Help With My Lease On Buy To Let Flat

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

    Help With My Lease On Buy To Let Flat

    Hi,
    I hope you helpful people can help me. I recently bought a flat to rent but have seen this on the lease - does this mean I can not rent it ? Many thanks for any help.

    (i)Not to assign underlet or part with the possession of part only of the Premises but to use the flat or maisonette hereby demised as a single private residential dwelling only for the sole occupation of the entirety thereof by the Lessee and his family and members of his household and to use any garden area and parking space hereby demised respectively only as garden and for the parking of one private motor car subject to (if applicable) Clause 4(d) of this Lease and to use any other land hereby demised only for the purpose for which it has been provided
    (ii) Not during the last Seven years of the said term to assign underlet or part with the possession of the Premises without first obtaining the consent in writing of the Lessor such consent not to be unreasonably withheld

    #2
    What advice ( about letting out ) did you get from your conveyancing solicitor ?

    There must be another clause in your lease about payment for registration of notice of transfer - what is the exact wording ?

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by hobbsie65 View Post
      (i)Not to assign underlet of part only of the Premises
      Use the flat as a single private residential dwelling only for the sole
      occupation
      of the entirety thereof by the Lessee and his family
      Looks like you cannot sublet "PART" of the premises.
      See if there is another part in your lease which states "Not to assign underlet the Whole for which permission cannot be resonably refused"

      Some say that if there is no reference to "Not to sub-let the whole", then you CAN sublet the whole.

      Read your lease from front to back, as not all similar items are in the same
      place.
      But "the Part", and "the whole" are usualy next to each other.

      If non joy with your lease, ask the freeholder or Managing agent what the
      rules are on sub-letting.

      R.a.M.

      Comment


        #4
        Many thanks. 60% of the properties are rented and I can not see where it says "Not to sub-let the whole" only "Part". The previous owner had permission from her mortgage company to rent it so I would have thought they would have checked it.

        Comment


          #5
          In short the lease is quite clear.

          Ignore ii

          As to i its two parts

          1: Not to assign underlet or part with the possession of part only of the Premises

          2: but to use the flat or maisonette hereby demised as a single private residential dwelling only for the sole occupation of the entirety thereof by the Lessee and his family and members of his household

          Therefore 2 applies to your lease especially that bit underlined.

          If the solicitor knew that you intended to underlet then this is a big miss.

          Mortgagees consent is irrelevant they rarely look at the lease and at best ask for landlords consent. Other flats may be on different leases therefore you are taking a chance underletting that the landlords will enforce the terms of the lease.

          In such cases where some one takes a chance I have seen them underlet on tenancies with a break clause after 6 months, scrutinise the tenants closely, and keep in contact with them over any post that may come addressed to them, and diarise service charge and ground rent due dates to ensure they aren't missed ( if your LL/ agent doesnt have on-line billing or SO facilities) leave a stock of stamped addressed envelopes to forward any post etc.
          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


            #6
            The flat has been rented through an agency for 16 years (no problems) as is the bottom maisonette and about 60% of the flats in the same development which are all the same and built at the same time by the same developer. I was there this morning and counted 5 'to let' signs and another 5 'let by' signs so I think an awful lot of solicitors have not done there job properly if the above post is correct - I know of at least 5 which have changed hands in the last 2 years.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by hobbsie65 View Post
              Hi,
              I hope you helpful people can help me. I recently bought a flat to rent but have seen this on the lease - does this mean I can not rent it ? Many thanks for any help.

              (i)Not to assign underlet or part with the possession of part only of the Premises but to use the flat or maisonette hereby demised as a single private residential dwelling only for the sole occupation of the entirety thereof by the Lessee and his family and members of his household and to use any garden area and parking space hereby demised respectively only as garden and for the parking of one private motor car subject to (if applicable) Clause 4(d) of this Lease and to use any other land hereby demised only for the purpose for which it has been provided
              (ii) Not during the last Seven years of the said term to assign underlet or part with the possession of the Premises without first obtaining the consent in writing of the Lessor such consent not to be unreasonably withheld
              Looks okay to me. A lessee is anyone in receipt of a lease, so I guess a tenancy agreement would count as that. Anyway, it says not to underlet within the last seven years without consent. Doesn't that imply that underletting outside the seven years does not require consent?
              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
                Many thanks - I am sure most leases have similar things included but it is all new to me !!

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by JK0 View Post
                  Looks okay to me. A lessee is anyone in receipt of a lease, so I guess a tenancy agreement would count as that. Anyway, it says not to underlet within the last seven years without consent. Doesn't that imply that underletting outside the seven years does not require consent?
                  JKO that's a nice tautology but the lessee is a party to the lease , not an under lease between the lessee and an underlessee.

                  However the second part of the clause suggests that underletting can take place in the last seven years, which if underletting is barred, it seems odd that it is there. In respect of assignment its understandable, but it would suggest that underletting of the whole is permissible, but for the construction of lessee and lease.

