conundrum

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

    conundrum

    I am a leaseholder and my lease has clauses which say:

    1) all other leases must be the same
    2) a leaseholder can force the freeholder to act against another leaseholder if that leaseholder is in breach of the lease
    3) before acting, at the request of a leaseholder, against another leaseholder for breach of lease the freeholder can insist that nominated Councel is consulted by the complainant to determine that action would be successful.
    4) no washing is to be hung or exposed outside the flat.

    Our freeholder has waived the washing restriction by writing to a leaseholder saying it doesn't apply to her. Where does this leave those of us who don't want washing hanging outside the building? It would appear to me that this waiver would mean that Counsel would have to say that the freeholder has no case against the leaseholder who has the waiver.

    #2
    What precisely does the clause say which says that all the other leases must be the same?

    Comment


      #3
      Any leaseholder can write to the freeholder and insist that the terms
      and covenants of the lease be observed.
      The lease should state somewhere that the freeholder is under a
      duty to ensure the covenants of the lease are upheld., freeholder
      and lessee covenants.

      If the freeholder refuses to uphold the lease, the counsel would be
      the L.V.T. andfor a small charge, they would insist the freeholder
      was in breach of his obligations.

      It would mean that after the L.V.T. had made the decision that the
      freeholder and leaseholder must obey the lease, that if they don't,
      you then have to co to the small claims court ( in this instance )
      to make them all obey the lease.

      Suggest you do this now, otherwise, as you say, it would be seen
      that the freeholder has waived this covenant, and for the next 200
      years, it's a free for all with washing out everywhere.

      If you have only just heard about this, or the freeholder has only
      recently breached the lease, then you have a strong case, as you
      found out about the breach, and are doing something about rectifying
      the breach.

      Wont cost you much, and you may be able toget your small costs
      back.

      Are you suggesting that the clause about hanging out washing is
      not in the other persons lease ? if so, this means that the
      leased should be altered,and that also needs a determination
      by the L.V.T. ( leasehold valuation tribunal )

      R.a.M.

      Comment


        #4
        See this:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...egal-bill.html
        I think this case might have huge implications..

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
          What precisely does the clause say which says that all the other leases must be the same?
          There's the first page of the lease stating the date & parties to the lease then "WHERAS

          (1) The lessor is seised of the freehold property known as XXXXX ... the extent of which is for identification outlined in red...."
          (2) The lessor has previously granted leases or intends hereafter to grant leases of the said flats (other than the premises hereby demised) and the Lessor has in every lease and intends in every future lease to impose similar covenants obligation and regulations to those contained herein to the intent that (in addition to enforcement by the Lessor) any Lessee for the time being of any flat may for the protection of his own flat be able to enforce the observance of the said covenants obligations and regulations by the Lessee for the time being of the other flats."

          and then later in the Lessor's covenants:

          "that every lease of a flat at the Building granted by the Lessor before or after the date hereof contains covenants which shall be observed and performed by the Lessee thereof similar to those contained in this Lease"

          Comment


            #6
            link did not work for me.

            Try

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...egal-bill.html

            (www.) dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116077/Couple-took-neighbours-court-sound-high-heels-clicking-floor-lose-case-hit-140-000-legal-bill.html

            Comment


              #7
              Not really first the landlord waived it and therefore action should have not have been solely directed at the other leaseholder. Secondly they say an architect testified; which is the last thing you should ever do- they spend all day doodling. Never mind if it makes the neighbour insane look at" the clean line of the floor"!

              Even my first year building science class covered materials properties and the effect of carpeting. A half awake acoustic engineer would have destroyed their testimony - " floating on wood batons" hysterical
              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


                #8
                Originally posted by alizyme View Post
                Our freeholder has waived the washing restriction by writing to a leaseholder saying it doesn't apply to her. Where does this leave those of us who don't want washing hanging outside the building? It would appear to me that this waiver would mean that Counsel would have to say that the freeholder has no case against the leaseholder who has the waiver.
                As lawcruncher has indicated it rests on the covenant in 1 ( and of course what consent or waiver the landlord gave- is the neighbour truthful?).
                Your action might therefore be against your landlord, not solely the neighbour.
                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 ram View Post
                  Any leaseholder can write to the freeholder and insist that the terms
                  and covenants of the lease be observed.
                  The lease should state somewhere that the freeholder is under a
                  duty to ensure the covenants of the lease are upheld., freeholder
                  and lessee covenants.

