Retrospective letting consent - lawful request ?

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

  • Ian Hill
    replied
    Thanks quarterday, Lots of information for me to work with,
    Best wishes,
    Ian

    Leave a comment:


  • Ian Hill
    replied
    Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
    Your interpretation is correct. No consent is needed for ASTs of a year or less. Point the clause out to the managers.
    Thank-you - reply received and understood. There seems enough information on this post for me to make a worthwhile response to FM should they pursue this underhand demand,
    Ian

    Leave a comment:


  • Ian Hill
    replied
    Barratts offered the Freehold to all nine owners before the deal with Freehold Managers was done - I did my best to encourage the other eight to buy it out, but no-one else was interested, or could afford it.
    Ian

    Leave a comment:


  • Ian Hill
    replied
    Retrospective letting consent

    Originally posted by property mongrel View Post
    I am not an expert on contract law, but I n would want to know:

    1. In the freehold originally owned by Barrats was there any mention of a payment such as being asked for now, even if Barratt never collected it?

    2. Did you pay last year?

    If there was a charge that was never collected might that make the current demands legitimate?

    If you had paid last year, or did pay, I would like to know if that might that be seen as acceptance of the condition?

    pm
    I have read through the Barratt contract and can find no mention of such requirements or charges. They never asked for payment, and I did not pay Freehold Managers last year when they made their demand. Seems strange that they never followed up my non-payment, plus explanatory letter ? Or perhaps not.....
    Ian

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    Originally posted by Ian Hill View Post
    Thank-you for your reply and my apologies for delay in replying but have been away. Have checked the lease and it states "Not to underlet the Property as a whole other than on an assured shorthold tenancy for a fixed term not exceeding one year in duration." Is this the relevant section ? If so, it appears to accept that letting is normal outcome of ownership. All the SHT's have been for 6 month periods and arranged through a well-known local agent of good repute.
    Your interpretation is correct. No consent is needed for ASTs of a year or less. Point the clause out to the managers.

    Leave a comment:


  • quarterday
    replied
    Its not usually a case of declining the offer, more a case of not getting eveyone organised and under starters' orders to serve a valid purchase notice (with sufficient partipants). None of this exonerates excessive licence to underlet fees.

    Go at it like a dog with a bone; dont be ripped off.

    Tell the freeholders that without prejudice to your contention that the freeholders predecessors have waived the right to licence to underlet fees; if a fee is to be payable you dispute the amount and want the LVT to determine what it should be (Probably £75 absolutely tops)

    I have no doubt that Barratt Developments would have complied with the letter of the law regarding the sale of their freehold reversions.

    Leave a comment:


  • mariner
    replied
    I thought the original freeholder (Barrats) had a duty to offer LH opportunity to buy out the Leasehold before selling on to 3rd Party?
    Did the OP decline this offer if made?

    Leave a comment:


  • property mongrel
    replied
    I am not an expert on contract law, but I would want to know:

    1. In the freehold originally owned by Barrats was there any mention of a payment such as being asked for now, even if Barratt never collected it?

    2. Did you pay last year?

    If there was a charge that was never collected might that make the current demands legitimate?

    If you had paid last year, or did pay, I would like to know if that might that be seen as acceptance of the condition?

    pm

    Leave a comment:


  • Ian Hill
    replied
    Thank-you for your reply and my apologies for delay in replying but have been away. Have checked the lease and it states "Not to underlet the Property as a whole other than on an assured shorthold tenancy for a fixed term not exceeding one year in duration." Is this the relevant section ? If so, it appears to accept that letting is normal outcome of ownership. All the SHT's have been for 6 month periods and arranged through a well-known local agent of good repute.

    Leave a comment:


  • JK0
    replied
    Have a look at my posts #421 & #424 here:

    http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums...ld-flat/page43

    Leave a comment:


  • Lawcruncher
    replied
    We need to know what the lease says.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ian Hill
    started a topic Retrospective letting consent - lawful request ?

    Retrospective letting consent - lawful request ?

    I bought a flat new from Barratts in 2002 as a buy-to let. It has been let continuously since new through a local Letting Agent. Barratts sold the freehold to Freehold Managers plc in 2005, and last year I received a letter demanding £260 one-off fee, plus £193 per year for letting consent. I replied advising that my letting arrangement was from "day-one", was fully known about by the previous freeholders, and that they must have known about these arrangements as part of their purchase. I have just received another letter with the same demand 12 months on. It surely goes against all natural justice (!) for such retrospective demands ? I fully accept the requirement to seek freeholders permission had I bought into their ownership, but not after so many years. Can any one please illuminate the legal position ? Thanks,
    Ian Hill

Latest Activity

Collapse

Working...
X