Lease law: Definition of 'one family only' / 'single private dwelling'?

[derekunderwood01]

LHA - I sent the lease to the leasehold advice center and they have informed me that I only have to reimburse the agent for SOME of the costs - not all.

As regards nuisance, as far as I'm aware me reporting it so many times would require the agent to act under the terms of lease - as causing nuisance alone is a breach of lease - just like the 'one family' breach... The lease states that another leaseholder can take action to enforce any breach of lease against another leaseholder - through the agent, and only be liable to SOME of the costs - not all.

I also meant to ask you what you think of the following clause in the lease - that an 'owner must not do any act whatsoever that may be deemed or grown to be an annoyance or nuisance to any owner of any other property'.

From what I have researched even the ACT of renting out a spare room can breach this clause as it is deemed that this can cause or grow to cause a nuisance or annoyance any adjoining property? What do you think?

The problem is because the other room has been rented out above all I get is constant footsteps and going up and down the stairs around my apartment all evening - every eving for hours on end all year round... Surely it can be argued that the above covenant has been breached purely by the fact the owner above has rented out a room to friends?

I also understand there are far stricter laws as to what consitutes 'family' where leasehold flats are concerned - as opposed to freehold houses, and where the bringing in of anyone else stands to directly effect other owners, have any of you heard of this?

[leaseholdanswers]

I cannot say without the wordingbeing posted but I suspect that you are interpreting what you have been told, which is, unless the lease is obscurely worded, their reasonable and not all costs. If however all their costs are reasonable, then the full amount is due.

The rest of your post is pointless, but I wish you luck.

[derekunderwood01]

Like I said - I have been over many tribunal decisions now one of which referred to the act of renting out a room to be a breach of lease by the mere potential of 'growing to be a nuisance' to adjoining tenants. I hardly think that statement it pointless - but thanks for your previous help and advice.

[leaseholdanswers]

Like I said - I have been over many tribunal decisions now one of which referred to the act of renting out a room to be a breach of lease by the mere potential of 'growing to be a nuisance' to adjoining tenants. I hardly think that statement it pointless - but thanks for your previous help and advice.

Its pointless for the reasons stated in #105

[derekunderwood01]

LHA,

Do you think the above property is an HMO? ...I was unaware leasehold flats could be HMOs, but surely if it is an HMO this would alone breach the 'single private residence''single private dwelling' and 'one family only' covenant?

I found this link from shelter which appears to suggest it is an HMO:

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_ad...ple_occupation

Also, I understand there are different rules surrounding sharing or under letting where leasehold flats are concerned, does anyone have any knowledge of this?

D.

[DNM2012]

You are still stuck in the same hole and digging ever deeper, but you won't find what you are looking for, to clarify though-

It is not a HMO as owner lives there and is allowed up to two lodgers before it is classed as a HMO.

You have already stated your lease has no restrictions on subletting.

[derekunderwood01]

Not stuck at all - my question was merely directed at whether or not it was an HMO, which would breach the clauses not already discussed (as well as those that have been) - those being - single private dwelling and single private residence.

I imagine the 'single private dwelling' covenant is the restriction on subletting.

There is however - no strict restriction on underletting. Although the in my mind the single private dwelling clause would appear to restrict this.

Its interesting to not that the lady owner and her partner are unmarried, and therefore it could be argued she has 3 lodgers. Been looking over some more tribunal decisions and even cousins were found to be in breach of the 'family covenant' - Now I am wallowing.

Still waiting for the LL's solicitor to come back with an assessment. To be honest, if two unrelated groups of friends living together in seperate rooms and paying rent can be classed as 'one family', Im leaving on the first plane to Aus. What's more the legal system in this country can go to hell... that clause might as well not exist if friends are included.

Anyway, knowing my luck the verdict wont be good... Bottle of Gin on standby.

[derekunderwood01]

LHA, can you tell me what difference it makes if the freeholders solicitor comes back and says they are not in breach of lease, or not sure? As far as I'm aware in that case only a tribunal can decide for sure?

Can the case still go to a tribunal even if the freeholders solicitor Is unsure? The leasehold advice center basically said only an ftt can truly decide, what right/experience/credentials does a solicitor have to decide this?

[Lawcruncher]

The job of a solicitor when a client seeks advice about whether to engage in litigation or some other form of dispute resolution is to advise on the chances of success and to say it how he sees it.

[derekunderwood01]

If you dont mInd me asking. Are you a solicitor law cruncher? What's your background/experience?

[derekunderwood01]

Can I also ask... If the above owner is living with her boyfriend and and he is paying a portion of the rent, doesn't he count as a tenant? ...if so - with two lodgers in as well this would surely be an HMO?

[DNM2012]

No it won't

[Lawcruncher]

If you dont mInd me asking. Are you a solicitor law cruncher? What's your background/experience?

I was a fellow of the (now Chartered) Institute of Legal Executives. I was a conveyancer specialising in commercial property and landlord and tenant law.

[derekunderwood01]

Just though I'd let you guys know that I've heard back from the leasehold advisory service who have forwarded me meanings of covenants and it appears that they are in breach of the single private dwelling clause in the lease as well - which excludes lodgers, subtenants or paying guests.

This would make sense as presumably anyone else than direct family would mean there is multiple residency going on.


Looking at the lease again "for no other purpose other than a single private dwelling in the occupation of one family only" its hard to think how that could ever be interpreted as allowing lodgers. The fact that one family only follows single private dwelling for clarification only serves to strengthen the clause preventing the taking in of lodgers.

[leaseholdanswers]

LHA, can you tell me what difference it makes if the freeholders solicitor comes back and says they are not in breach of lease, or not sure? As far as I'm aware in that case only a tribunal can decide for sure?

Can the case still go to a tribunal even if the freeholders solicitor Is unsure? The leasehold advice center basically said only an ftt can truly decide, what right/experience/credentials does a solicitor have to decide this?

Cross that bridge as and when.

Having done your research you forward that on to the landlord, as suggested much earlier, " to assist".