                  If the freeholder refuses to uphold the lease, the counsel would be
                  the L.V.T. andfor a small charge, they would insist the freeholder
                  was in breach of his obligations.

                  It would mean that after the L.V.T. had made the decision that the
                  freeholder and leaseholder must obey the lease, that if they don't,
                  you then have to co to the small claims court ( in this instance )
                  to make them all obey the lease.

                  Suggest you do this now, otherwise, as you say, it would be seen
                  that the freeholder has waived this covenant, and for the next 200
                  years, it's a free for all with washing out everywhere.

                  If you have only just heard about this, or the freeholder has only
                  recently breached the lease, then you have a strong case, as you
                  found out about the breach, and are doing something about rectifying
                  the breach.

                  Wont cost you much, and you may be able toget your small costs
                  back.

                  Are you suggesting that the clause about hanging out washing is
                  not in the other persons lease ? if so, this means that the
                  leased should be altered,and that also needs a determination
                  by the L.V.T. ( leasehold valuation tribunal )

                  R.a.M.
                  I didn't think you could take the landlord to the LVT for breach of lease.

                  The tenant has a letter from the freeholder waiving the obligation for that particular leaseholder.

                  The lease suggest that for breaches by leaseholders you get the freeholder to take action against them by providing them with the funds. However because they've waived the breach there is no way (I can see) that Counsel will advise that success is likely, thereby freeing the leaseholder of their obligation.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by alizyme View Post
                    There's the first page of the lease stating the date & parties to the lease then .......ed in this Lease"
                    And the convenant on "no washing" ?
                    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


                      #11
                      Originally posted by alizyme View Post
                      The lease suggest that for breaches by leaseholders you get the freeholder to take action against them by providing them with the funds. However because they've waived the breach there is no way (I can see) that Counsel will advise that success is likely, thereby freeing the leaseholder of their obligation.
                      That's right, that is why your action, in court, is for the landlord breaching his covenant, and his obligation, to you.
                      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
                        Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
                        And the convenant on "no washing" ?
                        "The lessee hereby covenants with the Lessor and the Lessees of the other flats comprised in the building that the Lessee will at all times hereafter observe the regulations set forth in the Third schedule"

                        "THE THIRD SCHEDULE Regulations

                        1. No act or thing....
                        2. ...
                        3. ...
                        4. ...
                        5. ...
                        6. No clothes or other articles shall be hung or exposed outside the Flat"

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
                          That's right, that is why your action, in court, is for the landlord breaching his covenant, and his obligation, to you.
                          yes, but how would that stop it happening? The Judge could order the freeholder to make the tenant observe the regulation but what is the consequence of them not being able to? They are not going to be able to get a court order against the leaseholder.

                          What is it that I don't understand?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by alizyme View Post
                            The Judge could order the freeholder to
                            make the tenant observe the regulation but what is the consequence
                            of them not being able to? They are not going to be able to get a
                            court order against the leaseholder.

                            What is it that I don't understand?
                            The judge orders the freeholder to observe the lease.
                            How the freeholder carries out that order, is up to the freeholder.

                            It is the freeholder that is not ensuring the covenants of the lease
                            ore being observed.
                            It is the freeholder that has the court order against him to observe
                            the lease, by making sure the leaseholder obeys the lease.

                            If the leasholder refuses to observe the lease, it's the freeholder
                            that has been ordered to observe the lease,and if leasholder wont
                            observe the lease, the freeholder,at his expense, in turn either
                            sues the leaseholder, or applies for forfeiture of the lessess home.

                            hope that makes sence.

                            It's the freeholder that has wrongly said that a part in the lease
                            does not apply, the freeholder is not ensuring the lease is upheld,
                            hence your action is against the freeholder.

                            Regarding court orders, if a court order is not complied with,
                            it is usualy that the police are sent round, and person who refuses
                            or is unable to comply with a court order, is arrested, to be
                            put before the court the next morning for not complying with the
                            court order.
                            Nothing to do with lease, but about ignoring a court order.
                            Last edited by ram; 19-03-2012, 11:42 AM. Reason: extra parras' added

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by alizyme View Post
                              yes, but how would that stop it happening? The Judge could order the freeholder to make the tenant observe the regulation but what is the consequence of them not being able to? They are not going to be able to get a court order against the leaseholder.

                              What is it that I don't understand?
                              The remedy to you is damages, or they pay the leaseholder to withdraw the consent, or find a weakness in the "consent". They may say it was permission, which they withdraw.
                              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

                              Latest Activity

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X