Are there restrictions on short lets in this lease

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

    #16
    I had not registered the important point that the lettings were short term.

    It is certainly arguable that holiday letting is carrying on a business. More important however is the requirement not to use the premises otherwise than as a residential flat. The point is discussed here: http://www.nantes.co.uk/images/Nante...tial%20use.pdf It seems that the cases are against you.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
      It is certainly arguable that holiday letting is carrying on a business. More important however is the requirement not to use the premises otherwise than as a residential flat. The point is discussed here: http://www.nantes.co.uk/images/Nante...tial%20use.pdf It seems that the cases are against you.
      =====
      A person's second or holiday home or accommodation used for holiday letting is a dwelling house. A block of flats is not a dwelling house although the individual flats within the block may be. A hospital, a prison, a nursing home or hotel (run as a trade and offering services, whether by the owner-occupier or by a tenant) are not dwelling houses.
      =====
      http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/camanual/ca11520.htm

      It seems a little vague about a "residential flat".

      Comment


        #18
        Whether something is a dwelling house is one question and whether it is used for residential purposes is another. "Residence" implies use as a home. You may own a dwelling house but not use it as your residence. An unoccupied house is a dwelling house but not anyone's residence. A holidaymaker does not use a flat let to him for a holiday as his residence.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Tom1966 View Post
          I want to be a good considerate landlord - but the managing agents don't want to engage with me in a constructive manner.
          Having read your posts again, your lease states "a residential flat for the occupation of one family"
          Which can and has been interpreted ( and rightly so ) as not for temporary habitation via means of holiday lets or 28 day duration of lets.

          The lease is designed to prevent such occurances as yours, and unfortunately for you, the members opinion on here, and we having gained more insight through links provided, have come to the conclusion that you will not win your fight to continue these very short term lettings.

          Therefore if you don't want legal charges to escilate on a fight that will probably end up with you being taken to court if you don't cease these short term lettings, it's best you cease and look for a minimum of 6 month rentals, on an A.S.T. so that the flat will then become a residential flat with sub-tenants using your flat as their one and only permanent residence, and their names on the council list of council tax payers, gas water and electric.

          We commend you for going above and beyond your "I want to be a good Leasholder", but short term letting will have to stop.

          This thread, I think, has reached it's conclusion, and trying to argue that you can continue with very short term "holiday lettings", or whatever they are, will see you in court to make you cease.
          There will be no other options, you will be made to cease, and you don't want that, so put it out to a letting agent, and tell the MA you have done so, and that holiday lettings will cease.

          Comment


            #20
            I doubt that the lease was designed to prevent holiday lettings. If the intention had been to rule them out the lease would surely have made it plain. It just happens that the position is covered by the clause that prevents other than residential use because the courts have so held. It is not immediately apparent that such a clause does cover holiday lettings - if it were, the cases would not have been necessary. It is unfortunate for Tom that the lease does not expressly prohibit short term lettings as if it did he may never have bought the flat. There is, though, no getting round the cases. He can of course still let on an AST.

            Comment


              #21
              The majority of decisions at Tribunal look dimly on holiday lettings however all is far from lost.

              Your argument is that while objectively construed a lease is for residential use, occupation, even on a short term for residential purposes, would not be a business in terms of the use of the premises, nor carrying out a trade or business. Moreover for "residential flat for the occupation of one family" if it were let even for short period, as long as it is occupied by one family then there is case to say that there is no breach.

              the tax definition argument I recall was kicked out by the Southern Panel some time ago, and they and other turned on the occupation clauses and when I last looked at this turned on phrases like private or similar in the leases.

              There is therefore a strong case to say that you are not living there and taking in paying guests nor letting room by room and as such you meet the definition of "residential flat for the occupation of one family" and that the lease is silent on duration.

              I think that you need to press them on how exactly they believe that you are in breach of the insurance clause and making the point that having failed to clarify the accusations about use, nor have they asked you to do so, and therefore they are not in a position to understand on what basis the flat is let other than to make a broad accusation in response to complaints that they have failed to expand on.

              I would close is pointing out to them that if they are not prepared to expand on their earlier letters and fore the issue at tribunal to determine a breach you will seek the maximum costs possible for their failing to try and resolve the matter by discussion first and acting unreasonably.
              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


                #22
                This matter is, regretfully, moving forward.

                I have had another letter from the management company's solicitor asking me to cease the short lets by 28 November or they will make an application to tribunal.