                  It's one for sloppy drafting and a toss up between the presumption in favour of the landlord or the intention of the parties in the construction.

                  If the lessee is clearly identified in the lease as being the leaseholder, then only then can be the one "with a lease", not an under lessee ( renting tenant)



                  What has happened is nearby is relevant as not all leases in the development are going to be necessarily the same, a fact lost on the OP ( as is most of the reply). What has happened in the past is also irrelevant as while the owner might seek waiver, the breach ends and starts over on assignment

                  It may be that the freeholder takes no interest in enforcement or that if the maisonette is also being sold with an interest in the freehold or free holding owing company, neither they or their neighbour are going to enforce it.
                  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
                    hobbsie65

                    In the lease is there any reference to Lessee other than the extract above?
                    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
                      Many thanks for all your knowledge in this - I really appreciate it.The flat has a 'cross over' freehold if that makes any difference with the owner of the maisonette downstairs (who also rents his flat). This was the beginning of the lease - I hid the name but do not know who she is/was.

                      THIS LEASE is made BETWEEN (1) The Lessor meaning LAING london NW7 2ER and (2) the Lessee meaning MARY xxxxxx xxxxxx Street Kennington London SEll,'.
                      In this Lease (unless the context otherwise requires):-
                      (i) "THE LESSOR" includes the person for the time being entitled to the reversion immediately expectant upon the determination of the term hereby created and "THE LESSEE" includes the persons in whom the said term is from time to time vested and whenever a covenanting party shall include more than one person then that party's covenants shall be deemed to be joint and several

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Oh, well if the guy downstairs won't let you sublet, you can tell him not to also.
                        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

                        Latest Activity

                        Collapse

                        • Reply to Ground Rent review
                          by Lawcruncher
                          I think the way the law sees it is that the tenant has a lease with the provision in it and knows that on certain dates the rent will increase and on what basis.



                          Must be the same developer and/or conveyancer.

                          Having a rent review for a ground rent is not generally...
                          12-08-2022, 12:18 PM
                        • Ground Rent review
                          by Century
                          United Scientific Holdings v Burnley Borough Council

                          Does this case mean that for a residential lease failure to give notice of GR increase during the review period doesn't matter? I.e review can be at any time, even after specified review date?
                          11-08-2022, 14:47 PM
                        • Reply to Freeholder Premium to consent
                          by Limply
                          According to the lease, the roof and the roof structure are included in the Demised Premises. There is no mention of the space above the roof.

                          And wow I wasn't expecting that many answers! In any case, the other leaseholder (we are only 2 in the house) is open to buying the freehold so...
                          12-08-2022, 12:17 PM
                        • Freeholder Premium to consent
                          by Limply
                          Hi all,

                          I am looking at extending my leasehold flat by adding a newbuild next to the loft (will be erected on top of the first floor). I have just asked my freeholder for the process to follow. In the past they have asked me to pay a "Landlord’s premium for the consent to be established
                          ...
                          11-08-2022, 16:20 PM
                        • Reply to Freeholder Premium to consent
                          by AndrewDod
                          Not sure it does suggest that (either the no-ownership or the inferiority). A contract can be an asset in itself.

                          Some contracts are worth a lot (A New York Yellow Taxi Token was worth a $million until Uber came along).

                          Yes "You have no ownership in the building"...
                          12-08-2022, 12:12 PM
                        • Reply to Ground Rent review
                          by Century
                          Thanks Lawcruncher! That is hardly an equitable situation for the leaseholders, but if that’s case law then so be it.
                          BTW I have residential properties in three separate developments and all have identical clauses to 3.1 and 3.2 as posted above...
                          12-08-2022, 11:58 AM
                        • Reply to Freeholder Premium to consent
                          by Lawcruncher
                          It is more than mere semantics. For a start, on a forum which purports to give legal advice, we should not be saying anything which is not true. "You have no ownership in the building" is not true.

                          A tenancy is a tenancy is a tenancy. All tenancies have something in common. However,...
                          12-08-2022, 11:49 AM
                        • Reply to Freeholder Premium to consent
                          by Lawcruncher
                          I was interrupted while writing post 12 and posted it before reading posts 10 and 11.

                          Of course if any improvement involves extending into an area not included in the demise the landlord can demand a premium for extending the area of the demise. Any discussion about how the premium should...
                          12-08-2022, 11:12 AM
                        • Reply to Freeholder Premium to consent
                          by Lawcruncher
                          "...not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed" does indeed indicate there is no absolute prohibition. No premium can be charged, only legal or other expenses properly incurred in connection with the consent. If the landlord comes up with silly figures or wants a fee to consider whether he...
                          12-08-2022, 11:01 AM
                        • Reply to Freeholder Premium to consent
                          by AndrewDod
                          Not sure I am following your answer here Lawcruncher
                          In this case the proposal is to build outside of their demise.
                          Certainly there is no computed entitlement, but if agreed the premium is likely to be at least half the added value. So it falls into your (1) with that as a typical premium....
                          12-08-2022, 10:57 AM
                        Working...
                        X