM you have been a member for 4 years, surely by now
you have added legal expenses cover to your block policy or
DOI cover....

Assume you mean DOL
Director and Officers (D&O) Liability Insurance.

Yes we have that last month, but I have not told them as
they would have said no, to the expense.

legal expenses cover = no, as they wont add the extra money
into the account, but some legal cover is included in
Director and Officers (D&O) Liability Insurance.

Looks like we will just have to engage a solicitor, which remove
most of the funds from the account.

Am still working on that book of 22 words, have 35 words now !

R.a.M.

[ram]

Avoid this like the plague if you can legally do so.

Thanks,
I have spent 5 days talking to the "homeless" department, looking on
the web for the horror stories, and contacted some residents who also
say, no way is this going to happen, and with myself we would have a
majority vote to say the "Company" will not allow leasing to the
council.

Our lease states also states :-

The lessor reserves the right to make such other rules and regulations
from time to time ( either in addition to, or by way of variation or of
substitution for these rules and regulations or any of them ) as the
Lessor may deem needful for the the safety, care and comfort and
conveniece of the tenants ( leaseholders ) generally of the building
and such further rules and regulations, when made, shall be binding
on the lessee as if the same had been incorporated in this schedule.

So me thinks if a Majority vote, not to allow renting ( leasing ) to the
council, then it becomes part of he lease, and cannot be done in
future ( Deed of variation after the majority vote would of course
have to be instigated.)

Any ideas as to the legality of our lease, in blue.?
Some say you cannot change the lease via the above blue
covernant, even though it's written into the lease.

R.a.M.

[leaseholdanswers]

The regulation cannot conflict with or alter the lease covenant.

I suggest that as I and Tulula have suggested you look closely at the proposed undertenant and whether they are an incorporated body,

Please don't clog up the homeless team who have frankly more important things to do....

[ram]

Please don't clog up the homeless team who have frankly more important things to do....

it's Not the homeless team, but the department that is looking for flats
and houses to lease, who have said call anytime, and will send me info
on leasing. ( Not on how to get a home because I may be homeless )

anyone is entitled as a prospective participant to the Lease scheme,
to ask questions.

R.a.M.

[leaseholdanswers]

I can only go on what you said.

Thanks,
I have spent 5 days talking to the "homeless" department,

Besides don't confuse activity with progress, find out who the under tenant would be ( not the occupant) and focus on that.

[Galatea]

So me thinks if a Majority vote, not to allow renting ( leasing ) to the
council, then it becomes part of he lease, and cannot be done in
future ( Deed of variation after the majority vote would of course
have to be instigated.)

Any ideas as to the legality of our lease, in blue.?
Some say you cannot change the lease via the above blue
covernant, even though it's written into the lease.

R.a.M.

Do you mean a Deed of variation, based on majority voting? On another matter similar, I had asked my solicitor for a Deed of variation and she had said a lease can be varied by agreement of all the parties to the lease or in certain circumstances by an application to a Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT). Unless it is change in the physical appearance of a particular flat. I had taken legal advice from the students of BPP Law School in London, as I cant afford. You might try that.

To commit a 3-year lease and rely on probablities that it might be OK or bad, it is something where all parties should know the risks. We have here experience of tenants (they are not mine) who initially were private and then I learned from my local Counsellor they became LHA: It is hard or even impossible to control the breaches and noise, some times things had improved and then worsened and it is on that cycle.

[leaseholdanswers]

Our lease states also states :-

The lessor reserves the right to make such other rules and regulations
from time to time ( either in addition to, or by way of variation or of
substitution for these rules and regulations or any of them ) as the
Lessor may deem needful for the the safety, care and comfort and
conveniece of the tenants ( leaseholders ) generally of the building
and such further rules and regulations, when made, shall be binding
on the lessee as if the same had been incorporated in this schedule.

So me thinks if a Majority vote, not to allow renting ( leasing ) to the
council, then it becomes part of he lease, and cannot be done in
future ( Deed of variation after the majority vote would of course
have to be instigated.)

Any ideas as to the legality of our lease, in blue.?
Some say you cannot change the lease via the above blue
covernant, even though it's written into the lease.

R.a.M.

To put it in simple terms, who would enter into a contract which sets out what you agreed, if it included a clause that allowed the other person to unilaterally change that contract, with no redress for you?

These clauses are agreed to as they are going to be consistent with the main terms and the intention of parties, not change the terms of the lease.

[Galatea]

Our lease states also states :-

The lessor reserves the right to make such other rules and regulations
from time to time ( either in addition to, or by way of variation or of
substitution for these rules and regulations or any of them ) as the
Lessor may deem needful for the the safety, care and comfort and conveniece of the tenants ( leaseholders ) generally of the building
and such further rules and regulations, when made, shall be binding
on the lessee as if the same had been incorporated in this schedule.

It may be good idea to ask also the Housing dept of your Council how many independent families and what max adults and children they would they allow to he housed in that flat.

You may be able to reach a resolution so:
(a) May allow the tenant to lease to the Council initially for 1 to 2 years, but the burden and risks must be born by all:
(b) The majority could vote new measures on the line of safety comfort and ... convenience ect cited above:

• not allowing moving heavy household furniture without notice (causes wear and tear)
• quiet hours between 10 pm and 8 am; no noise in entrances; and smoking ban in the building (go green)

(c) pay a small compensation for a rota consierge amongs the lessees (probably allowed in the articles of association as admin fee).

[ram]

Reply to ).

ask also the Housing dept of your Council who many independent
families and what max adults and children they would they allow to
be housed in that flat.

Lease states a maximum number of persons,

(a) May allow the tenant to lease to the Council initially for 1 to 2 years, but the burden and risks must be born by all:

The burden will be on the Lessee of the flat to observe the covenants of the lease. How he acheives that is up to him, and
ultimately the leaseholders responsibility
But we still don't want ANYONE, who will not be vetted by the
"company" to reside here, or even to be leased to the Council.

(b) The majority could vote new measures on the line of safety comfort and ... convenience ect cited above:

• not allowing moving heavy household furniture without notice (causes wear and tear)

That cannot be done, as you cannot prevent people moving in or out, furniture.

• quiet hours between 10 pm and 8 am; no noise in entrances; and smoking ban in the building (go green)

That is already in the lease, as is no smoking in common areas.

(c) pay a small compensation for a rota consierge amongs the lessees (probably allowed in the articles of association as admin fee).
That wont happen either, as lessee will refuse.

NO, we do not want the council having control, who then pass it
onto a housing association / letting agent, as then we lose control
as to who is coming onto the property for 3 years / 5 years.

The only option would be forfiture, and the directors would not allow
that, as it costs solicitors fees which they will refuse to sanction
that.
Hence the initial question that we need to nip it in the bud now, before
it happens.

R.a.M.

[Galatea]

The only option would be forfiture, and the directors would not allow
that, as it costs solicitors fees which they will refuse to sanction
that.
Hence the initial question that we need to nip it in the bud now, before
it happens.

Well I agree with you on the premise of NO to outside control. But if one can afford to pay solicitors for it - that is the whole point. And should not let decisions been taken behind closed doors.

When leasing to people you do not know, you never know how many might move in (despite the stipulation of a lease). If people cannot pay solicitors for forfeiture, then how would they deal with future breaches?
Can you all apply as a group to LVT for change in the Covenants you agree to change and find probono sol/ or students of a Law School? Or can you all become self litigants? I will watch this space.