Alterations to Demised Premises

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

    Alterations to Demised Premises

    I am just in the process of buying a leasehold flat, and the alterations covenant states:-
    "Not without the licence of the Lessor in wiritng first obtained to alter the elevations or cut maim or alter the main walls main timbers of principle partitions of the Demised Premises or of any future buildings or additons to the Demised Premises or to erect any new buildings theron"

    I have a couple of questions:-
    1. As it does not have a qualification that the landlord cannot unreasonably withhold his consent. Does this mean if we ask to build an extension, we will have less chance of having this accepted and if he refuses we will have no right to him to consent.
    2. What do you think is included in the definition of principle partitions? Would this include all internal walls?

    Thanks

    MLJ

    #2
    The '(such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed)' wording is implied, for improvements, in most cases: see s.19(2) of LTA 1927.

    For other non-structural alterations, see s.19(3). L cannot charge a lump sum for consent, although L can require T to pay:
    a. a reasonable sum for damage/diminution in value of L's premises; and
    b. L's legal etc. expenses for giving consent.
    JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
    1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
    2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
    3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
    4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by mlj View Post
      What do you think is included in the definition of principle partitions?
      I have never come across the phrase before. I think it probably means load-bearing walls.

      The really important thing is, if you have alterations in mind, to get consent before you buy.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by mlj View Post
        I am just in the process of buying a leasehold flat, and the alterations covenant states:-
        "Not without the licence of the Lessor in wiritng first obtained to alter the elevations or cut maim or alter the main walls main timbers of principle partitions of the Demised Premises or of any future buildings or additons to the Demised Premises or to erect any new buildings theron"

        I have a couple of questions:-
        1. As it does not have a qualification that the landlord cannot unreasonably withhold his consent. Does this mean if we ask to build an extension, we will have less chance of having this accepted and if he refuses we will have no right to him to consent.
        2. What do you think is included in the definition of principle partitions? Would this include all internal walls?

        Thanks

        MLJ
        Have you written your quote exactly?

        If so it seems to me that 'not without licence' gives you the right to be granted permission to do your alterations, if safe, 'proper' etc. Only if it was an absolute unequivical 'no' is that an absolute barrier. 'Main timbers of principle partitions' I'd take to be things like wooden lintels and struts in internal supporting walls, perhaps akin to something Tudorish even...

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Markonee1 View Post
          Have you written your quote exactly?

          If so it seems to me that 'not without licence' gives you the right to be granted permission to do your alterations, if safe, 'proper' etc. Only if it was an absolute unequivical 'no' is that an absolute barrier. 'Main timbers of principle partitions' I'd take to be things like wooden lintels and struts in internal supporting walls, perhaps akin to something Tudorish even...
          I'm wondering about the spelling of 'principle partitions'. I think it should be 'principal'. Was it misspelt in the original? I only ask because, if whoever drew it up got that wrong, (it's a fairly glaring error), may have stuffed up on other things too?
          'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

          Comment

          Latest Activity

          Collapse

          Working...
          X