• Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Covenants

    We own a downstairs flat with a Newcastle lease (also known as flip/flop).

    The deeds state:

    The Leesee hereby covenants with the Lessor as follows:-

    to keep the Demised Premises in good tenantable repair and condition throughtout the term and if necessary to rebuild any parts that require to be rebuilt and not to make any structual additions or alterations except with the consent in writing of the Lessor (such consent should not be reasonably withheld) and to yield up the same in such repair and condition on the determination of the term hereby granted

    If all the copper pipework and hot water storage cylinder have been removed, can we force the leaseholder to replace these items as it is not in good tenantable repair and condition?

    The deeds also say:

    To ensure that the Demised Premises are insured at all times throughout the term in the joint names of the Lessor and the Lessee (and any mortgagee) against loss or damage by fire flood and other risks.......

    Does this mean we have to insure our flat with the same company as the owner of the upstairs flat?



  • #2
    As long as the water heater and plumbing have been replaced with an a adequate substitute then there is no breach other than not obtaining prior consent, which you could not really withhold.

    it is there choice who trio insure with but the policy must be held in their and your name.

    You might agree to get a joint policy for both flats and save money but they are not obliged to do so.
    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.


    • #3

      Thanks for a prompt reply, hot water cylinder and copper pipework was stolen from the flat above ours, we suffered obvious water damage, claimed from our own insurance with £350 excess and carpet/underlay had to be thrown out, we don't have contents insurance so we will have to replace the carpet/underlay from our own pocket.

      We have several issues re the covenants attached to the lease, if we can force leaseholder to replace copper pipework and cylinder that may give us some leverage to address other problems caused by lack of maintenance by owner of upstairs.

      Thanks again



      Latest Activity


      • E&M Proxima GR - 'Administrative Fee' Request
        Hi all,

        Recently Recieved the following letter from E&M Ltd.:

        ["We act as agents for Proxima GR Properties Limited.
        Our records indicate that the above property is being sublet/let or will be sublet/let shortly.

        Please complete and return...
        27-07-2017, 17:27 PM
      • Reply to E&M Proxima GR - 'Administrative Fee' Request
        I believe that is the intended meaning of the OP's lease and it seems to be a fairly common condition in leases for flats. The one quoted above seems unusually clearly written for a legal document.

        As a computer programmer, I wish that lawyers would write in a formal, unambiguous language,...
        27-07-2017, 23:32 PM
      • Leakage dispute

        I have an issue with the other freeholder (we are 3 freeholders of a converted house into 3 flats) about a leak. There is intermittent leaks to downstairs kitchen from my bathroom. both mine one and downstairs flat are rented properties. A few weeks back husband of the downstairs flat...
        26-07-2017, 14:51 PM
      • Reply to Leakage dispute
        Such a situation generates very difficult relations and hard to resolve. If you need to resolve more difficult circumstances later it is even harder. So try to show you do something to investigate the issue and solve especialy now the other owner's wife is in hospital.

        The Lease would specify...
        27-07-2017, 22:51 PM
      • Reply to E&M Proxima GR - 'Administrative Fee' Request
        I deserve a thrashing. The clause makes no sense to me. Here's wot mine says...

        ""Not at any time during the term separately to assign transfer or part with possession or occupation of any part or parts of the demised premises but only to assign transfer or part with possession...
        27-07-2017, 20:39 PM
      • Reply to E&M Proxima GR - 'Administrative Fee' Request
        Thanks for your replies.

        Not to assign transfer charge underlet or part with possession of part only of the Property .

        I think we are interpreting this part differently. To me it says not to do the above to part of the property. I.e. sell or sublet or transfer part of the property....
        27-07-2017, 20:15 PM
      • Reply to E&M Proxima GR - 'Administrative Fee' Request
        Hi again,

        Consents are applied for by the lessee. If the lease provides no opportunity to apply for a particular consent, the lessee has no right to apply. Hence, blanket prohibition. Leases are interpreted as being intended by the freeholder.

        A deed of variation is an addendum...
        27-07-2017, 19:59 PM
      • Reply to E&M Proxima GR - 'Administrative Fee' Request
        As the current freeholder is not the vendor would this mean that the clause doesn't apply to them?

        And would
        '["Disposals of Part
        1. Not to assign transfer charge underlet or part with possession of part only of the Property and during the last seven years of the said term
        27-07-2017, 19:36 PM
      • Reply to E&M Proxima GR - 'Administrative Fee' Request
        1) I had seen the decision 'HOLDING AND MANAGEMENT (SOLITAIRE) LIMITED vs CHERRY LILIAN NORTON' and was going to use it as a last resort. My thinking was my lease didn't give them the right to ask for consent (apart from in the last 7 years)?

        2)[" 'If your lease says...
        27-07-2017, 19:31 PM
      • Reply to E&M Proxima GR - 'Administrative Fee' Request
        I think that "Vendor" usage is a typo? Yes the freeholder originally sold the lease to the first lessee. He didn't assign it on to you. Otherwise you'd be getting consent from the lessee who "Vended"(?) to you.

        Methinks it ought to say "Lessor" or landlord....
        27-07-2017, 19:18 PM