to be used as private residential flats and for no other purpose

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

  • leaseholdanswers
    replied
    Does the lease have a clause which requires flat owners to obtain consent for letting, as if it does it may assist in making clear the restrictions on noise etc, in a similar form to the clause that you have quoted from your lease.

    Most tenancies will and is it is question of managing or enforcing lease terms from a polite chat with a neighbour to court action.

    Or in my case when approaching a noisy resident in block ( as usual, the social housing section)and getting a tirade of abuse, having them arrested for a breach of the peace

    Leave a comment:


  • Gordon999
    replied
    I believe HMO's has an adverse effect on property values as it reduces the appeal to the wealthy class of occupier. Rich and high salary professionals don't want to live with noisy students who don't keep normal sleeping hours.

    Leave a comment:


  • ram
    replied
    Then you write to the freeholder with complaints about the noise and TELL them to act on the clause you mentioned, and that continued disturbance, unresolved, will see action against the freeholder for not upholding the lease.

    As you have had MANY complaints over the years, you can suggest that the ONLY remedy that you will accept, is forfeiture of the flats.
    It is a "continuing" breach of the lease and the lease must be upheld.

    Leave a comment:


  • madmaxwell
    replied
    Thankyou for all your answers. I will explain the reason behind my question and maybe that may help.

    I own the lease on a flat in a small block. I have lived here happily for many years but slowly and surely over the last few years the flats are becoming less and less owner occupied and more and more rented out. I know renting is permitted under the lease but due to the central location of the flats the properties have recently started to attract more and more students, who are unfortunately very noisy.

    The area where i live has become so studentified over the years that the council recently passed a new directive a few years ago creating a new category of hmo licence where all properties let to 3-5 individuals had to have said new hmo licence. In order to get the licence all Landlords had to prove a rental history providing accommodation to 3-5 individuals. If you couldnt prove this then you would have to apply for planning permission to rent to 3-5 or more and basically it would not be granted to prevent the studentificationn of these areas and the subsequent affect it has on the full time residents of these areas.

    My initial question was to try and ascertain if the user clause in my lease prevented the flats from being used as hmo's even though technically the council allowed them to be so.

    I have looked through my lease and have found something else which i would like opinions on.

    The block of flats was a smart well to do property when i moved in in 1996 ( before studentification) The lease actually mentions it and states that lessees are "not to use the demised premises or any part thereof for or in connection with any illegal or immoral purpose nor to do nor permit or suffer to be done in or upon the demised premises or any part thereof or in or upon the block of flats or any part thereof anything which may or may become a nuisance or annoyance or cause damage to the lessor or the lessees or occupiers of the blocks of flats or of other premises in the neighbourhood or which may tend to harm or injure the character of the block of flats as high class residential flats.

    So heres my question how much of a case would i have for arguing that allowing students into the block with all the accompanying noise etc is injuring the block as a "high class residential flats".

    I will also mention it isnt just me who is worried about the studentification of the block and a few other residents are also concerned.

    Leave a comment:


  • andydd
    replied
    Surely the OP only intends to rent it to one family and not set it up as a HMO, HMO often need futher regulation and/or licencing (depending on the size/number of people) by the local authority.

    Leave a comment:


  • DNM2012
    replied
    Surely if the intention of the lease is to restrict letting or HMO use then the lease will include clauses about-

    a) single family use
    b) restricting subletting
    c) not subletting part as distinct from the whole

    I personally wouldn't read that clause as a restriction on any kind of residential use in isolation.

    Maybe the OP can advise if there are other relevant clauses

    Leave a comment:


  • Gordon999
    replied
    Private residential flat should mean private for one family living in the flat. HMO is a situation where 2 or more families live in the same property and share the bathroom and kitchen so that is NOT private.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    It is a user clause. We have to ask what the people in the building are using it for. Are they using it a way which could be considered not private? Are they using it for other than a residential purpose? Are they using it in such a way that a reasonable person would say that the separate parts are not flats? If the answer in each case is "no" then there is no breach of the clause.

    Leave a comment:


  • andydd
    replied
    I see that this has been discussed before here > http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...p/t-26387.html with the general conclusion that letting is allowed, I couldnt find any mention of the Maymo case being appealed to the UT/Higher Court though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tipper
    replied
    Originally posted by jjlandlord View Post
    In fact, if one googles the wording of that clause a tribunal decision shows up, in which the tribunal ruled that even holiday letting was fine:
    http://www.residential-property.judi...e/40004MV8.htm
    Be careful, I was advised that the case referenced was later challenged in other cases and now deemed to be incorrect.

    Leave a comment:


  • leaseholdanswers
    replied
    Originally posted by ram View Post
    An HMO is a business.
    But so is a BTL....the use is at issue not who or what is "using" as a private residential flat.

    Leave a comment:


  • jjlandlord
    replied
    Well the question was whether the clause prevented sub-letting, so it is assumed that there is no specific such prohibition somewhere else in the lease.

    Leave a comment:


  • mariner
    replied
    That Tribunal case was decided on the fact that sub-letting was not prohibited by Lease at the material time.

    Every case is different and as the Tribunal states, they are not bound by any other Tribunal decisions. Still a good explanation of what the Clause means

    Leave a comment:


  • jjlandlord
    replied
    As said, such clauses are common so I don't think there is much grey area. The key is to ask someone who is knowledgeable about this topic, e.g. a conveyancing solicitor.

    In fact, if one googles the wording of that clause a tribunal decision shows up, in which the tribunal ruled that even holiday letting was fine:
    http://www.residential-property.judi...e/40004MV8.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • fletchj
    replied
    Can't agree here - If rented out to a single family it is still a private residence. If the clause was meant to say what you imply it would say "private use for the occupation of the owner and their family only" or something similar. I would argue that even if using as an HMO it is still a private residence but I accept that this is a grey area that you could argue either way.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X