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

[madmaxwell]

Can someone help define what this means. Is this a restrictive user clause or could i still rent out a flat if the above clause was in the lease. Also does it restrict who the flat could be let to or rather to how many people. Does this clause prevent you from turning the flat into an hmo?

[Wannadonnadoodah]

To me it would mean not commercial i.e not used for business purposes.

[ram]

An HMO is a business.

[jjlandlord]

Yes, but the use of the flat is still residential and not commercial (ie. it's not an office or a shop).

I don't think such clause prevents letting. Many houses also have such covenant in their freehold titles.

[Darth Wookie]

Seems to be clearly stated. It's for private use only. Not business. Not tenanted out. Private use. You own it, you live there.

[fletchj]

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.

[jjlandlord]

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

[mariner]

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

[jjlandlord]

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.

[leaseholdanswers]

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.

[Tipper]

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.

[andydd]

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.

[Lawcruncher]

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.

[Gordon999]

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.

[DNM2012]

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