                The have provided me with the following previous cases:
                http://egiewcms-test-auth.elasticbea...n-and-another/
                http://www.lease-advice.org/decision...168pdf/518.pdf

                I consider those cases to be irrelevant as the leases restrict use to "private dwelling houses". My lease restricts use to "residential flat" so long as that use is both "moral" and "legal".

                This is a far better case for comparison:
                http://www.residential-property.judi...e/40004MV8.htm

                I know that I do have one problem - the terms of my mortgages prohibit short lets, and the management company have already threatened to write to my mortgage companies to tell them about my short lets.
                This is how I intend to respond.
                1. Redeem the mortgage on one of the flats before 28 November deadline.
                2. Let the other flat on an AST until May 2015
                3. In May 2015 redeem the mortgage on the second flat, and let as short lets.

                It seems to me that the management company are planning to take legal action, at the expense of shareholders, not because they believe they will win the case, but because they don't like what I am doing, and hope to put a stop to it by writing to my mortgage companies. If true, this is not acting in the best interests of shareholders.

                Tom

                Comment


                  #23
                  Throughout this thread you have repeatedly referred to the management company, and in post 1 you stated you own 2 of 18 shares. I assume the company owns the freehold.

                  How much support do you have from other leaseholders in the building (or are they all against). Is it worth getting a meeting called (agm/egm, I am not familiar with company law) to discuss the matter?

                  Comment


                    #24
                    I highly doubt that the agent is taking action without the support or direction of the Man Co. I suspect that the Man CO board and ambers are heartily sick of the impact that short lets do have on buildings and are enforcing the terms of the lease in the interest of the shareholders who are in most cases residents themselves.

                    I am sure that they take into account that a person who is dishonest with his lending arrangements is less that respectful of the other residents.

                    You may see it as them not liking what you are doing but there is another side to the coin Tom one which as a non resident you are unlikely to fully appreciate, especially as it is ruining your business venture.
                    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


                      #25
                      Originally posted by andybenw View Post
                      Throughout this thread you have repeatedly referred to the management company, and in post 1 you stated you own 2 of 18 shares. I assume the company owns the freehold.

                      How much support do you have from other leaseholders in the building (or are they all against). Is it worth getting a meeting called (agm/egm, I am not familiar with company law) to discuss the matter?
                      I have written to the management company asking for an egm under section 303/304 of the Companies Act.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
                        I highly doubt that the agent is taking action without the support or direction of the Man Co. I suspect that the Man CO board and ambers are heartily sick of the impact that short lets do have on buildings and are enforcing the terms of the lease in the interest of the shareholders who are in most cases residents themselves.
                        If there is a real impact on other shareholders or their tenants, I would like to know what it is so I can resolve any issues.

                        I am sure that they take into account that a person who is dishonest with his lending arrangements is less that respectful of the other residents.
                        As soon as I learned that I was in breach of my mortgage terms I took action to remedy the situation: redeemed on mortgage, and let the other mortgaged flat on an AST.

                        You may see it as them not liking what you are doing but there is another side to the coin Tom one which as a non resident you are unlikely to fully appreciate, especially as it is ruining your business venture.
                        Then the very least the management company should do is forward any complaints or issues to me so that I have an opportunity to resolve the problem.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          And your resolutions are?

                          The Board may well respond " as the matter concerns an allegation of the breach of the lease for subletting on short lets contrary to the ms of the lease, it is in the hands of our solicitors and therefore cannot be discussed.Meeting closed".

                          They leave the room, meeting done, issue over.

                          Thats if they even call a meeting.
                          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


                            #28
                            Originally posted by leaseholdanswers View Post
                            And your resolutions are?
                            It is proposed that the shareholders and owners of 5 and 7 --- Crescent are acting in accordance with the covenants of their leases, and that the management company cease all moves to take legal action against them for an alleged breach at the expense of all shareholders.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              ut according to #22 you have yet to do that and intend on one flat to continue to do short lets.....

                              But they are, any problems, even in profile ones are being resolved, by seeking to prevent you doing short lettings.

                              the reason for my contrarian stance is to get you thinking which yo clearly aren't about how the other side are approaching 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


                                #30
                                OK - I have redrafted:
                                It is proposed that --- Residents Company Limited take no legal action against any shareholder other than with the agreement of a majority of shareholders, and with a clear understanding by all shareholders of the financial implications of legal action.

                                But I wonder if it is better to to break this down into two proposals:
                                1. It is proposed that --- Residents Company Limited take no legal action against any shareholder without a clear understanding by all shareholders of the financial implications on them of the legal action.
                                And
                                2. It is proposed that --- Residents Company Limited take no legal action against any shareholder other than with the agreement of a majority of shareholders.


                                ‚ÄčTom

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X